Jump to content

Talk:Libyan civil war (2011): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 927: Line 927:


to explain my removing of this section please see: [http://www.wam.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1300255302404&pagename=WAM%2FWAM_E_Layout&parent=Query&parentid=1135099399852] and [http://www.sify.com/news/uae-relief-ships-arrive-in-benghazi-news-international-ldqwOigaeeb.html] [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
to explain my removing of this section please see: [http://www.wam.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1300255302404&pagename=WAM%2FWAM_E_Layout&parent=Query&parentid=1135099399852] and [http://www.sify.com/news/uae-relief-ships-arrive-in-benghazi-news-international-ldqwOigaeeb.html] [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Foreign mercenaries in infobox ==

Should foreign mercenaries be listed in the infobox? ~ [[User:Justin Ormont|Justin Ormont]] ([[User talk:Justin Ormont|talk]]) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:37, 21 March 2011

Description

Someone needs to re word much of this, there are numerous grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes; I noticed two just skimming through.

It has beenWipsenade (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Concensus was to KEEP


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

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

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

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.

It was saved on the international reactions pages.86.24.31.144 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene* Actually, it is currently a stand-alone article. ☠ - 220.101 talk\Contribs 12:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tag

Template:Exspand--Wipsenade (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Western Mountain cities should be marked UNCLEAR (March 14)

New intelligence from the Wall Street Journal, among others, indicates that there is a struggle between pro and anti Gaddafi forces in Yafran and Zintan, known as Western mountain cities. I move to have these changed to YELLOW, or UNCLEAR, on the map.[1]

Requested move

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support The situation has evolved into a conflict between two parties that want control of the country. The uprising title was fine at the beginning, but this is no longer just protests, this has escalated into a full out war between two sides, which are both armed and organized, with limited international involvement. I believe the title of "civil war" would fit the situation better.
  • Strongly Oppose It is too fast to define it with "civil war",because many people are angry at Gadhafi's action.I prefer to see "revolution"!--Huandy618 16:04, 21 March 2011
  • Strongly Support This is a war, and to continue to call it a protest when there are clearly 2 sides with different agendas; it should be called as such. Definetly a war. Everybody on the planet should support the bravery of the Libyan people in fighing for democracy and freedom against this madman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.56.211 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support 'Uprising' is misleading; two sides to the conflict and the rebel side has generally consolidated with a transitional government in place. It is a state of war in many respects.
  • Strongly Support March 19 @ 9:15PM. Count: 54 Supporters, 16 Opponents, 9 Neither. A democratic Wikipedia would change the name. Otherwise I sense partiality towards the 16 opponents.
Well remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, lest the peasants start getting ideas about these 'rights' I've been hearing so much about lately.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Strongly Oppose Civil war necessitates organized national forces on both sides. Although "rebel" forces exist out of necessity to protect civilians from Gadhafi's violence, they were not organized prior to the democracy marches and uprising, and they continue to be disorganized. Also, if this was a civil war it would be between people with some kind of tangible difference other than one man (Gadhafi). The Libyan people are not in conflict ethnically, religiously, or tribally. This all comes down to one guy - Gadhafi and how much money he can buy support with. Ultimately, this will be a "revolution" - and that isn't the outcome of a "civil war". --Sarurah (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2011
  • "Support" Meets the definition of a civil war. Do not like the "uprising" name because it doesn't really express what is happening at this point.
  • Support "Civil war: a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic." By Wikipedia's own factuality we have stated (in the article) that there are organized two groups (the government, and the rebels) fighting in the same country; therefore, this must be a civil war, if only by what the collective community of Wikipedia has stated. 70.112.139.17 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Political scientists are starting to call this a war.
  • Support There is confirmed intelligence that the rebel forces receive support from countries outside Libya in forms of both civilian and military aid. The rebel forces are known to use both light and heavy weapons like military aircraft and tanks. These facts render the situation more like a civil war than an uprising.
  • Support I support for three reasons. 1. Meets the definition of civil war, as many pointed out already. 2. Uprising is misleading. Wikipedia's article refer to a limited conflict as rebellion or uprising. When the conflict is enlarged, it becomes a civil war. 3. Both sides have organized battalions armed with automatic weapons, tanks and military aircraft. Also, parts of Libya's military defected. If this type of in-fighting doesn't count as civil war pretty much nothing counts.
  • Support This is an armed conflict (a.k.a. war) I think it would be best to move it to Civil War. Much of the media calls the conflict a civil war (examples).
Is SineBot on vacation? Who put this one here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most media are calling it a civil war. Both the BBC, CNN, EuroNews and others. CNN's banner in the background during coverage of the conflict's events is Libyan civil war or Libya civil war, I forgot at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it were a civil war there would be fighting in Tripoli. It could be a simple power grab by a few people who want an international community to step in and put them in power. I also do not think that most Reliable Sources usually refer to it as a civil war, not even CNN, usually its "armed conflict". Here is today's google news search of articles and I do not see "civil war" being used at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose you would argue that there would be fighting in Wyoming for the American Civil War to really be a Civil War then. CNN has refered to the situation as a civil war countless times already.XavierGreen (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? Wyoming was a backwater area of no significance in those days (and today really), whereas Tripoli is the capital. That argument doesn't make sense. =/ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is just because there is no fighting in a particular city or area doesnt mean that a civil war is not occuring. There was no fighting in London during the English Civil War, nor in the capital of Yemen during the 1994 civil war in Yemen, nor was their fighting in Lagos during the Nigerian Civil War. And there has been low level fighting in tripoli since the start of the conflict, though by now it has largely been supressed.XavierGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well in three of those cases (including the American Civil War) you had actual secession, and in the case of the English Civil War you do of course have the two well-defined sides, plus there is no other name that I know of. However, my point was that you shouldn't compare Tripoli with Wyoming as it just makes people confused regardless of the point you are trying to convey. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No fighting in Tripoli you say? Than what would you call this 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli)? I think there were 300 dead there. And also, your statement that CNN is not calling it a civil war is simply faulty, they have been using that term for the last five days since Zawiyah fell. EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not see how fighting (or not) in Tripoli is relevant to calling this a civil war. The first sentence of this oppose casts a spurious light on the rest of it. There need not be fighting in a capital for a conflict to be called a civil war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Let's just play ahead, the french are ready to strike and Gaddafi wont back down like always. Let's call it a war!
  • Weak Support I'm concerned about the intensity implied by "war" (especially if the rebellion just melts away relatively quietly from here on in) and prefer "conflict" but cannot oppose "war" given this quote from one of [now missing] NY Times reporter Anthony Shadid's stories: "... a protest that became an uprising and an uprising that has become a war."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with conditions The suggested merge is poor IMO. The uprising has obviously graduated to a conflict pitting rebel forces against a conventional military. Perhaps this article should be split? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "sidebar" I mean "infobox", of course... something like "2011 Libyan conflict" would also not be bad. However, the current term seems outdated and inaccurate. Whatever the inadequacies of the "Civil War" term, it fits the shoe better than "uprising" at this point. Esn (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is for conflicts in general really, it doesn't really say such and such = war. Do a bit of snooping around and you'll find some similarly formatted ones. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose civil war on the simple basis that it's not even close to being (receiving between 1/3 and 1/2 the hits for uprising, see [2] vs. [3]) the WP:COMMONNAME. I am Neutral on a move to conflict. The search results between conflict and uprising are rather close and are almost equal (see [4] vs. [5]). I'd personally rather see the article stay where it is currently but would not have any grand opposition of a move to 2011 Libyan conflict. --Labattblueboy (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whether or not Google has caught up, this meets the criteria for a civil war. Opposing military forces, both of which are based in Libya and both of which answer to governments who claim control of the country, are engaging in open warfare both urban and rural. Casualty figures have surged over 10,000 according to some estimates. Battles are being waged, towns have fallen to one side, then the other, then back, then back again. The country is geopolitically divided. There's little question this meets the definition of a war - yet the primary factions are both Libyan in origin and have no allegiance to a foreign power. That makes it a civil war. This change, in my opinion, is long overdue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now are you basing this all on one source stating all that and coming to that conclusion or are you doing that yourself, 'cause... WP:SYNTH if you happen to be. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This confict has all the characteristics of a civil war.
^^^^ Needs a signature! Also WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Uprisings lead to revolutions. When this is over, it will be a revolution. The rebels are a volunteer army hoping to take power from the existing regime. This makes it an uprising. They tried to protest at first but have had to resort to arming themselves. This does not make it a civil war. These are not geopolitical factions battling it out. If it was an existing faction, they would have been more organized. It is a coalition of citizens trying to overthrow their government by whatever means necessary. Renaming the uprising will allow the US media to write Libya off as another civil war in Africa and stop reporting on it. This uprising is taking longer than their news cycle can handle and hence the rebranding. We should not allow the short attention spans of Western media outlets to change the course of history. This uprising has only been going on for a month. It's important that Libya stay in the same context as the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen.174.97.175.239 (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Like said earlier, not every conflict involving people of the same country = civil war. It's way too early to give a name to this conflict. Eventually, it'll probably be remembered as Libyan Uprising or Libyan Revolution. For example, look at the Xinhai Revolution in China. It was a civil war as well between the loyalist and the republicans. I say give it some time before making a bold claim such as Civil War. Coolmaster5k (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Approve Now its not a general uprising like Egypt, its turing into a true civil war with battles troop movements and also two governments fighting for the same governing power = civil war. Hooah82 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, by definition of a civil war, the events in Libya clearly correspond: A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per my archived comments above: I support renaming the article because the ongoings in Libya are a textbook defintion of a civil war (this is not original research, go read a dictionary). Furthermore, France has recognized the anti-gaddafi forces as the sole legitimate gov't, and the Arab League has said they wish to conduct talks with them (tacit recognition). Additionally, multiple major news outlets have called the situation in libya a civil war and google hits for "libyan civil war" now outnumber "libyan uprising" (please note these are the only google hits that pertain to this issue as they are the potential article titles). Lastly, the common name issue as discussed on the wikipedia policy page (WP:COMMONNAME) does not pertain to this issue as much as some have argued in the past. This policy is to ensure that people do not pull something like a conservapedia and rename barack obama's page to "barack hussein obama" in order to express their partisan opinion while making the excuse that "that's his name" (see the relevant examples given on WP:COMMONNAME). No one is trying to do anything like that here so lets get on with the issue, the current name is not adequete as no news sources call it the "2011 libyan uprising". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Can you post how you came about concluding that "Libyan civil war" hits outnumber those for "Lybian uprising"? I have not been able recreate that result.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue by stating news sources fail to use “2011 Libyan uprising”. It’s a current event, why on earth would news sources to include the year when refering to the event? The year qualifier is used because that’s the wikipedia naming format for events, not because it’s the common name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that would be odd for them to use the year. Put in the words Libya and then civil war, uprising, or conflict without any quotes and you'll get it. Google News also acts silly sometimes if you use it on your phone and it won't display anything so make sure you do it on a computer.
Hmmm, and is there maybe a wikiadmin or a few to actually clarify if the Conservapedia statement is correct or if WP:COMMONNAME refers to all titles all the time? Because it seems you based that example off what someone said up top. =p I didn't see anything on the page or in the talk that indicated that, not really. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TITLE, of which COMMONNAME is part. There are other considerations, which apply to many articles, but few of them have effect here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However it is still relevant here, yes? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Support. This may be an Anglo-American difference, in that Americans are used to thinking of a Civil War which never quite got to Washington; but Charles I did not get to London either (and the intent of both sides in that Civil War was to drive the other side from power). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Who cares how many hits either one has on Google? It's now obvious that the uprising is soon to be crushed as Gaddafi forces are winning back most towns. I don't care what the technical definition for a civil war is, surely two weeks doesn't constitute one, right? I think perhaps if the Rebels had international support or could sustain a genuine fighting force for weeks and months to come then it would inevitably become a civil war, however I think that if the uprising is crushed then it would be more appropriate to rename it the 2011 Libyan Revolution, similar to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.109.179 (talk • contribs)
  • Support move as this has been called a civil war by every major media source to the point where it is casually referred to as a civil war, meaning there is no big stink in the media about whether it qualifies, and it fits all the aspects of one. We have clearly defined alternative governments with alternative military forces fighting for control of a country. The effectiveness of one group or another is irrelevant as is the possible duration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is definitely a civil war. Rebels are trying to oust Gaddaffi, and government forces are attempting to regain lost ground. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the renaming to Libyan civil war. A country with two governments striving for power, engaging in heavily-armed combat against each other and conquering towns - this is an all-out civil war. "Uprising" does not fit the situation at all. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Would calling it a civil war myself but is wikipedia in the position to decide? Several media outlets are now referring to it as a war, and with the UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone and the establishment of a front-line in the conflict (which involves opposing forces using weapons of war on each other) it looks as though it can now be defined as a civil war. Although does wikipedia actually have the right to decide whether the conflict has escalated into a civil war? KP-TheSpectre (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't decide, we do, by concensus, and we decide by what most of the sources are calling it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to the renaming Libyan Civil War. Oppose to the renaming Libyan Revolution. Oppose to the renaming Libyan Insurgency, or the Libyan Fight, or the Libyan Bad Time, the Libyan ****-You-Gadaffi, the Libyan Mosh Pit, the Libyan Like-a-Football-match-but-with-Killing, or the Libyan Line Dance. If the rebels get put down in the next few days, calling this a Civil war will look silly. Better to err on the side of caution than trying to force a label on something just because most of us are rooting for the rebels. If this fighting continues and shows that this conflict is going to be protracted, then the name 'civil war' might be appropriate, but right now it looks like this might be settled in the next few days, and if that turns out to be the case, civil war is not the appropriate label. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, "because most of us are rooting for the rebels"? I am not 'rooting for' the rebels, nor am I 'rooting for' Gaddafi. I fail to see how changing the title to Libyan Civil War would be expressing support for one side or the other. I'm just trying to describe a situation as it is, and as others (Red Cross, CNN) describe it as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, you're only one of few who has specifically said that they are not for one side or the other (which is not implying anything, just saying you're neutral on the issue) whereas most of the editors that have expressed an opinion have specifically been anti-Gadaffi and pro-Rebel. You are right though that civil war doesn't express support for one or the other side. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I support a rename. The name "Libyan Uprising" may have been more appropriate for when it was just some teenagers running around setting things on fire, but you have an organized opposition, defections, and many people dying. And, on a minor note, it fits the simple criteria layed out on Wikipedia's civil war article. MNrykein (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what do we say about that in WP:SYNTH regarding coming to our conclusions from multiple sources? Also an uprising isn't typically what you just described, that is a soccer riot. An uprising is usually much much more serious. See: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising amd Easter Rising.
  • Absolute support - The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Time magazine, CNN and NPR already call it a "civil war", as do many other media outlets mentioned above. The conflict seems unlikely to wind down in the foreseeable future, there are parallel governments vying for control of the country and there's heavy fighting throughout most of the country. If this does not fit the description of a civil war I don't know what does. Australian ABC News published an article 10 days ago in which they talked to an expert who said on the record that "at this stage it's very hard to see how it couldn't be described as a civil war" - and judging by the news reports things have only gotten worse since then. There's really nothing to discuss here. Timbouctou 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have the feeling this is going to come down to no consensus again as you are putting reliable sources againt reliable sources on what calls this what, and you can not rely on all google hits to back up a claim here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion may soon prove to be moot. With the no fly zone resolution passed, and Al Yazeera mentioning Egypt arming the Anti-Gaddafi forces, and with France saying that enforcing the no fly zone, I begin to wonder if the 'civil' part should be dropped or not. This may end up in a war. Phoib (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently support I support a rename to Libyan Civil War, at this time, but as mentioned above it may soon turn into a war with foreign forces involved. But at this time, civil war is most appropriate. Michael5046 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well funny you should mention that, at that point it becomes something more like Korean War or Vietnam War in more serious cases and in cases where it is just us bombing the offending party back to the stone age: Yugoslav Wars.
  • Oppose, I think uprising most accurately describes it. I don't doubt that in time "civil war" may be a more accurate description, but I think it's still too soon Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Oppose Still too early to know. If Gaddafi regains control (as remains very possible still), it will have been an "uprising". If the opposition somehow gets it together and prevails, it will be a "revolution". If the international community goes in militarily, it will be a "war". It's not a civil war right now, it's an uprising. We are not news, and we should wait for things to become clear before renaming. WikiDao ☯ 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - By definition is an uprising. Popular names should not be considered, but real and absolute definitions. Douken (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect I'm afraid, the popular name is what you use. WP:COMMONNAME. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Signs seem to point to 'uprising' being a more common term, and that's certainly the case in the local media where I am. It's also an appropriate term. Other arguments about the definition of a civil war aren't really relevant, as we should be focusing on what terms the majority of reliable sources use. As an aside, there seems to be a rising trend across recent 'current event' articles of constant name change nominations based on the addition of one or two extra sources here or there. We're really not in a hurry here, we can always change the name later once a name has been settled on by more stable (eg. non-news) or academic sources, and the current title isn't inaccurate. I don't see compelling reasons to push for this kind of change this at this volatile stage in the article's life. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like this guy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". --CHECK
"Some political scientists define a civil war as having more than 1000 casualties" -- CHECK
"while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side" -- CHECK
"The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory." -- CHECK
"The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory." -- CHECK
"The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent." --CHECK
"The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military." --CHECK

130.228.251.10 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Support Well, CNN think it's a 'civil war'[[7]][[8]].

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

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


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

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

Discussion

Meh, the guy/gal is being WP:BOLD if I understand it right, so nothing wrong with that, he/she is igniting a discussion. Some people are annoyed that the other one was closed, but now there is a chance that we could go about reching a concensus properly. I like the setup he/she picked. The only problem is when people respond to supports and oppositions it starts mini discussions. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just joined Wikipedia today (finally!), so I may be totally off-base, but is it really that a big deal? "Civil War" versus "Uprising"? They are basically synonymous terms, is it really worth the effort it would take to change the article's title over what amounts to a rather nuanced difference in connotation? I've been looking at the policies about the community goals in writing articles, and one of them says to try to give articles historical perspective. I think the only difference between 'civil war' and 'uprising' is how history looks back. Am I off-base here, or am I right? B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct insofar as whatever label we or others slap on something doesn't change its nature, only how we (and countless others due to Wikipedia's traffic) perceive it. It's important to be mindful that there can be a huge difference -- to use the most commonly cited example, see naming the American Civil War. The problem here is, how can you possibly have a historical perspective on an event that's still in progress? Gonfaloniere (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely true, and I found the archived discussion, so now I obviously see that this is something that there is a large amount of disagreement over.B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, stupid edit conflict deleted my thing. I welcomed BIG to wiki and then said that it depends more on common name etc. and then put the part about you bringing up conflict and it being slightly more popular than civil war in the news section. Also put a joke about the old one becoming a small wikiwar and many lives being lost in the process. Had a link to the archive too.
Hmm, maybe there should be a redirect on that page? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is a general really qualified to determine what is and is not a civil war? I mean being Supreme Nato Commander makes you many things, but does it really mean that if you say something is a civil war, it's an expert opinion? Actually, who is qualified to label it as such? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is a lecturer in the School of Global Studies at RMIT University in Melbourne qualified to call it a civil war? Timbouctou 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find out more about him? Lecturers can cover a whole range of topics. Like my professor on humanity between first farmers and first cities (actually an interesting topic) had the specialty of being a Celtic Archaeologist, but she herself said she was really only an expert in the area of Celtic Archaeology. (She's only a lecturer because she refuses to work in time slots that prevent her from spending time with her kids) So what's this guy's specialty? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a waste of time but sure, we can find out more about him. Apparently he "teaches core legal courses within the Legal and Dispute Studies program for the Bachelor of Social Science at RMIT University. He has research interests in the institution of war, diplomacy, international relations, 20th Century History and law. He has written extensively on these topics in both refereed journals and more popular media.". But hey, experts are scum so who cares, right? Timbouctou 09:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you would consider it a waste of time to look up the man's credentials and no idea why you linked the experts are scum thing either. Looking at this info, the guy definitely passes muster with me then as an RS and expert. One thing you learn about in Biblical archaeology is the great need to differentiate between people claiming to be, and called experts by some, and actual experts.
Example: The Naked Archaeologist, Simcha Jacobovici (who is neither naked in the course of his work or an archaeologist of any sort), who claims to that his silly theories are the truth (when only Hershel Shanks believes him, as well a good deal of the gullible public) and Erich von Daniken who is a major propenent of peddling ancient aliens to the unwitting public, many of whom really do buy his nonsense hook, line and sinker. On the opposite side you have Eric H. Cline who is a widely-recognised expert in the field (though his main focus is on the Bronze Age) or Israel Finkelstein, who, though he has many enemies as a result of his very controversial theories, is also regarded as one of the foremost archaeologists in Israel. So you understand my reasons now for wanting a credential check? Of course, people claiming to be experts happens a lot more in archaeology (especially biblical, where everyone and his dog thinks he can do archaeology) than in something like say political science. Also it's wikirules that we need to make sure our sources are reliable (not just the site presenting them, but they themselves as well). Thought you might like an explanation. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the intention of the Libyans is to overthrow the current government, this makes the situation an uprising or a rebellion. Civil war generally applies to situations where existing geopolitical factions are trying to secede. This fight has all the characteristics of an uprising: untrained volunteer forces, new councils that are inclusive, and a well-armed government that is not willing to relinquish power. In case of a victory by the rebels, the events would be considered a revolution and not the end of a civil war. The difference is huge. The Western media is less comfortable with armed uprisings. They want to show people waving flowers as they're beaten down by government forces. The Libyan situation is no different than Egypt or Tunisia, it's just taking a longer time and they have had to resort to armed rebellion because Gadaffi is committed to staying in power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.175.239 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the frontier between an uprising and a civil war is rather fluid, and depends on circumstances. I believe the most important for Wikipedia (as no original research is allowed) should be the prevailing designation of the conflict in reliable sources (and in the case of 2011 Libyan uprising/civil war it's perhaps still a bit to early to settle on a finite designation). I have to disagree with the notion of civil wars as exclusively wars for independence/secession - e.g. English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War and many others, especially in the South America were internal struggles over the control of the nation. In my personal opinion, I believe that current situation in Libya could be referred to as the civil war, as there are large scale combats between two sides which are roughly equally organized and equipped (as defection of some units/officers of the Libyan Armed Forces must had led to certain level of disorganization of the Gaddafi forces), both are aspiring to gain/regain control over the whole nation, claiming to be the only legitimate national governments of Libya and the 'rebels' National Transitional Council is recognized as such, though only by France. Regardless of this, I'm not personally going to participate in the survey.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English Civil War was a religiouse and politiko war, not a splitist/sepratist affair!82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which was my point, when replying to 174.97.175.239's comment.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-)82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uprisings or rebellion are limited and/or localized by definition. This conflict is neither. And regardless of outcome it is unlikely that it would ever be referred to as revolution because they are by definiton rapid changes in government. Granted, what is "rapid" is subject to opinion, but this has been going on for a month now and doesn't look like it might be over soon. Timbouctou 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were successful, people would most likely refer to it as a revolution regardless. Most lay people consider tossing off one's government and creating a new one as being the only qualifier for a revolution even if like you said, the denotation is a rapid change. Look at American Revolution for instance where we just tossed off the Brits and adopted a somewhat representative democracy ruled by the wealthy landowning whites. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still too early to call it a war. It's been going on for a few weeks, and if crushed quickly nobody will look back in history and call it a war. Also I have issue with the fact that it isn't being fought between two organised armies in the way that characterised the American or English civil wars. I know that experts have been quoted as saying it's a war, as have newspapers, and surely there will also be many which haven't, and disagree. I really don't think that quoting one general or one lecturer implies that mainstream expert opinion is calling it a war. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organized armies? The American Civil War armies - both of them - were, perhaps rather haughtily, characterized as "two armed mobs chasing each other around the country" by Prussian field marshal Helmuth von Moltke - and indeed both Union and Confederate armies were largely dependent on state-created regiments, which were being established after the war broke out - as the regular United States Army was numerically negligible in the peacetime and many southern-born officers rezigned their commissions to join the Confederate Army, which was being organized from a scratch. Yet no one is going to dispute that the American Civil War was a war. Not to mention the Spanish republican army of the Spanish Civil War, where many officers (and some units - Spanish Foreign Legion and the colonial troops from Morroco) defected to the rebels, thus leaving the government partially dependent on left-wing militias in the initial stages of war (while the Nationalists had in the beginning only aforementioned few defecting regular army units and improvised militias). I just don't think that neither the current organization of combattants - both of the Libyan Army and of theLibyan People's Army - nor current length of the conflict can rule out the designation of the conflict as the civil war, as it ultimately does not depend on such factors. On the contrary - it is quite difficult to not call a nation-scaled armed conflict, employing heavy weapons a war. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAMEWipsenade (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is now neither an uprising nor a civil war. With so many countries involved it is now the Libya War. noclador (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fellow does have a very good point. Given that other nations are now going to become involved in making sure Gadaffi's shitty MiGs (or w/e he uses) stay on the ground, this could become something along the lines of the Bosnian War and especially Kosovo War when we had to teach Srbija (specifically Slobadon Milosevic) civility (our finest hour in years, in this editor's personal opinion). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War had foreign interventions, too, see the infoboxes--78.3.217.86 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support just 'war', there has already been 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. and British ships, and an airstrike that involved 20 French aircraft [10]. --Natural RX 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this still being called an uprising? Wikipedia has fallen way behind here! Need to get this renamed to War or Civil War ASAP. 90.218.96.77 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Strongly Support

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

2011 Libyan Civil War or Libyan Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable Sources

WP:RSWipsenade (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second paragraph of the Cease Fire section, I am concerned about [11] as it seems to be a fast paced blog "update" and I believe those are disallowed as reliable sources. Also, in the Reuters article it specifically says "The reports could not be independently verified.." and seems to be based upon telephone calls from "rebels" with satelite phones. I am wondering what others think? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News [12] Search shows that no major media is presently reporting that the Cease Fire is not being adhered to by Libya. Prior reports were based on phone calls & stated that they were not "independently verified", so I removed that content for now. Maybe later there will be confirmation of a Cease Fire breach by Reliable Sources but I don't see that right now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't easy for journalists just to go see, like it wasn't in Zawiya - same as Misrata today I guess Sayerslle (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has a reporter in Tripoli (Nick Robertson) and Bengzhai (Anna Damon) who have verified that the ceasefire is not being upheld. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blelbach (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a relevant section from the article mentioned above: "Outside Ajdabiya in eastern Libya, CNN's Arwa Damon said she heard explosions, listened to fighters' accounts of heavy casualties and saw ambulances. She said fighters, who don't trust Gadhafi, believe that the declaration is a trick.". Alfons Åberg (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually saw those reports. They were very non-commital in their word choices. Just as you say, Damon "heard" explosions; think about that for a second; so fucking what? She saw nothing and did not say that Gadaffi set off that explosion. Gadaffi would have to be as dumb as a bag of nails to be dropping bombs today but if a Reliable Source says that "Gaddafi's forces were dropping bombs on people today" then it should be included, but if you listen carefully, they are not saying that ! and then "rebels don't trust Gadhafi"???? so what! what would you expect? if you want to put in the article that the rebels don't trust Gadhafi, go ahead. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And The Independent today, headline 'Gaddafi called a ceasefire. But still the bombs fell.' [13] Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is a difference between "still the bombs fell" and "still Gadaffi was dropping bombs". Its fine to say that bombs fell. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of reports this morning that gddafi is continuing to attack both misrata and benghaziSayerslle (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) At certain times the world is overrun by false scepticism. Of the true kind there can never be enough. Jacob Burckhardt. wikiquote style response Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please input at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I have entered [14] an inquiry as to whether the aljazeera live news blog[15] is a reliable source(its currently being used in this article). I don't think it is but others may wish to have input at that inquiry. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, the view from the noticeboard is that the newsblogs of existing Reliable Sources are usually ok but not from "activists sites"

and there are other interesting qualifiers, so I suggest anyone interested have a look.[16] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The French air force goes in!

French aircraft are over Libya (BBC) [[17]][[18]]!!!Wipsenade (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, Qatar, Spanish, German, Dutch, UK, Italian (spy), Belgian aircraft are coming. The USA is talking of using some spy airfaft (BBC)[[19]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, Holland, France and the UK are leading the way[[20]][[21]]. The USA and Quatar are to join later. [[22]] .Wipsenade (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi sympathising Germany decided to take no role and went neutral, while Italy is only offering base access and a spy plane. [[23]]. France shot a Libyan pro- Gaddafi fighter down at about 16.45. They have shot at a Libyan pro- Gaddafi vehcihel literally seconds ago.Wipsenade (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first air strike

first air strike against a ground vehicle according to live feed. (source France Info).

Yep, it's destroyed acording to the BBC! Wipsenade (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add in those countries (or perhaps the UN) under the Rebel "combatants" side? Its very clear their no-fly zone is one-sided, and that there is a very good chance it will escalate to strikes against Pro-Ghaddafi ground forces, even those not directly in combat at the moment. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent for this in Bosnian War. We can also take the Kosovo War approach if the involvement becomes larger. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Losses

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[24]][[25]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New forces coming

Quatar, Spain, Denmark and Italy are esnding planes. Algeria and Kuwaite might join in to (BBC).82.14.51.216 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Situation report

The US lead coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain. [[26]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez opposes the French intervention

he asks for an immediate cease fire (source france info live feed @18:57). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olecrab (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a crank, like Moralis82.11.85.155 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What?? So "Obama is a crank, like Sarcozy (and Mussolini, or whatever's the Italian PM's name these days)." BytEfLUSh | Talk! 03:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman, these opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is this world leader saying what he said. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be on thier pages, not the Libyan civil war page.Wipsenade (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez, Morales and co.

  • Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina are neutral and both Bolivia and Ecuador are getting fed up with Chavez and are neutral.
  • Venezuela and Nicaragua are pro-Gadhafi duck, but has sent no forces.
  • Uruguay is on the allied side.
  • Brazil is opposed to the allies, but not openly pro-Gadhafi.

[[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]]

Wipsenade (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents

Hey everyone! Is there any chance we could decide how we are sorting out who is who in the Belligerents section. Do we differentiate between those pro-actively enforcing the no-fly zone (eg the French who are mentioned twice so far when there is only one France) compared to those supporting with bases and fuel?

If so should we have "Enforcing No Fly Zone" and "Supporting No Fly Zone"?

Any comments would be great! Madscotinengland (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is clearly a one-sided air operation, I separate it into "Gound forces" (the rebels and volunteers from Egypt / Tunisia) and "Air support under UN resolution 1973" (all others). 170.232.128.10 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only french military will engage on saturday according to french defense ministry (source @17:54). btw four lybian tanks have been destroyed according to al jazzera (reported by same source at 18:56). Olecrab (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will take longer for the other nations to get their planes to Italy for the strikes, but they've already signed on to do the same thing France is doing, so I see no point in excluding them...or in highlighting France just because it was the first to get there. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
details are available here. Olecrab (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should only be two belligerents (sides), it makes absolutely no sense have three columns! Jeffrey7777 —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See Bosnian War. Though one can assume we're fighting for the rebels. We need a source quoting the military or Obama or the SoD that we are solely attacking Gadaffi's people. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I've just found that the Template:Infobox military conflict lists Combatant3 as an option. Shouldn't be nations enforcing the Security council resolution no.1973 listed under that description, as they are not actually siding with the anti-Gaddafi opposition? --Hon-3s-T (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its pretty clear they ARE siding with the opposition. France has recognized them as the legitimate government, Obama has called for Ghaddafi to go, the UN has basically recognized the legitimacy of their demands for a free and representative government 170.232.128.10 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps their activity is 'de facto' more beneficial to the opposition, but 'de iure' they're not allied with the opposition, and - at least theoretically - they are going to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya and cease fire according to the UN 1973 resolution ("complete end of violence and all attacks") - erga omnes. As such I believe they are the "third distinct side" to the conflict.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be put as a third combatant. -- Nidator T / C 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's going to make the infobox much more easier to comprehend, so if there are not other comments I am going to edit. Perhaps it would be better to make United Nations forces combattant #2, and Gaddafi's forces the #3, so ťhe UN forces would be visually in-between both sides of the conflict? --Hon-3s-T (talk)
You can do something like in Bosnian War, but it gets a bit confusing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the situation is exactly the same, as in the Bosnian war, there already were (at least) three sides to the conflict - Bosnians, Croats and Serbians, so the question of additon of the NATO forces was certainly a bit of problem, but here we have quite neatly opposed "pro-Gaddafi forces" and "anti-Gaddafi forces", so the UN-resolution enforcing forces could be quite easily inserted as the third side, interested in victory of neither of the two former ones.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a really good way of working the problem - it is a truthful representation that things have changed. Good plan! Madscotinengland (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flinders Petrie, UN as combatant #2 and Gaddafi's forces as #3. Other than France, no other participating country is really supporting the opposition. This is made rather clear by the fact that none have allowed the opposition to access frozen assets for the purpose of buying arms.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above opinion. France and the others are attacking and are authorized to attack only Gadhafi's forces and they have called for his removal. There is no doubt whatsoever that they are side on the opposition and it's frankly POV to describe them as some third combatant. Kostja (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're authorized to enforce the arms embargo, to protect civilians, civilian-populated areas against attack and enforce the no-flight zone over Libya. Not a word about 'Gaddaffi's forces only' in the resolution.They're following aims distinct from the rebels.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the US, at least, is against Gadaffi in this. [32] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're not unconditionally pro-rebel, either. Wasn't it FDR who explored for the difference between "the neutrality in deeds and the neutrality in thoughts"?--Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know as much about FDR as I should, even though he is one of my favourite presidents. Still, they're our Libyans in this conflict even if it's not unconditional, and even if they are violent, it's not the first time we'd have taken sides with the lesser of two evils. Besides, our foreign policy has changed somewhat since FDR's time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the No-fly Zone Participating Nations be on the Anti-Gaddafi side on the infobox? Because they are defending the rebels. --Gimelthedog (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[citation needed]--Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Does anyone on here honestly believe the coalition will try to stop a rebel advance? France, England, the USA, etc. have all called for the ouster of Ghaddafi, and France (at very least) recognizes the national transitional council as the legitimate government of Libya. The UN resolution, further, was targeted at Ghaddafi's forces attacking rebel areas[citation needed], even if the language was more diplomatic. There is no "third side" to this war. 76.230.58.80 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No place for the original research on Wikipedia. The UN resolution expressly called for the "end of attacks and no-fly zone". --Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Every major US newspaper and television station - and presumably several in other coalition nations - clearly broadcast that the no-fly and the coalition action is designed to stop ghaddafi and protect the rebels. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am certainly not. Can you read?--Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*ahem* WP:NPA, and [33]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you cannot read any of the major news websites, or listen to the coalition leaders, or watch television news right now and come to the conclusion that the coalition is an unbiased peacekeeper here. The operation is clearly in favor of the rebels and against ghaddafi - if it weren't we would have seen Cruise Missiles attacking the rebel air defenses and landing [citation needed]strips as well.[why?] 170.232.128.10 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why?. No such a thing in the UN SC resolution.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[34] [35] [36] [37] <<--- Sauces that characterise it as us against Gadaffi. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should not care about sauces.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call sources sauces and sauces sources if I please. They are both tasty and essential to a good encyclopedia. Good day sir! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are using the resolution as an excuse, they have clearly stated that they support the rebels push to remove Gadadfi from power. Which I would say is a violation of the resolution from the start by the enforcers themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's also hypocrisy in a way as the enforcers are the main decisionmakers in the United Nations. We can't have that in the article ofc unless someone brings it up in an RS. Though I do realise it's probably a personal observation. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, cleary stated today the mission has two goals: prevent further attacks by Libyan forces on rebels and civilians, and degrade the Libyan military's ability to contest a no-fly zone. As far as I can see it they are basicly saying we will attack only Gaddafi and protect the rebels, couldn't be more clearer. Here is the source [38]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even Colombia openly opposed Col’ Ghadffi in the UN! [[39]][[40]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section is clearly labelled "belligerents" so there should only be countries which are actively fighting. Voting in the UN or providing moral support to either side is not the same as sending troops or material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.7.9 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page for war or bombing?

Should we create a new page for the international war that's started, or the bombing campaign? Something like 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia?--Sloane (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! --Wipsenade (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - we should move the article Libyan no-fly zone to Operation Odyssey Dawn and concentrate there all information of the international military campaign. noclador (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Opération Harmattan, Operation Ellamy, and Operation MOBILE? We cannot move the no-fly zone article to Odyssey Dawn because the US is NOT the only state involved in this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're also not the main power involved this time around. I agree that there should be an all-encompassing article and the individual operations should be made into super sections. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is still part of the same conflict, but you could make another page for this portion of it, sure. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on moving the UN forces in the infobox from being a third combatant to being an ally of the opposition

Support Even if the UN resolution doesn't take sides, those who are enforcing the resolution have taken a side. The French have stated they only recognise the rebel council as a legitimate government of Libya and the US stated that the goal of the UN operation is to provide support for the rebels to push back Gaddafi's forces and to remove Gaddafi from power, stated by Clinton herself and Susan Rice and Obama. They are not a third party, they are a rebel ally. Also if you will be telling they are enforcing the arms embargo on both sides how come the Egyptians who called for the resolution are selling weapons to the rebels and are not being punished? EkoGraf (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, cleary stated today the mission has two goals: prevent further attacks by Libyan forces on rebels and civilians, and degrade the Libyan military's ability to contest a no-fly zone. As far as I can see it they are basicly saying we will attack only Gaddafi and protect the rebels, couldn't be more clearer. Here is the source [41]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportThe UN wasn't in any rush, at any time, to protect Ghaddafi. All the UN action has been pro-rebel. I favor listing all libyans as "primary combatants", the coalition as "air support under UN resolution 1973", and those from Tunisia and Egypt as "Volunteers" 170.232.128.10 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. The British prime minister and French president have both called for Colonel Gaddafi to leave Tripoli. The European Council demanded that Gaddafi leave. The US foreign minister, Hillary Clinton, has also stated that Gaddafi should step down. The UN powers are clearly on the side of the rebels, even if UNSC res. 1973 is neutral. --Imperium Europeum (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The UN members are carrying out their mandate in a manner that is clearly meant to help bring the swine to his knees once and for all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - listening to 5 live and a female U.S commentator has said the object is to stop civilians being pogromed against by the despot stinking with hysteria - no ground troops, regime change is not the mandate, but to prevent civilians being massacred - obviously the rebels in benghazi their object is regime change - at least for the eastern half of the country - the U.N is not saying as I understand it, we will fight side by side til we topple the regime , but , we will ensure defenceless and ill armed civilians will not be massacred with impunity by gaddafis thugs in the east of the country. the people of benghazi want it to be their own actions not foreign involvement to free themselves, but want a no fly zone because the uprising was the work of poorly armed, vulnerable people and they were too open to that power.Thats my opinion, anyhow Sayerslle (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is she exactly? (I don't think pogrom applies here btw as it is a minority against the majority here) A commentator can say lots of things but not actually be informed on the situation. Was she at least a high up level member of the military or US gov who would actually be informed on such matters or was she just stating her own opinion as a Fox talking head? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UN resolution specificly took a neutral position, however, the enforcers of the resolution have they themselves said their objective is regime change, Clinton and Susan Rice said it themselves. That can be seen as going against the resolution they are enforcing, which advocates a neutral position, and violating it but that is what it is. They are rebel allies. Plain and simple. EkoGraf (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neverthless the result of vote, it remains my strong conviction that when the Libyan situation - both the current uprising and the no-fly zone enforcing - would no more be in the news, but in the reliable third party scholarly sources, the third belligerant column would still be an option; as the UN-forces are following their own distinct aim in the current conflict, regardless of the simplified journalistic rendering of the intervention as 'with the rebels against Gaddafi' which prevails today.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Why do people keep moving the UK to the third position in the infobox? France and the UK – as president Barack Obama himself has pointed out – are leading this operation, having backed it in the UNSC, even if the US has been heavily involved in the initial stages of the conflict. I think the UK should be placed second to France. --Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think the Americans like being placed third! But yes, Britain & France are clearly in charge of this international operation. The US military have said that command will be formally transferred to a "coalition commander" soon, and that will be either a French or a British officer. David (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so concerned? Is this some sort of contest for you? As it stands right now, the United States is leading the operation and has done most of the damage to Gaddafi's defenses. If anything the US should be placed before France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.58.198 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we officially said we would not be leading this op? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The US President himself has stated that this is a British-French led operation. How much more authority is needed? lol David (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we need the God to say that... oh wait, sorry, last administration. (couldn't resist) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article, Neutral Point of View Discussion

Lead Paragraph Issues/Questions

  • rebels (why the use of this word, why not citizens, insurgents, terrorists, etc etc... what makes them this word?)
  • controlling Benghazi
  • controlling Tripoli (controlling in what way?)
  • fighting and casualties fast-approaching the scale of a civil war (what is the 'scale' of a civil war?)
  • Gaddafi's forces, greatly outnumbering and out-powering the rebel ranks (be more specific, if possible)
  • Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and Russia have all imposed sanctions on Gaddafi (why Western powers mostly?)
  • why are 3 Western nations (France, UK, US) taking military action in a nation outside their borders?
  • not seeing a lot of commentary from non-Western powers in the lead paragraph

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 March 2011

Background Section Issues/Questions

History

  • article seems to make a distinction between long-term autocrats (royals) and short-term autocrats
  • "Much of the country's income from oil ... was spent on arms purchases and on sponsoring militancy and terror around the world" (vague statement)
  • Social media had played an important role in organizing the opposition. (how?)

Human Rights

  • 2009 Freedom of the Press Index (are they an unbiased source? where is a corroborating or countering statement to show balance or verifiability?)

Early Developments

  • Libya blocked access to YouTube (in Libya or elsewhere?)
  • By 27 January, the government had responded to the housing unrest with a US$24 billion investment fund to provide housing and development (so do people doubt the investment? why would this be part of 'Early Developments'?)

Discussion

I appreciate you taking an interest in improving the article and you do raise some valid points, but be mindful of a couple things. For questions like why the countries are taking an interest in Libya, if anything, a lack of speculation at this point is probably a product of the NPOV policy being enforced (and if you disagree, please provide some sources). In the case of things like your YouTube point, copy-editing doesn't fall under the purview of the POV tag. The sentence is saying the Libyan government blocked its citizens' access to YouTube, unless I'm misreading and there really is a more serious issue. Gonfaloniere (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what prompted me to mention the NPOV is that it seems to be highly biased in favor of the anti-Gaddafi movement and presents most points in terms that favor that side. I'm not personally pro-Gaddafi, but our guidelines in Wikipedia state that we are supposed to try and present a neutral viewpoint, and although I am still looking through the remaining sections, the bias seems fairly prevalent. -- Avanu (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wouldn't call for 'speculation'. So I am not saying a lack of speculation is the problem. I would be asking for reliable sources to present a neutral (or at least balanced) viewpoint. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem my friend. As was said in a now archived discussion (this one here), we are merely repeating what the sources tell us, as we are supposed to, and we cannot find many (or almost any maybe) reliable sources that are not anti-Gadaffi, so it simply cannot be helped. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please just ignore this thread

When Avanu posted this thread, he obviously had not read Naming the American Civil War or Insurgency because if he had, he would know how fooling he sounds. What is happening in Libya is a rebellion. NPOV is about who, what, when and where. All of his why questions are philosophical questions beyond the scope of this article. (Why do USA, England and France try to be policeman to the world? Uh, because they can afford to and because they are prepared to and because they feel like it) And he uses all those silly questions to suggest that the bias exist within the article. If he meant to ask for more citations, then he put it very poorly. Terrorists? Citizens? He does not suggest a preferred word at all. What? Is he suggesting that civilians with pencils and pens are terrorizing the country? He does not demonstrate bias and he does not make any specific complaints that we should act on.--189.41.26.213 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ignore your thread as you suggested, but I have to reply. "NPOV is who, what, when and where?" Yeah right, "Why" isn't important at all. Citizens with pencils and pens do not take over cities from the regular army. By the way, the correct term is "insurgents". Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna grab a pen and rob a bank. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not done with the above section, but I saw that someone had suggested bias previously on this very active article, and another editor declared it invalid because the editor hadn't provided reasons on the Talk page, so I was trying to get some things posted as quickly as possible in order to avoid that situation happening again.
Second, where do you get the idea that Neutral Point of View is about 'who, what, when, and where'?
Explanation of the neutral point of view WP:NPOV
  • Avoid stating opinions as facts
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts
  • Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion
  • Prefer non-judgmental language
  • Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views
Finally, by including as much detail as possible, it might appear 'fooling' or 'silly', but I am trying to show an overall pattern in the article, not order pizza. In order to show overall patterns, I need to include information from all parts of it. Questions like 'why' stimulate thought and engage the mind to look for bias. Simply placing information in an article might help, but how do you know it is biased?
To me, if several major nations of the world are willing to use advanced weaponry to bombard a nation, we need to set a higher standard with our work in Wikipedia covering it. We need to follow guidelines and use judgement and do things not only right, but *well*. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Casualties

The infobox currently lists Government forces taking 48 civilian casualties and 150 civilians injured from recent Western airstrikes. These numbers come from Libyan State Television which has been spitting out the most outrageous of claims in the past week. Also the fact that State TV said the casualties were "primarily women, children and religious clerics" and also reportedly said that Western forces specifically "targeted schools and hospitals" makes the claim only more outrageous. No news source has been able to verify any of the claims, and this is beginning to look more like propaganda than legitimate news. Its inclusion into the infobox for casualties makes it seem very biased, anyone agree? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-and-allies-launch-libya-force-as-gadhafi-strikes-rebel-heartland-regime-claims-48-dead/2011/03/19/ABhkEdx_story.html

Infernoapple (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State TV claims are dubious at best. The women, children and clerics, schools and hospitals bit is LDA-approved grade A bullshit obvious to any skeptic or westerner, but which his supporters might believe. So yeah, it's not good to include unless you put that as their claim and maybe a note about their credibility. Expressed in the most NPOV manner of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the fact that today there are reports that pro-Gaddafi forces are moving the bodies of those killed in combat to designated places where they are fabricating their own "bombing of civilian areas". Infernoapple (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't suppose that's been confirmed by an independent source and publish in an RS? Would be a nice addition to the artice imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to object to the phrase used in the casualty box: "Total number of people killed on both sides, includes protesters, rebel fighters, captives executed, government forces killed and civilians killed by NATO bombing". It implies that the only civilians killed (not including protestors) have been through NATO bombings. Though there will (and probably have been) some civilians killed by NATO-aligned countries in their bombing campaigns, I am assuming that the vast majority of the civilian casualties have been caused through the Libyan air/artillery bombardment of populated areas. I recommend removing part of the phrase "by NATO bombing" in its entirety, and if anything should be there it should read "by countries acting on the UN resolution".

And like we said, the only source for those casualties was Gadaffi's state TV. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people here are just biased... if Pentagon said they have shot down 100 planes from Libya - they will add it on the second... if Gadhafi said his forces have shot down 3 planes - it will be deleted or hidden. Strange people right here. Frajjsen (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google images

Libya maps [[42]][[43]][[44]][[45]][[46]]Wipsenade (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Foreign mercenaries should be added

Israel have mercenaries in Libya:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzDWXWfuxYY [47] [48] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.162.0 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A blog and a youtube video aren't credible sources. Blelbach (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am heavily pro-Israeli, let me look at the sources from a Wikipedia standpoint. The first and third are the same video and appeared to be provided by Ma'an News Agency, which is a Palestinian news agency (which is biased against Israel in the same way that Arutz Sheva is against the Palestinians). The second is clearly a conspiracy site. Please find a source that complies with WP:RS that shows this story to be true and that there are really Israelis who have shamed themselves in this way. As it is, this is just a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isralie Jews or Palastinian Arabs?Wipsenade (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I don't quite get what you're referring to. You know I'm afraid I was incorrect. I should have said that the article linked on the third was from Ma'an and the was of course from Press TV, which is Iranian state television. So yes, Palestine's Arutz Sheva, a (funny) conspiracy site, and Iranian state television. So yes, if we don't include A7 as an RS (I might agree with them at certain points, but they're not an RS), a conspiracy site is automatically tossed out, and the Iranian state news is hardly an RS on Israeli activities as they are openly hostile to Israel. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Aparently Israel Defense Minister Mr Ehud Barak! I think the Lockabie bombing section was a bit bizzar, but the mercenery could be partly a MOSSAD false flag operation.Wipsenade (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I don't think even Ehud Barak is that stupid. In all seriousness, with the mercenaries etc. Israel would not do this as it is actual detrimental to them to keep that idiot in power. This is a case of people taking two things they despise and putting them together, and is most probably propoganda. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN No Fly Zone Actions Cleanup

The UN no-fly zone actions was a bit of a mess - basically repeated itself twice, so I cleaned it up. On a broader level, there doesn't seem to be a single clear place for discussion of UN (UK, France, US) involvement. A separate article for each of the three countries operations seems a little excessive to me. Perhaps combining those three articles into one and moving some of the UN coalition related content there would be a good idea. Blelbach (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, three separate articles seems a little excessive. A single big article would make more sense as few people will probably know the individual names, and will probably be looking for the UN intervention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would strongly support combining Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn, Opération Harmattan, Operation MOBILE into a single article. It could be called United Nations coalition attack on Libya or something like. Having 4 separate articles really is excessive, and makes it difficult for readers to find general info on the Western war operation. Nanobear (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it should be called something more NPOV until the sources give it a common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents (2)

As far as I know, France, Britain, and the UK are the only belligerents so far. Verbally pledging support isn't the same as giving it. I think the infobox should only include countries that have done something. Swarm X 07:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I think you mistyped (accidentally obviously), we are the only ones who have actually done real shooting so far, afaik (nice to also be invited this time by the sane locals). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom!

Mistyped what? I was under the impression that US and UK ships fired missiles, and France has performed air strikes. Swarm X 08:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but our article belligerent says "A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat." [Emphasis mine]. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Denmark has sent fighter jets to the combat zone: Source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm, "Britain, and the UK." =p They did indeed. The Danish link is broken, and it's a link to Twitter. Twitter isn't an RS I'm afraid. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source on Denmark (also suggests UAE and Spain have jets on standby in Sardinia). Also a source on Qatar: first Arab state into the fight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source another source for the danish involvement. - wouldn't mind if someone would add this if it's an RS, seeing how I'm freshly joined to the wikipedia network. The Harbo (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map colors

Sounds like Benghazi is firmly in opposition hands after the rebels forced back Gaddafist forces with French air support. Vote to change the color back to dark red. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that I have not seen any confirmation from a credible news source that Benghazi is firmly in rebel hands. However I have heard that people are leaving to tobruk and that Bengahzi is being shelled feroiously therefore I still beleive it should be yellow.Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mcgreal , the Guardian journalist, in Benghazi, and BBC News 24, both say that Benghazi is back free, in opposition hands. Sayerslle (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebel news agencies Al Manara and the Libyan Youth Movement have said that they are on the offensive, heading towards Ajdabiya with military vehicles. I know these are rebel sources and they shouldn't have the same weight as independent reporting, but there is simply no way for us to know as there are only a handful of foreign journalists in Benghazi. The independent reports that I've seen though have shown the city firmly in opposition hands, with a CNN report showing rebels parading the streets and the entrance to the city littered with destroyed pro-Gaddafi vehicles. Infernoapple (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Reuters,and i think Al Arabiyah or Al Jazeera.

Gaddafi's response

This section sounds like an angry pamphlet by a human rights organization. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be.82.14.51.216 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit on press fredom.Wipsenade (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to Bury the Rebel Plane Shoot down

I'm noticing continual efforts(in the article text and the photo text) to challenge,minimize,bury and remove any referrences to identifying the plane that was shot down over Bengazi as being a rebel plane, that it was shot down(accidently perhaps) by rebels or that it was reported to have been bombing rebel territory.This is very important because the plane has been accused by the pro-Gaddafi forces as having been kn "blatant" breach of the no-fly zone. For npov purposes this event should not be censored out of the article.[49] [50] [51] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was reportedly a rebel MiG, but was shot down by rebels[[52]].82.14.48.234 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libyan MiG-23BN shoot down.jpg
A Rebel Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi.

It was a rebel acording to the UK's Sunday times and CNN.86.24.31.144 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Fighter Shoot down

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[53]][[54]]. this is also being covered up.14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's being wiki censored!Wipsenade (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor event that should't be magnified out of proportions. Rafy talk 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting a lot of this because it's not sourced, and very reliable sources were saying the complete opposite of what our article is claiming. This is not WP:TRUTH, this is WP:V. SDY (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki just are hiding that, Libya is close to win.

If you dislike the way Wikipedia does things, User:Frajjsen, take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view.

The whole article need to be updated.. it is not NEUTRAL. Template with the casualties should be edited, as France got one Mirage shot down and Italian ship was detained at Tripoli.[[55]]

I'm intregued, let's look up this Italian ship.Wipsenade (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a neutrality problem, it's a problem with good old fashioned facts. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and trying to stay up-to-the-minute on details will inevitably introduce errors. If it's not clear what's going on (which is very common in a war zone), we shouldn't be reporting blow by blow action from primary sources. Looks like the big boys in the news media can't even get it right, and there's a lot of propaganda that's going to start flying. Stick to what we're sure of. SDY (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google?15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Author: It was confirmed by Italy officials!! Edit the template.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Augusta firm's offshore supply ship "Asso 22" has 8 Italians, 2 Indians, and 1 Ukrainian crew member aboard, all of whome were aressted on the 19th in Tripoli.They were arrested by Gadaffites on the 19th.[[56]][[57]][[58]][[59]][[60]][[61]] [[62]]Wipsenade (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... they are CPOW (Civilian Prisoners of War). As I said - the template need update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus Arms Traffic Sources

Neither of the sources cited in the arms traffic section regarding Belarus have any mention of Belarus. Can I remove that second paragraph?Raphael Luckom (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Wipsenade (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US - leadership

Maybe we should somehow point out that the mission is guided by the USArmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.64.3 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wouldn't work as we are relying on the Brits or French to lead this whole thing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but the major strikes were conducted by the USAF and Navy (114 Tomahawks), or am I wrong ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.64.3 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our contribution of firepower is irrelevant to the question of who is leading this op. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also been huge damage caused by the UK and France. Infact, the French have probably caused the most damage, and some of those Tomahawks were launched by the Royal Navy. 91.85.131.107 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Guardian newspaper (UK) said it was 110 US, 2 French and 2 UK Tomahawk missiles.82.14.51.216 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more have been launched since last night, no? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, I saw new UK 1 go up at dinner time on the BBC.Wipsenade (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that there have been more strikes than the Tomahawk missiles too. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, like the French airstrikes (and their managing to lose a plane in the process, yet another proud moment in the military history of the French Republic). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be sceptical of reports that the French lost a plane. The only people that are claiming it at the moment are the Gaddafi's forces afaik. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what they have managed to lose a plane ?--84.168.103.29 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-French air strikes, USA spy plane and the Italian patrole boat, ect.Wipsenade (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I managed to fall into a trap based on my own bias against the French military command (The French are teriffic fighters themselves, it's their military command that screws everything up). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree The French are teriffic fighters themselves, it's their military command that screws everything up.82.14.51.216 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you guys talking about? The military operations are being reported as US-led. Swarm X 20:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By a US news source. That's not a particularly reliable claim. If you read the Daily Mail it claims it was put together by David Cameron, and I'm sure some French sources say the same about Sarkozy (and they have the best claim, too). Xtremerandomness (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why a US one isn't reliable, though I do consider CNN to be populist trash (just like FOX and MSNBC). This is taken from the CNN Article: '"While we're leading it now, we're looking to hand off that leadership in the next few days," Mullen said on NBC. On the same show, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Britain, France and Arab nations would assume control of the mission.' Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama said that one of the conditions was NOT to lead the operation but to rely on its partners (Britain and France). The firepower might be American but that is different from leading --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace deal?

A BBC report said a Libyan spokes man has just called a seas fire beond Tripoli.Wipsenade (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN Infobox and "civil war" vs. "uprising"

Two concerns have cropped up in this article that I would like to address. Firstly, there seems to be an eagerness among editors to include many countries in the infobox who have not even started any military operations. Should they be included, or only the current batch of UK, France, Italy, and US, and include a link at the bottom per other war articles (ie WWII).

Secondly, User:Xtremerandomness insists on changing the lead to Libyan Civil War, instead of keeping it as uprising. This is a valid article move request that I will submit on behalf of him. Personally, I oppose, but what do others thing? I believe there was a discussion on this previously, but... --haha169 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the nations that have actually used weapons against Libya should be included, not chestbeaters and saber-rattlers.
If you do it once, it's WP:BOLD, if you do it twice, it's a bit rude imo. We do have a discussion going right now. Look up top for the link, I put a nice little notice there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
The countries that I included are the ones that have been confirmed to have taken part in military operations. I did not include the ones that have not yet done so. I apologise for the renaming of the article. I came at this page from a redirect of "Libyan Civil War" and it seems to have been inadvertently included in my edits as the title. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was accidental, then no worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revaloution?Wipsenade (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Qatar has sent fighter jets to Italy, but they have not actively engaged in any military operations as of yet. My reason to remove so many countries is to keep the infobx less cluttered and avoid unnecessary inclusion. I mean, I'm pretty sure Norway has done nothing, and if they do, it would be incredibly minimal. If the article name change was accidental, then I withdrawl the article-change suggestion. --haha169 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they put the lesser combatants (like Argentina and Chile) for WWII in some sort of special thing on the infobox. Not sure, might just lead to a separate article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that I was WP:BOLD, although these are countries that have confirmed they will be enforcing the no-fly zone. I didn't include any that have yet to pledge forces. Would it be fair to include them once actual planes have patrolled? I do, in fact, support the name change, although not without a broad consensus to do so. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fair to put them when they actually have pilots risking their asses in this conflict and actually making a contribution. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like the ones undoubtedly taking part are Canada (Operation Mobile and the deployment of HMCS Halifax) and Spain (various forces including the submarine Tramotana). I'm not sure if Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Qatar and the UAE have actually taken part yet, but they definitely will. Can I include those first two? Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has deployed aircraft to Italy but I haven't seen a source that indicates they are a belligerent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good enough? Xtremerandomness (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There was a report out earlier today saying they might begin flying missions in the next 48 hours. Until there is a source that says they have actually done so they are not a belligerent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources say that both Canada and Spain have deployed (a) ship(s) off the coast of Libya that are taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone. I feel this is taking part enough to be included. Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Harper effectively declared war against the government of Libya while in Paris. Therefore, Canada is belligerent.[[63]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soutsc (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canada and Qatar are in the exact same position, forces deploying in Italy but have not yet flown any mission. Until they fly a mission they aren't belligerents, plain and simple. the most recent status I have is this [64]--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that because they have not taken part in air patrols over Libya they are somehow not taking part yet. You've repeatedly ignored my comments about having deployed a ship off the coast that is currently taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone. Spain is also doing so. Qatar, as well as various other countries, are not in this position. I even cited their navy's involvement, but you think it is alright to continue to cite sources about promises of future air action as though that refutes what I am saying. Currently I feel you are being dishonest. Xtremerandomness (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, its clear on the CEFCOM webpage that the navy (HMCS Charlottetown) is part of "standing NATO maritime group 1" which is conducting operations off the coast of Libya in enforcing the no-fly zone. It is also clear that by deploying CF-188 into Italy for the purpose of enforcing a no-fly zone, Canada has acted in a belligerent way. A state must act aggressively to be belligerent, and Canada has done so by deploying its naval and air forces in support of the mission. Not to mention describing this as an act of war. This is now a moot point.[[65]]. soutsc (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. However, Qatar is in the same place as Canada[66] so if Canada is on the list, Qatar should be there as well.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a generic case of infobox bloat. It's endemic to Wikipedia. We should just remove excess bloat from the infobox as people add it. People will keep adding bloat, and we will have to keep trimming it down. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly means "bloat". Maybe US-negative information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8,000 rebel fighters killed since the events began says rebel spokesman

"More than 8,000 anti-Gaddafi rebels have been killed in the revolt in Libya, a spokesman for the rebel movement tells Al Jazeera TV."

This was reported by the BBC and Aljazeera. I believe this is reliable because it comes from the rebels on how many of their own have been killed and not Gadaffi who may have wanted to over exagerate. The rebel spokesman would not have said this if it was not so due to the fact that the amount killed would be detrimental to morale. I believe this should be added to casulties figure with an explanation. However we still do need confirmation from one other source. Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it. Frajjsen (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is very notable,imo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Uprising."

If we are including France, UK, US et. al. among the "belligerents" in this situation, then we can no longer accurately describe it as an "uprising." [why?] Macarion (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I put. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because foreign countries can't "rise up" against the government of another state. They can intervene, they can invade, they can wage war. Macarion (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can intervene in an uprising like during the French Revolution. Though what the undoubtedly scared "better" classes called it at the time as it was happening is beyond me. In this case, you just have the West assisting the Libyan people who have risen up. They're still the main combatants remember. They just have our missiles and planes on their side. Also, I'm pretty sure that in the 1600s the Duchy of Prussia rose up against the government of Poland-Lithuania and I think also the Koreans against one Chinese dynasty or another, maybe the Han. So it's possible, just doesn't happen in this day and age as you don't have setups like that anymore. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original point was that they cannot be listed as belligerents in either an uprising or a civil war, and your reply did not address that point. Sometimes, trying to squeeze the entire article into an infobox no matter what isn't the best idea. They are belligerents in the coalition intervention in Libya, which has its own conflict infobox. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sentences in lead

There are some broken sentences in the lead paragraphs, like some things got cut. Someone pls fix.. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Help!82.14.48.234 (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about wikipedia's policy: Neutrality

Support: According to wikipedia's policy we must remain neutral when selecting article names, and the most common name.

Well, the point is that by calling it "uprising" we are only supporting one side of the conflict, the rebel's POV. For the regime it was not an "uprising", we all know they denied it, but that was their position. The international community has called it a civil war, internal conflict, libya at war, etc. The most common neutral name would be "Libyan Civil War". It also has been mentioned in UN Resolutions no fly zone mention of possibility of "Civil War" (no wording on "uprising") ultimately "armed conflict" was mentioned 1973 resolution actually called "parties to armed conflicts" I would call it "2011 Libyan armed conflict". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link there says 'possibility' of Civil War - this uprising began in Benghazi as I understand, when unarmed civilians commemorating the execution of political prisoners there in 1996 were fired upon by pro-Gaddafi police and military. They then rose up against the violence and repression - so 'armed versus unarmed conflict' would fit that better. Since then it has been, in Zawiya, Misurata, etc an 'armed versus a poorly armed/unarmed conflict' - hence the intervention of the United Nations to prevent another massacre in Benghazi. 92.4.110.84 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "neutrality" point is irrelevant. The press calls it an uprising, and therefore so do we. Over the past week I get about 1,300 google news hits for "Libyan uprising"[67], compared to about 600 hits for "civil war in Libya", and another 200 for "Libyan civil war".[68]. This means that "uprising" and "civil war" are both commonly used by now, but "uprising" is still slightly more common. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: the google news hits count is inexact. For future reference, compare these two searches:

We can say that the ratio of "uprising" vs. "civil war" is presently at roughly 2:1. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monday's situation report

The American coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain[[69]]. 11:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But who is leading it all?Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military forces are also co,,ing from Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Qatar and United Arab Emirates [[70]].--Wipsenade (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Transnistria

  •  Transnistria – The government dismissed rumours that Gaddafi's soldiers were equipped with guns supplied from Transnistria, describing the scenario as "impossible" because Transnistria is unrecognized by the World Trade Organization and as such cannot legally sell weapons to the Libyan government.[1]

Illegal arms exports?Wipsenade (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Transnistria is not recognised then it is not bound by any of the institutions that govern states; to that end it has no concept of legal or illegal except for that which it has agreed with the other rebel states with which it has diplomatic ties. Maybe it is Libya that cannot legally purchase from an unrecognised entity. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox size

The size of the infobox is getting a bit out of hand, taking up half the right justified space in the prose element of the article. I'd suggest removing the total casualties estimates (or summarizing it as a range) and only placing the military commanders of the no-fly zone.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 144.132.125.21, 21 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Protest against foreign intervention in Libya the first line is wrong. It says 'thousands of people marched on Chicago' and cites a Bulgarian news agency which quotes a Chinese source for a Chicago protest. An ABCLocal report from on the scene says 'not more than 1500 protesters'. source is http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8022937. It's not even worth mentioning as it was an anti Iraq war protest anyway according to article. On 19 March, thousands of people marched on Chicago to demonstrate against U.S. attack to Libya.[251] The protest also held at Downing Street, London,[252] in Athens [253] and in Belgrade.[254] The Arab League has complained that the air and missile strikes have exceeded the mandate of the UN resolution.


144.132.125.21 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I did find sources that put the numbers in the thousands ([71], [72]), but you're right, it was an Iraq protest, not a Libya protest ([73]). — Bility (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


International attack

Isn't that the attack named Odysseus Sunrise or Sunrise of Odysseus?58.187.26.178 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Dawn.Wipsenade (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these names don't need to make sense. But in this instance you really wonder what they were thinking. It isn't even clear how the two nouns relate to one another. They could just as well use "tortellini suspension" or "oppossum remorse". It also did not occur to them that "Odyssey", the sad story of a failed homecoming drawn out for a full decade, isn't the best of omens for an enterprise that we would assume they would like to conclude within months, not years. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera English, DN! & BBC Live News Video

Folks, please update the map regularly. You can watch these broadcasts for up to date info:

:-)86.24.31.144 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poland involved in No-Fly Zone

How is this accurate when Poland is not getting involved... http://thenews.pl/international/artykul151703_poland-sits-out-odyssey-dawn.html King Semsem (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.86.24.31.144 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab league opposition?

There has been one statement by Amr Moussa, the Arab League has not opposed the actions of the coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is a MESS

There is a separate article about the UNSC coalition response, yet here there are THREE separate sections, each going off on their own. There should be one short summary, preface with a link to the main article. This looks ridiculous. Flatterworld (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, did you note the tag warning you that "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses"? If you don't like it, you can either help work on it, or try using Britannica's coverage of the events instead. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"

The UN refers to Gaddafi's state simply as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. We should do the same. Saying "Great Socialist People's" once should be enough. After that, use the shorter name. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Aid section

to explain my removing of this section please see: [74] and [75] noclador (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign mercenaries in infobox

Should foreign mercenaries be listed in the infobox? ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Komsomolskaya Pravda, Moldova: Libyans are fighting with Moldovan weapons?". Focus Information Agency. 16 March 2011. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=420056837"