Jump to content

Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.217.229.199 (talk) at 03:04, 1 March 2011 (→Rename to 2011 Libyan civil war now?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Swiss attack

In Gaddafi's personal perception he defends his country against a Swiss expedition force. The Switzerland sent their troops in, to divide Libya, as an answer to Gaddafi's proposal to do so with their home-country. The Cyrenaika may be added to Egypt, Tripolitania to Tunisia and the Fezzan to Algeria. --2.201.173.236 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.Praghmatic (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look here: Libya–Switzerland relations--90.187.1.57 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadaffi and the swiss are like a proud household owner and crabgrass on the lawn!--99.135.150.55 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now Gaddafi openly accuses the "Zionists" to destabilise his country. In European press there are accusations, that the Austrian Airforce is supporting the Gaddafi-regime: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20110220_OTS0056/verteidigungsministerium-widerlegt-internet-geruechte-um-einsatz-der-c-130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.107.144 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.... I assume the Swiss invasion of Libya is purely a Gaddafi conspiracy theory to detract from the actual events taking place. If we have a reliable source mentioning it, then we can include it in the article. Probably it is better over at Libya–Switzerland relations though. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time the Swiss invaded anyone? No one is alive to remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Swiss mercenaries fought all over the world.--90.186.236.247 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss mercenaries have fought all over the world, despite the nation being neatral as a whole for about 300 years.Wipsenade (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they were talking about Switzerland as a nation state. Sure we can say Madagascar or New Zealand invaded someone if a mercenary was from their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think countries are usually responsible for the actions of their private citizens. As an official representative of the Zionist conspiracy btw, I would like to say we had nothing to do with this one :p (about as serious a source as any other on this topic) TheArchaeologist 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Well, the U.S. has a Neutrality Act, and also there have been times when "unaffiliated" invaders have brought back trouble - e.g. the Bay of Pigs Invasion. When you take away any right from private citizens, whether it is the right to free speech or the right to be a mercenary, it makes the government formally responsible any time that it is allowed. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not? If you follow through that link you'll see the last Neutrality Act was repealed in 1941. All that is irrelevant of course without a credible source saying that this whole thing is any sort of attack on Gadaffi by any government, Swiss or not. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really an overseas plot?

Could this aspect be covered in more detail? Is there really a plot to take him out?

Col Gadhafi has traditionaly blamed Islamists, tribal rivals and the USA, until the Lockerbie bombing alienated him with most of Europe (Italy, a few Swiss bankers, the UK's Labour party and Scotland's SNP party beiing the only exceptions). During both the Gulf Wars, he condemned Saddam Hussien, but then refused to help the Coalition forces. He has also slammed Hosni Mubarak's sons, Iran, Zionists and the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt toppled its government last month. Now he blames the Swiss.

Has he so annoyed the world that he public enemy number 1 or is he finally cracking up? Either way it is an important issue. Wipsenade (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally craking up? He has been a crak pot for many years.Gadaffi and his son blamed anyone they could think of in their speeches. They blamed:

  • 1.Halucunagenic drugs distributed by foreign spies
  • 2.Zionists
  • 3.Americans
  • 4.Europeans
  • 5.Itallians
  • 6.The Turks
  • 7.Alcohol

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-)Wipsenade (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been pretty shocked if he didn't blame us Jews for this (we are ofc planning to steal their oil and make their children into matzah). We can't actually put that he's a crackpot without a documented psychological examination suggesting it though. :p TheArchaeologist 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Of course there is no evidence about foreign involvement. But e.g. Castro says so. Any foreign support for the protesters, either from Egypt, from Turkey or anywhere else, would give him the impression he is right. It would be very interesting, if there is any medical research about his mental state.--2.201.170.22 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His accusations of foreign involvement cant be taken seriously. He has blamed so many sources and is now blaming Al-Qaeda. Several of the supposed foreign influences would never cooporate just to bring him down(USA and Al-Qaeda...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.217.172 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He said he was hated for having a beard and blamed El-Queada in the Hour Long Speach.Wipsenade (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All jokes aside, we can agree that Gadaffi is not a reliable source for information on this whole thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper analysis need : Economic motivation, Oil and resource curse, West/East division

I'm not familiar with Libya (my field of contribution is China), but those 3 directions seems quite central and to develop. Please, if you are familiar with those issues in Libya or have time to look for those needed background, please give an hand. Issues being:

  • the Socio-Economic situation - young, jobless, human right, activists.
  • the Oil industry, its profit's redistribution, and the resource curse,
  • the West/East division - videos/articles I watched show the capital (West) enthusiastic about Kadafi, and the East protesting, taking control of the streets, with military staying in their barracks. Is there some regionalism, clans, etc ?

This deep view is quite need. Help much more welcome ! 140.120.55.63 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I is about oil.15:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Requested move - 2011 Libyan uprising

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

The result of the move request was: Moving to 2011 Libyan uprising, which seems more supported than "revolt". Consensus is clear that "protests" is inaccurate by now. Ucucha 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Libyan protests → 2011 Libyan uprising — Contested move. New name based on recent events and discussion in the section above.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose until we can see multiple and diverse sources calling it as suck,Lihaas (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the argument are in the previous discussion. A new one: "Muammar Gaddafi's son warns of civil war in state television address as regime tries to halt uprising" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/libya-defiant-protesters-feared-dead --93.137.16.98 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Too premature. If Gaddafi is overthrown, then Libyan Revolution of 2011. Otherwise, it'll might become a civil war even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.13.29 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no-one requested Libyan Revolution of 2011 yet. You are out of touch --93.137.23.7 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request a Libyan Revolution of 2011 :) Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm taking a bit of liberty here, based on my past experience in dealing "see other section", and refactoring this talk page a bit. The "previous discussion" is now in an archived sub-section, below:

This needs to be renamed the 2011 Libyan Uprising. In the East, the opposition flags are flying and protestors control most of the area.

I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree too. This is not a simple protest anymore.--Agitateur (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to do this. But, while I see that the redirect would be automatic, it looks like one should fix/alter the SORTKEYS if renaming a page. Does anyone know if leaving "Libyan Protest" sortkeys (etc.) in place and adding "Libyan Uprising" (etc.) keys would work?

I don't want to break any connections with other Arab/Libyan "Protest" pages unnecessarily. Praghmatic (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you define an uprising as a rebellion against authority, then all the Arab protests would be uprisings - including this one. I see, however, the logic in Praghmatic's statement though. Lawblogger18 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds are dead. As far as we know, the rebels aren't peaceful anymore, and thus is is closer to a Civil War.Ericl (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are as of yet no international bodies, governments or mass media describing the Libyan situation as a civil war. Therefore we at Wikipedia shouldn't, either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is way too premature. Wait until he steps down or die and then we will rename a Revolution‎. We did it for Egypt and Tunisia. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is way too premature, as we cannot say at the moment in which direction this is headed. Regime change? Civil war? Or beaten-down protest, and back to normal life? Until we have certainty about which direction this is going to take, a rename is not in order. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many unsuccessful uprisings. In Syria, Assad wiped out entire cities (in the 1970s I believe) to stop the Muslim Brotherhood there, and was successful. But those were uprisings too. There are more urgent things to worry about, and it does seem logically problematic since even Egypt is still listed under 'protests' in some contexts. So I won't press the point for now. But this is much more than a protest at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praghmatic (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The term protest is an euphemism for this situation--93.137.3.188 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Uprising flares in Libyan city http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122014259976293.html]--93.137.3.188 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Places are said under copntrol of protesters, with security forces locked or staying in their baracks. 140.120.55.63 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's going to be Libyan Revolution soon. Gaddafi has apparently fled the country according to Libyan Diplomat on Al Jazeera 140.180.13.29 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Hundreds of people have been massacred by their own government, 'protests' is simply an insult to their memory and their relatives. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a hugely violent event in which people have taken over whole regions and converted parts of the military to their cause? Clearly beyond "protests". Cjs2111 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who may be new to Wikipedia (welcome!), Be sure to look at Wikipedia:Requested moves for help in understanding what's going on here. If anyone has any questions related to anything at all about all of this, feel free to ask.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Regardless, there are many examples from both yesterday's and today's news coverage which describe what is currently occurring in Libya as being much more then "protests". For examaple: the New York Times summary article from this morning opens with "A five-day-old uprising in Libya took control of its second-largest city of Benghazi and spread for the first time to the capital of Tripoli late on Sunday as the heir-apparent son of its strongman, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, warned Libyans in a televised speech that their oil-rich country would fall into civil war and even renewed Western “colonization” if they threw off his father’s 40-year-long rule." (incidentally, how's that for a run on sentence? Let's hear it for the newspaper editors! lol). Christian Science Monitor reported today: "Al Jazeera Arabic reported that most of the police in Benghazi, a Mediterranean city to the east of Tripoli that has been the heart of the revolt, are now siding with the protesters." There are plenty of other examples from last night and this morning where coverage describes a "revolt" or "uprising", as well. Google news is our friend. :)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about: "Tripoli descended into chaos in less than 24 hours as a six day old revolt suddenly spread from Benghazi across the country and into the capital on Sunday." from Qaddafi’s Grip on Power Seems to Ebb as Forces Retreat (New York times)?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia presents the facts, not composes them. It's more known as protests (around the whole world by all media coverage), not as uprising. Check google, check the news for god's sake. Userpd (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, since that's exactly what I'm saying as well, except switch "protests" with "uprising" or "revolt"... or even, occasionally, "revolution", now. I even provided sources!
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with a day or two wait to be sure I'd like to wait a day or two but this is becoming very serious very quickly. There are already public divisions in the administration (As seen with the UN diplomats), military defection/asylum cases and reported cases of aerial bombings.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I'm not overly concerned with all of this. It's slightly disappointing that the process itself is needed, is all. Unless something crazy happens (which, seeing as how we're dealing with Libya here, I'll grant is something of a possibility...), we may be moving this to "2011 Libyan revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War" in the next day or so, regardless.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we also need multiple and diverse sources to show its not a pov statenemtnLihaas (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you talking about? Please resort to the discussion on hand instead of resorting to NPAs. What you cited as guideline is exactly what i mentioned. We DONT vote, consensus is built with reason. And what reason did Wonder al give?Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy? -- Al™ 07:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 6,000,000 hits for "Libyan uprising" on google, and there were only 4.5 million earlier today.. This is not a protest anymore, and it is unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Also, even if one goes with "protests" rather than "uprising", the correct English for the opening sentence would be "The Libyan protests are" and not the current "The Libyan protests is". Mtsmallwood (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is not social media or a caterer to google. but if you find the RS' and consensus then that would be reason enogh to change.
also chaned the lead. think it changed with the name change.Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refer Wikitionary: Protest: A collective gesture of disapproval, sometimes violent. Uprising: a popular revolt that attempts to overthrow a government or its policies; an insurgency or insurrection. Now, with the eastern half of the country in control of the insurgency, or rebellion, or whatever the correct term is, I think we can say this is not a "protest".Mtsmallwood (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous discussion. There are as of yet no international bodies, governments or mass media describing the Libyan situation as an "uprising", "revolt", "civil war" or whatever. Therefore we at Wikipedia shouldn't, either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF - this is a situation in which 75% of the country has been taken over by rebels, the air force is bombing civilians, and hundreds are dead. I cannot find a media source that is actually still calling this event a "protest" as opposed to an "uprising"; proponents of the move have documented many instances of "uprising" and opponents have merely countered with unsubstantiated impressions. And in any case, a protest = people holding picket signs assembling somewhere. ONCE THERE IS VIOLENCE ON ANYWHERE NEAR THIS SCALE, THE EVENT HAS GONE WAY BEYOND A PROTEST. I'm beyond belief that the name of this page hasn't been changed every time I look back. Cjs2111 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly coded this as a minor edit, my apologies, I was not seeking to avoid review by others. The unrest has clearly exceeded protests and is being referred to as an "uprising" in many different places.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - lets d it... Dinkytown talk 23:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should defiantly be under uprising, see Al Jazeera for example. -- Al™ 03:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8.4 million hits on Google for "Libyan uprising", up from 4.5 million yesterday, plus Al-Jazeera, plus, among many others, the Globe and Mail and The Economist.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this in the already existing section Requested move instead of starting a discussion of your own. Fragmenting the discussion will not help your cause. Thank you. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support name change to Libyan uprising. See posts above. Right now there are 12,100,000 Google hits for "2011 Libyan uprising". There are 52 million hits for "2011 Libyan protests" but this has gone well beyond a protest now. See definitions provided above.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: My perception is that there are, perhaps, many editors here to whom English is not their primary language. Of course, I may be mistaken, but I think that what I'm about to say here will be helpful to many who are native English speakers as well, so here it goes: to this American native English speaker, the word "protest" is fairly... "light". It doesn't seem very serious. Of course, I am American, so maybe that is coloring my views somewhat [seeing as how we have a "right to free speech" and all...]? "uprising", to me, describes some event where people take a tangible action against the government. "protest", to me, describes an event where people just voice their opinion that something or other "sucks". It therefore seems (blindingly) obvious to me, a native English speaker who happens to be an American, that "uprising" is a much better word choice then "protests". Hence, the proposal here for a name change.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know anything about that, but any description of this as "protests" is no longer accurate. Richard Engel, who is actually there, described it as "open revolt" and clearly stated that it had gone beyond protests, and it couldn't be called that any more. See my recent edit for quote and source.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that I'm rather long-winded. Be that as it may, I stand by my position above, which (interestingly enough) seems to parallel your own. stating that what is presently occurring in Libya is some sort of "protest" is almost farcical, to me.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Ohms law, if you don't mind me saying so, I think your arguments are rather POV, or even constitute original research. The wording protest "is almost farcical" to you, you say. However, the fact that some Americans take to the streets for the pettiest little legislation changes does not mean that the word "protest" itself cannot be used in reference to violent protest which is met by a violent government response. The idea that the word "protest" itself implies a low degree of severity or violence is simply ridiculous. BBC News calls it "Libyan protests", so do Al Jazeera English, MSNBC etc. etc. Let's keep to describing the facts instead of letting the connotations certain words have for us guide the naming of the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Economist calls it an uprising now too. See my recent edit for quote and sourcing.Mtsmallwood. .(talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC). Also, German Wikipedia is call this an Aufstand, which means uprising, and French wkipedia calls it a "revolte", which can mean either "revolt" or "uprising". So I don't think this is a matter of cultural bias. Mtsmallwood (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably correct in that there's no actual cultural bias involved here. That's simply the only explaination that I could dream up... although, in a way, there is a cultural bias here, it's simply not a national cultural bias. There's definitely a subset of the en.wikipedia culture that resists any sort of change, these days, regardless the logic inherent in the proposed change. It's sad, but that's simply somethign that we need to deal with these days. Obstructionists.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that this is a Talk page, as well. Stating that my opinion is "POV" or "original research" is... well, it's rather redundant. Pretty much everything on every talk page is someone's point of view and/or original research. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Aside from that, it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind that the relative severity of activities described by the word "protest" is less than that described by "uprising" or "revolt". Far from being ridiculous, I think that the level of support here indicated that my viewpoint here is more accurate.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the weekend. As an encyclopedia, we have the luxury of being a few days behind the curve. We should not push 'uprising' through, since there is so much in flux now. There could be serious counter-measures, or it could dissipate, or media blackout. Many things, and a name change during that time is not so wise. For many, it's already 'late', but on the scale of weeks and months, we are pretty much in line with where we can be sure fits. I say wait until there are more defections, international action, or massive demonstrations continuing through the week. Ocaasi (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see your point. However... in looking at what's actually occurring in Libya at the present... I wonder how anyone can describe what's currently occurring there as anyhting less then an "uprising"? Additionally, all reacent sources (within the last 24-32 hours) includes something similar to "uprising", "revolt", or "civil war" in it's reporting. Granted, anythign could happen, but the "we have plenty of time" argument cuts both ways. The preponderance of recent news reporting leans towards accepting this proposal, which is why I'm suggesting it.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yep. im seeing a lot of such soruces saying so. very inclinced to change my vote.(Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Strongly support name change to 2011 Libyan uprising A Foreign Affairs Minister (in this case Luxemburg's) calling the situaion to have evolved into a genocide, and that the international community should intervene is quite a big clue that this has become way more serious than a big protest. Most media sources, even here at Chile, are calling it an uprising. The Papo 5:23, 23 February 2011 (GMT -4)

Strongly support A quick Google search reveals that the BBC began referring to this event as an "uprising" as early as February 19th, Al-Jazeera began as early as the 20th, and CNN began as early as the 21st. As mentioned above, this event is now almost universally referred to as either an "uprising" or a "revolt". A quick glance at a dictionary and I believe "uprising" is the more appropriate term, despite their similarities.  Mokkan88  (?) 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although things may come into focus as either a Revolution or Civil War in another week, clearly there's much, much more than protests going on at this time. Froo (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support as per Mokkan88, the sources are calling it an uprising, so it works. TheArchaeologist 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) [reply]

Support Numerous diverse and reliable sources refer to it as an uprising rather than some "protests", which it clearly is more than. Jakarta Globe, ITN, Wall Street Journal, YNet News. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Various sources are refering to it as an uprising, and even civil war. Protest seems far too restrictive. [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.20.121 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second one of those links clearly refers to it as a protest. --Slon02 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support At this time it is clear Qaddafi has completely lost control of significant portions of the country and will need to use massive force he may or may not have at his disposal to re-assert control. Even if suppressed today uprising would be an apt label for what is occurring.Neumannk (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I strongly support waiting until we see the result of this. Also, I did a quick search of Google news. I got far fewer relevant results searching for revolt and uprising than I did for protest. Examples include [3], [4], [5]. --Slon02 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support As already said, whenever a tyrant decides to use warships and bombers against his own people and his army turns against him with most of the country in opposition hands it's obvious that the situation has progressed beyond anything remotely considered a "protest". Uprising or Revolt are both better than Protest, but the situation may quickly become a Revolution. Until that time comes, a name change is long overdue. JHanson712 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to uprising This is far beyond a protest now. Protesters don't take cities, change the flag, and fight troops loyal to a collapsing regime. Many sources are referring to the protesters as rebels, and even refer to battles the lose of control of cities by the Government. The Government lost control of areas of the countries, protests are staged inside said country. I understand it might seem premature to rename it to Civil War, because even though it gathers some characteristics, it's a bit early to say. However, it's far beyond "protests", and "uprising" seems to be what this situation most resembles. Sarejo (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above post, although I would argue that these events don't exhibit the characteristics necessary to distinguish it as a civil war. From what I've gathered, the opposition is vastly popular. I think it says something about Gaddafi's level of support given that he's relying both on foreign mercenaries and bribery to maintain support. Still, even that limited support seems to be waning given his response to the initial protests. I think uprising is a term which both accurately describes the current situation on the ground and will ultimately be used to label this conflict.  Mokkan88  (?) 06:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support NBC Nightly News called it a "rebellion;" the word protests is now in violation of WP:NPV my minimizing the unrest. I would also support renaming the article to 2011 Libyan Unrest, if that's a suitable compromise. --137.165.165.167 (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support No matter what happens, whether there's a regime change or civil war or even if the whole thing is quashed, it still can be called an uprising. A lot of people use the terms cited by the outside world but the foreign media uses everything from "unrest" to "civil war" to describe the current situation. I think it's fair to say that the current situation has gone well past the point of simply being a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.30.163 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support It's much more tha just protests, its an uprising that probably will become a revolution. Metron (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's what Aljazeera and CNN use too. There are so many more supports than opposes here now. Isn't it time to end vote and move acordingly? -Koppapa (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support When you measure deaths in the thousands, its no longer a protest, its a revolt; and soon (I promise) it will be a war. Jman8088 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support Canadian sources are referring to the event as an uprising as well. [6] [7] Sixer Fixer (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Air strikes, navy barrages, fierce battles, mass executions, massacres: ¿protests? You must be joking!!! This is civil war/uprising. There are people here having problems handling words, grasping meanings. 186.137.214.62 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strongly Support the people are challanging their goverment in a direct manner that is the dictionary definition of an uprising "Uprising - 1.the action of rising up; specif., an outbreak against a government; revolt" and given the violence, deaths and scale of this event to simply call whats happening in Libya "Protests" is both ludicrous and disrespectfull of the Libyan peoples efforts and sacrifices.

Strongly Support No Protests in the article name any more. And many media, like Al Jazeera, use Libya Uprising--1j1z2 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2011


For those who still insist and prevail in calling it a "protest":

1- Pro-test etymologically means pro-testare: (latin) "to testify in favour of" implies expressing an opinion, taking a position. There are some who cannot understand that there is a land between a protest and a revolution which name is uprising/revolt/rebellion.

2- I suggest you to check out the "Warsaw Ghetto UPRISING" wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising and compare it to what is going on in Libya now. Perhaps our experts should consider seriously requesting the move of the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" to the "Warsaw Ghetto PROTEST". This should be done for the sake of CONSISTENCY. Come on!!!!186.137.214.62 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Support This has gone way above mere protests. We have street battles, battles for control of cities. Millitary units defecting and arm distributions to protesters as well as the creation of revolution comities in eastern Libya. I find it hard how one can still claim these are "protests" as of now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.25.38 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seriously, this is no longer a series of protests. The article title needs to be updated. It isn't POV or OR in the slightest to make an observation. even if parts of the media is slow to change the way they refer to these events. John Smith's (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY Support Ad hoc governments are being established, military personnel are defecting, diplomats are resigning, government officials are fleeing - the people are taking control of the country. THIS IS AN UPRISING. Andalus7 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strongly Support In the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition article it's called Libyan uprising, so I think (apart from the reasons provided by everyone else before) we should change the name to keep consistency within the different articles. The Papo 21:34, 24 February 2011 (GMT -4)

Proposed move - 2011 Libyan civil war

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.
As of right now, there is no support to consider moving to 2011 Libyan civil war. If this changes in the coming days it can always be reconsidered.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Libyan protests → 2011 Libyan civil war - this is already a full scale civil war. [8] --78.0.243.9 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There's a difference between when two factions fight against each other in a civil war, and the people rise up against a government. Franklinville (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's more important to continue to improve the article rather than fighting about what it should be called. If it were to progress (which it hopefully won't) then we could move it later on, but it seems inaccurate at the moment AFAICT. SmartSE (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
easy oppose per Smartse anmd that the article is no where near sourced as such, a few people (the POV source gaddafi jr.) said so, but far from it. at any rate, a civil was i s determined in hindsight or when its well under way. and even pakistan is hardly called that.Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It doesn't matter if we think it is a civil war or a protest. What matters is the wording external sources use, i.e. WP:V. Unless someone can provide reliable sources showing that this now generally is described as a civil war by external sources, it remains as protest. 212.10.74.76 (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, same as those above me.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Protests do not have armed combatants on both sides. They do not have a split military killing opposition from both sides. Legitimate governments facing "protests" do not call for "rivers of blood" or order the execution of anyone who does not support the government, including dissenting members of the military, many of which have already been carried out. While the wording used by the media varies widely, the objective facts of a country that is only partially controlled by its purported government cannot be considered united as one country. These "protesters" have overtaken the second largest city as well as other cities in the eastern half of the country. This has been documented on U.S. TV by CNN, which has aired footage of reporters openly driving through Benghazi and Tobruk, showing a complete withdrawal of the government in these areas, including footage from a destroyed police department. Additionally, while firing on protesters does not a civil war make, the bombing and firings carried out by military loyalists with helicopters and snipers combined with the promises of more severe military attacks on the people of his own country by Khaddafi strongly imply a de-facto declaration of civil war. [9] [10] 98.109.93.163 (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I think this is pretty one-sided in the protestor's favour (not that that is bad, but must maintain NPOV ofc.) and as per civil war, I don't think they're really an organised group in the opposition (though some are part of political parties), it's just Gadaffi + a couple thousand troops and mercs v. Everyone else and his goat at this point. TheArchaeologist 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Oppose. I think "revolt" is a more appropriate word given its definition (see section below). Dmarquard (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Based on Google results limited to the past week the leading phrase being used is "Libyan Revolt", with 530,000, with "Libyan Revolution" only having 24,000 to 28,000 results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.169.239 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Strong Oppose This is a revolt/uprising/revolution. It is not a war between two factions within Libya. The clashes are between Libyans and mercenaries. Andalus7 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move - 2011 Libyan revolt

2011 Libyan protests → 2011 Libyan revolt Calling this page "protests" is now glaringly inappropriate. It is clearly a revolt against the standing government. An armed revolt. So say Reuters "Analysis: Libyan revolt likely to leave deep scars on oil sector" Al Jazeera, "Crushing Libya's revolt - Inside Story " even youtube "Videos for libyan revolt" It's an accurate, neutral term for armed opposition to a government by it's own oppressed people. It becomes a revolution if the people win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media seems to be split between 'revolt' and 'uprising', but 'protests' is a truly bizarre name for a event which has caused over 1,000 deaths.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Protest" will not be the ultimate name of these revolutionary activities. Still, this could ultimately be called any one of the following three things:
  1. A revolution,
  2. A civil war, or
  3. An uprising.
Traditionally successful movements of this type are called revolutions, failed movements of this type that are protracted are called civil wars, and failed shorter movements of this type are called uprisings. Let us stick with the name "Protest" until the outcome reveals itself more clearly.
Do a Google search on the terms: "February 17th" and Libya, and you'll get .25 million hits, all about these activities as far as I can see. It would seem that the Libyans themselves have already decided to name these activities after the date on which they were first called for, namely Feb. 17th.
Still, I think that this article needs to be moved to "February 17th Protest" soon. Scott P. (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just refactor other's talk page comments to fit in with your agenda - this was the original move proposal and title of this section posted by User:I.Casaubon and you've made it look like they proposed something else. I'm changing the title back. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the '17th' bit come from? raseaCtalk to me 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that would be a bad move. It suggests the protests were only on one day. About google hits. "december 24th" Libya has as many as feb 17. -Koppapa (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for Libyan Revolt or Libyan Uprising Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that 'protests' hardly describes the events currently taking place - indeed, the country may yet descend into civil war! However, there's no rush and I suggest that an appropriate term will emerge in due course. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to uprising with sources (plenty) which is similar to revolt and as a tiebreaker that has more precedence on wikipedia.
definately NOT a revolution, not yet nyaywas. its WP:Crystall Ball to suggest so. (even though im inclined to beleive hes got less tahn a week to go.(Lihaas (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Calling this page "protests" is now glaringly inappropriate. It is clearly a revolt against the standing government. An armed revolt. So say Reuters "Analysis: Libyan revolt likely to leave deep scars on oil sector" Al Jazeera, "Crushing Libya's revolt - Inside Story " even youtube "Videos for libyan revolt" It's an accurate, neutral term for armed opposition to a government by it's own oppressed people. It becomes a revolution if the people win.

Support. Verb: Refuse to acknowledge someone or something as having authority. Noun: An attempt to put an end to the authority of a person or body by rebelling. "Revolt" is an appropriate word for this article. I'm not sure the situation has matured to the point of an all-out civil war, but may in the future. Dmarquard (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Based on Google results, limited to the past week, and using quotes to filter out irrelevant sites padding the results, the leading phrase being used is "Libyan Revolt", with 530,000 results, the second closest result is "Libyan protests" with 276,000 results, and third is "libyan revolution", with 193,000 results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.169.239 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly support. "Revolt" or "uprising" all the same with me. Calling it a "protest" is absurd. Look at the map -- almost every city outside of the capital is in the hands of the insurgents. Protest implies a function government to protest against. There is no longer such a government in most of the country. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support. A protest, as defined on dictionary.com, is an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation. Revolt, as defined on dictionary.com, is the act of breaking away from or rising against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; casting off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government. It is obvious which defenition best fits Lybia's current state. In "normal" protests, citizens are not bombed, sniped, and shelled by their own government; 500+ people do not die in protests. The revolt should not be considered a revolution unless the government is overthrown. Lybian adversity has also passed the point of simple unrest. "2011 Lybian revolt" is the best proposed name change for the article. berries_and_cream_33 14:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support 'revolt' or 'uprising'. If a protest takes control of a territory or building, it has stepped beyond protest and will be known as such , whatever the outcome. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Calling it a protest is an insult at this point. It should be "revolt" or "uprising".TL565 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revolt is best option, uprising is something where we have the whole nation rise up. There is still a part of the nation that supports Ghadafi. I support name-change to revolt. And later on to civil war if this continues for a week more since today there have been open armed clashes between the opposition and loyalists like in Miserta.EkoGraf (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support These were protests when they started, and could be a revolution when they're finished. It would be premature to call them a civil war in just nine days, but calling them protests with such massive bloodshed and armed combatants on both sides is absurd, when a tyrant calls for mass executions of peaceful protests, they are no longer protests. The current situation is a revolt, with a distinct coalition of Gaddafi loyalists in the military and police as well as mercenaries bombing and shooting randomly into crowds demanding the end to his regime. User:Rush8799 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.93.163 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is not an uprising because Gaddafi started the armed conflict by ordering the military to fire on the protesters. This is the best title that is available now since "2011 Libyan civil war" was defeated above. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move - Libyan Revolution

By now, it is obvious that Gaddafi will not be in power for long. He only controls some of Tripoli. Most of his military is turning against him. I suggest that we postpone any changes until the almost certain fall of Gaddafi, and then rename it "2011 Libyan Revolution" (just like we did with Egypt). If Gaddafi miraculously manages to hold on to power, then we can consider a change.--RM (Be my friend) 00:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

There are about four name change proposals already lol. Please add your two cents in one of those. Though it won't be a revolution unless it is successful, and we do not change the name prematurely, but wait for the news sources to call it that. TheArchaeologist 00:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Agreed, unlikely to stay this way and "revolution" looks likely, but wait to see. No rush, as others have said. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eventhough this looks likely based on the bast two cases of this sort of demonstrations, we can't comment on the future --Guerillero | My Talk 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh we can comment, speculate, plan and prepare. We just shouldn't let it get into the actual article. TheArchaeologist 04:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Let's maybe agree on definitions?

Sorry if the placement is crappy, but I am looking at these and thinking we need to agree on definitions for each form of citizen defiance/ disobedience w/e. and not just pick what we think sounds prettiest in some some case. Maybe it will help us reach a consensus more easily. So that's what counts as protests, what counts as an uprising (or just rising (eg. Easter Rising), a revolt, a revolution, and a civil war. The three most popular seem to be Uprising, Revolt and Revolution, some are going for Civil War and a few want to keep Protest. So want to give your thoughts? TheArchaeologist 06:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved this to a more approppiate place as it was mucking up the RMbot - let's keep the requested move header next to the tag next to the opening reasoning. Put this is the logical time/date place instead. Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move - Libyan crisis

Libyan crisis, or 2011 Libyan crisis, non-specific and general enough to be acceptable now, better than "protest" which is now ridiculous. 140.120.55.63 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe this is the most neutral and descriptive title. I agree that "protest" is now ridiculous. "Revolution" and "civil war" are premature. "Revolt" is somewhat POV (it focuses on the actions of the protesters, although the government actions against the protesters are actually what had the most consequences). Nanobear (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems as equally POV as "revolt". It might be a crisis for Gaddafi, but not for those opposing him - do lots of sources use this term? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With +1000 killed, a whole country disrupted, it's a crisis for both sides. Yug (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. same as Nanobear. Revolution, coup, civil war need criteria which are not met. Yug (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the more news comes out the more "protest" becomes outdated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Calling it a crisis depicts it to be some sort of negative problem. This is an uprising, there is a general consensus that this should be happening and that it is a transition period for the people to take power.
Strong Oppose Positive or negative isn't really important, crisis tends to refer to instability or uncertainty, so far the outcome appears certain. I believe uprising remains the most accurate term for this as yet. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move - 2011 Libyan unrest

A neutral non-specific catch-all term for all the happenings. Eeven (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. "Unrest" is a broad term that could encompass events beyond the scope of these protests. While the definition does apply, I think we should try for a more specific term. Dmarquard (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming need NOW

Please, rename this article now. 2011 Libyan "protests" is ridiculous now. Don't matter which of the current competiting names (see upper), but several are better, choice one good for now, that's temporary and will still be improvable. Yug (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article needs to be renamed. Perhaps "revolt" is the most accurate description at this point. It may or may not devolve into a full-scale civil war[13], but it will be wise not to anticipate such a development prematurely in an article title. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title has actually been ridiculous for days. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this should be Libyan Revolt (or Libyan Uprising) Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest 2011 Libyan revolution once Gadhafi is ousted, as happened with the Tunisian and Egyptian articles. — MK (t/c) 14:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest neutral name conflict --93.137.26.108 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanPMK, we don't know Gaddafi will be ousted. We may be looking at weeks or months of civil war first. What we need to decide is the article title as of now, not after some hypothetical event in the future. Right now, these aren't "protests", it is a military conflict between different factions of the Libyan armed forces, plus various irregular troops on both sides. Describing this as "protests" is a joke. It is a "revolt" or "rebellion", if not an ongoing civil war. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the name should be changed to revolt and if this goes on for a week more or so than maybe to civil war.EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have no less than six of these topics now organized under a name change supertopic. Please give your opinions up there. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I left a (neutral, I think) message on WP:AN just a minute ago. Hopefully someone will be along soon to take a look at this and either close it one way or another... or, do nothing. We'll see.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Transition must begin now", "Protests" is ludicrous. 190.19.240.214 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support - Might I offer the term "uprising"? I believe it is most appropriate. 141.217.229.199 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving it now. This situation has changed quickly. I would not call it an uprising because Gaddafi's forces fired upon the protesters. The protesters did not start the armed conflict. Gaddafi did. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was unaware of the move protection. I will leave it alone for now. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - this is way beyond just protests now. It's a full-fledged uprising, with people saying it may evolve into a civil war before long. I'd say something to the effect of 2011 Libyan uprising would be much more accurate.--Witan (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

To source or not to source (I'm confused)

The claim about 11 soldiers being executed by their commanders (under "Casualties") used to be sourced. I'm linking to two versions of the article:

Today, before noon

Afternoon

When I click from the old version above to the BBC source, I get an article called "Libya protests: Pressure mounts on isolated Gaddafi", which says: "In Benghazi, reports say 11 solders were killed by their commanding officers for refusing to fire on protesters.". When I click from the more recent version above, I get a different article which does not support the claim. How can that be? Is there a technical problem with Wikipedia's formatting? Alfons Åberg (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is people giving names to references such as "BBCNews" in this case. Of course there will be more than one BBC News article used as a source in the article. If two different references have the same name, it causes these problems. I will try and correct it. Reference names should be unambiguous, making use of elements from the url or title for example. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but now I find the orginal source has been modified and no longer supports this claim. A look on google shows that another source that previously contained this claim has also been modified, so I don't think there are reliable sources supporting this claim right now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This claim reappears in this article, in which a doctor in Benghazi refers to nine body bags at his hospital that he has been told contain the charred bodies of soldiers that refused to fire on civilians: Fahim, Kareem. "In the Cradle of Libya’s Uprising, the Rebels Learn to Govern Themselves." New York Times. Feb. 24, 2011. Accessed Feb. 24, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/africa/25benghazi.html?hp Neumannk (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - "Gaddafi"

could anyone clean up the many spellings of this personal name through the article as there's no consistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.45.71 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - the original Arabic spelling is معمر القذافي. The first letter is ق, which is unianimously transcribed Q. Thus, a spelling with Q is supported by the original version. However, it appears that a spelling with G is more common in Western media. Wikipedia's article on him is called Muammar al-Gaddafi, although it also provides the alternative spelling "Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī". Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He must be Muammar al-Qadhafi. This is the best transliteration to his name--41.235.103.247 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi Bombards Tripoli (Air Strikes)

http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=231506 --Athinker (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this merits its own article perhaps something along the lines of Bombing of Tripoli. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added to Battle of Tripoli (2011), though. Metaknowledge (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not only Tripoli. Al-Jazeera said a few minutes ago that Azzaweya is being bombed, and there are rumors the same is going to happen in Benghazi. Ucucha 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bombing of Libya (2011) then? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The 2011 Libyan Uprising, or the 2011 Libyan Civil War.Ericl (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people adding more bullets to the timeline of events?

There is a clear message asking people to turn the events into prose a few hours ago I saw that February 21 was in prose but now is in bullet form, why are people doing the opposite of what the message is asking? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want to sound too much like an apologist here, but at this point I'd think that it's more important to simply get the breaking information into the article rather than to be overly concerned about its initial formatting. Write the rough draft before polishing it, you know? Not that what I'm saying here should be an excuse for people to just add a jumble of text items, willy-nilly; there needs to be a balance between getting things added and formatting it all well, is all. There's plenty of time to get the "final draft" ready... an infinite amount of time, really.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The raw data of fast-moving events needs to be processed; Wikipedia can't be encyclopedic immediately, like some modern Athena jumping full-grown from the forehead of Zeus, savvy? Wikipedia isn't journalism, but it is nonetheless the first draft of history. And the second. And the third. And the fourth. Und so weiter. kencf0618 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the question wasn't about adding bullet points - as I read Knowledgekid87s report, it was about reversion of prose into bullet points, which is against the hatnotes. We should decide what format we want for definite - above was said copy style of Egyptian protests article, so why not agree to do that? 86.138.62.95 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not a news organisation or social media, that is pov. its an encyclopaedia. something weve done all the recent protest pages.Lihaas (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added them, saw them above, didn't see that there was a discussion going on about that. In such context I think that bullet points might be justified, since they add clarity and make it easier to read, particularly with a little "headline". Don't need them, but think that they make it easier to follow what's going on. Derjanosch (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lihaas. I think we need stop IPs from editing for awhile. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geez... everyone just relax. Don't worry about this stuff to much; let's just work on the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, chill everyone. Process the info and put info as it comes, there is no rush. The actual news aspect is for Wikinews though, so it doesn't really matter if the article is behind by a few hours. :) TheArchaeologist 16:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Reply - because they want people to know what's happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfjkl1234 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a coupel of day's under a IP block to do a tidy up and then open it up. It should not be IP indeffblocked for ever, since it's not a mess like Egypt's page was.Wipsenade (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt mind if you want to request WP:Protest for 24-48 hours. adding a lot of nonsense.(Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Having had a fast look at the edits made within the last half day or so, blaming IP's is, quite simply, incorrect. Infact, some of the problems I resolved yesterday (I have a dynamic IP), broken references and alike, were mainly caused by registered users rather than IP's. If this changes and IP's start to present a serious problem compared to registered users, then yes, the article should be logged for IP's. That is not the case at present, however. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. People seem to have a knee jerk reaction towards semi-protection, but I'd put many of the IP edits here up against many of those by registered users. Pretty typical, in my experience. Thanks guys!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

news - needs sources

currently al jazeera english tv.

collection of news

italy evacuation in libya + berlusconi initially support/silent on gadafi, then concern on violence + libya airtstrikes, 250 killed in tripoli + 9 libyan diplomats resign (incl. india) and deputy at un calls for gaddafi to go (al zaquratha + miszuratha struck) + venezuela denied gaddafi is there + tunisian military on high alert as tunisians working in libya flee + lost touch with tunisian ambassador in triploi + brits evacauted + embassy staff in ukjoin protesters but not ambassador, libyan flag raised replaced with "independence glag" + airspace closed + [14]+reports of 2 planes of mercenaries arriving + clinton: "end unacceptable bloodshed" + state tv showing pro-gaddafi rallies + witness tells al jaz mostly "young men" + turkey struggling to evacaute --> planes turn back as benghazi air traffic not being monitored (some out by road) + 200 people protests outside istanbul consulate + sent 2 catamarans to take 300 passengers back + erdogan cautioned party members against any criticism on concern...+ us ambassador not present as left a few weeks ago after wikileaks scandal broke + 2 senior usa-based diplomats of libya resign saying theyre joining the "popular revolution" + ambassador to us condemns events but not resign + UN staff of libya write to current head of the sec council (brazil) to hold an aemertgency discussion one vents + ban ki moon "outraged" after first statements that was mor emoderate + some army officers call for the removal of gadafi + qatar pm. spoke out against the libyan reaction + arab league meeting in egypt tomorrow + malta refused libyan ambassador request to speak to 2 pilots + staff at malta embassy joining protests + pilots said more likely to go to malta because of peace treaty with italy-libya that could repatriate them + eu evacuees landing in mata + austrian/portuguese flew out citizens + [15] + landline and wireless comm. disrupted + [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/arab-stock-markets-fall-as-commodities-leap-2011-02-21 + gaddafi says hes in tripli + same chants as egypt and tunisia reported + solidarity protets (uk and us) + closed door un meeting on tues + embassy in malaysia fully behind protesters + [16] + [17] + [18] + [19][20][21] + planes not given permission to land in tripoli to evacuate + tunisians in benghazzi have no access out + "i will die as a martyt" gaddafi + interior minister resigns and calls on army to turn -- just after gaddafi praises him + peru breaks diplomatic relations + chile "extreme concern" + brazil "take notice to preserve security and free circulation of foreigners" + nicaragua "waging a great battle for unity of nation" "at difficult times loyalty put to test" + venezuela chavez no comment yet --> state "hope people can..." + fidel castro: "wait and see to ensure + usa pushing nato to invade" + libyan pilot escaped to swiss saying he knowingly carried mercenaries to his home city of benghazi (possibly mauritanian, black africans) + holland also getting its people out + navi pillay human rights cheif calls for inquiry into attacks + dubai, baghdad, byc, dc, london solidarty protests + john kerry to reimpose sanctions + students concerns scholarship revoked if at anti-govt protests + russia warning of future instability and "fanatics" in power libyan naval vessel in malta waters -- reason unkwnon + malta refused leave for its forces + unhcr 300000 could flee + us cant evacuate by air so offered to pay for boat rieds to malta with priority to those on medical condition then first come first serve + 2 planes to be sent to libya at some point to get 1000s of tunisians out + [22]>> Berlusconi's `Slavish' Courtship of Qaddafi to Befriend Libya Haunts Italy + senior aide Youssef Sawani to saif resigns + oil price up as gaddafi may order sabotage of pipelines + libyan ties to juventus[23] + 1 pilot ejected from aircraft rather than bomb + [24]>> CANADA STOCKS-TSX ends flat as Libya crisis buffets markets[25] + ban ki moon -> peaceful transition, navi pillay --> no fly zone + au deplores + largest ever turkish evacaution and request more help, 25000 citizens there + western cityMisuratah won by protesters + india to evacuate 18000 to tunisia and egypt, waiting for air and sea clearance + eu interior ministers meet in rome to coordinate + >> VIX Posts Biggest Two-Day Increase Since May as S&P 500 Tumbles[26] + amnesty for waeapons sezied offered + [27] + [28] + red crescent wanrs pf "catastrophic exodus" of libyans. (press tv) + > \Oil Approaches $120 on Libya Crisis; Goldman Sees ‘Upside Risk’ + ]\[ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/oil-rises-0-4-to-97-66-a-barrel-in-new-york-reversing-earlier-losses.html >? Oil Drops a Second Day as Supply Assurances Ease Libya Concern] + [29] + [30] +[31] + [32] + greeks evacauted + china sends naval ship from piracy duties to protest evacuating ships + germany calls for ?? and ?? + >> 'Gaddafi mirrors US, EU imperialism'>> 'Gaddafi using mercs to attack people'> Gaddafi may seek asylum in Africa + [33] + >> Gaddafi mercenaries kill Palestinian + >> Countries and companies scramble to get citizens out of Libya>> Libya: What happens after we stop watching these revolutions against Col Gaddafi?[34][35][36][37][38]

Map

Someone should fix the map on the infobox, There are 7 cities with 11 red balls. Bani Walid looks like it belongs in two areas (with Bani in 1 and Walid in the other). and few others.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that the map should be clickable, and be somewhere other than the infobox. The picture in the infobox should be of the protests. Rivkid007 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: the map should not have info like who did it or how long it took (although the pop. density map is brilliant) and secondly according to the 20th citation, Sirt has been "liberated" by anti-Gaddafi forces, so that should be updated on the map or verified throughout the article. 76.126.68.184 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues concerning the map that are mentioned here have been addressed. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split apart

Considering the lack of participation here, let alone the lack of support, I'm going to archive this and remove the "split" tag form the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
lack of participation, let alone support, indicates that this proposal will not succeed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting somewhat long, I suggest we split the article. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split off timeline

I suggest that the timeline section be split into its own article, so that it can grow organically, as now it gets quite long in this article. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split off international reactions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{split|International reactions to the 2011 Libyan protests}}

I suggest that the international reactions be split off into its own article, as it is quite long, and the international reactions have less to do with the internal interactions of the protests than in other countries like Egypt. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

timeline can wait, this is generally the first go go. timeline is the essence of the article.
 Done add the page when and if consensus is given(Lihaas (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Since you started the split process I had to finish it off - we can't leave the new article's content here as well or it will get edited differently. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

February 17 Protest?

need mention of this even if the page doesnt change. many pol. leaders are rhetorically calling it as such.(Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Who? Also we need some reputable sauces (sources) for this mate. TheArchaeologist 16:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Do a Google search on the terms: "February 17th", and Libya, and you will get .25 million hits, all of which seem to be referring to this date as if it was expected to become some sort of major Libyan "Independence Day" just like the American 4th of July, or the Mexican Cinco de Mayo. At this earlier stage of the protests, I think that it is reasonable to call it the "February 17th Protest", as this seems to be the one date that the Libyans have agreed upon to refer to these protests by. I would suggest moving this page to this name, and if the protest turns into a successful revolt, then move it to the "February 17th Revolution" page. If it seems to have failed for some unexpected reason, then move it to the "February 17th Uprising" page. Scott P. (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it "February 17th" anything is likely to be confusing as it implies the protests only happened on that day. Sure we can clarify this in the article, but the title needs to be unambiguous without further explanation. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Several flag images shown on the news is not the red-black-green-with white crescent and star flag, instead they are red-black-green, where the black stripe is plain and unadorned. This should be added to the article, if someone could draw up such an image file. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it's at File:Flag of Libya (2011 protests).svg. —Nightstallion 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 probably is home made. Due to the monarchist flag bring old and not easily avalible people must have made their own flags and it would be easier to make a flag of basic lines of colors from the old one then making the full version with the moon and star. Spongie555 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of like the Ink Flag then, ha! TheArchaeologist 07:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)


on the "history of libya" the second flag of guadhafi is not there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Egypt_1972.svg <= this is this flag from 1972 to 1977, just before the green flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.23.10 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Infobox

I saw our new infobox picture has File:Flag of Libya (2011 protests).svg as the flag to represent the protestors but i think it should be the File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg flag as it is widly used more by the protestors as shown in this photos in this news article and many other news sources, [39]. Spongie555 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole box was inserted without consensus and is rubbish. its highly dubious and pov to cite, the flag represents no official movement which means its WP:Synthesis.(Lihaas (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I agree with Lihaas(my comment came before the whole box was changed). Spongie555 (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
want t o rvt? its unanimous here?(Lihaas (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I think the infobox needs to stay, this has turned into a military conflict and the infobox reflects that.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing happened while I was working on Egyptian protests. Some people don't understand the difference between what a civil war is and uprising, protest or a revolution. I agree with lihaas. someone beside me needs to address this issue. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are at the moment two infoboxes. I am removing the one for the uprising, since this has pretty much developed into a proper armed conflict. Having two boxes describing the same event is IMO not useful. Gryffindor (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

background

need to expand: for disenfranchisement (though im quite surprised) economically and the global tiffs like that with swiss and bulgaria recently (even if the latter is less relevant)(Lihaas (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Battles.

I'm just curious, with this recent battle in Tobruk and with Opposition forces trying to take cities away from Gaddafi by force, do you think it would be fare to make Battle pages?

207.6.34.122 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dont think its warranted. how much content can we get that would differ from here? good idea though. if it expands then yes. (though tripoli and benghazzi could be on to somthing..)(Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
If there are pitched battles with a sufficent amount of detail to make an article, than i imagine it would be a good idea to make articles about them. I wouldnt expect any big assault to happen for a few days though, each side is in shambles at the moment and not really capable of launching dedicated assaults on each others positions.XavierGreen (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool idea? definitely. Realistic? not at all, unfortunately. Without media access at all (although, that may be changing?) there's no reliable means to create articles about the battles that surely are taking place. Apparently there was a small unit battle in Az Zawiyah today, for example. That was reported by the New York Times, so there's fairly reliable information that the battle actually occurred... but there are no details, and I wouldn't expect any details to become avaialble any time soon. So, unfortunately, "maybe later" seems to be an appropriate answer to this question.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are definitely battles occurring in Az Zawiyah and Misurata, but there is so little information emerging from Libya at the moment that there's not much of a point in separate articles. Ucucha 00:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the Battle of Misurata by now. Ucucha 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These "battles" hardly deserve the title of one. This is becouse the forces involved are very limited as well as the casualties sustained. I would regard them as skirmishes therefore would advise creating a skirmish article where all the skirmishes are outlined. I think that Tripolli will truly be a battle but untill now we have seen only skirmishes. Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question on NPOV

Is it allowed by wikipedia policy to be openly pro-protesters of Democracy concerning this article?

I think it should be. --Athinker (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way it works is WP:RS. Wikipedia is never pro-anything, but since the vast majority of our sources agree on their perspective on these events, things will sort themselves out automatically. It's the same with other criminal regimes. Wikipedia isn't "anti-Nazi", but since almost all our sources are (because no author in their right mind would take any other position), our articles turn out that way. It's the proper way to reflect the consensus in relevant literature. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where many high quality sources support one version, and a minority support another, please also see WP:WEIGHT. Beyond publications by Gaddafi's own regime (his TV, newspapers, etc), which can be considered questionable for a whole range of reasons (self-published, unduly self-serving, questionable fact-checking, etc → WP:RS), the only pro-Gaddafi source I've seen has been the brief statement by Daniel Ortega, which strongly suggests the pro-Gaddafi view is a distinct minority, and therefore does not deserve much space as in this article (as I believe already is the case). But perhaps I'm just missing something. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the word "protests" is absurd at this point. It should read: revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for us to be pro- or anti- anything, regardless of sources. Wiki is not pro anything, we reflect what sources say, and do not put things in a way which suggests that Wiki is supporting them. In the Nazi example, for instance, wiki would not say "the nazi's were bad". It would state facts and describe how the nazis are viewed by historians, etc. Just to make sure it's clear that Wiki has no opinion. It has no facts of its own. It relies solely on a balanced representation of these things from other credible sources, given due weight. It's the difference between saying something like "The protestors are totally justified" (POV) and saying, "According to (credible source), Y% of the Libyan population supports the protestors". That doesn't functionally elminate bias, but it at least weeds out direct opinion. Then it is up for us as the editors to sort out whether the referenced bits are given due weight, etc. There's never a lack of bias, even in just a statement of facts, but this process helps minimize it.Jbower47 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should read Libyan Civil War.Wipsenade (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but…

… this was just too stupid (no offense meant). I had to edit the “umbrella” bit because it just read too silly. Analysts? Really? Reading that part I could just envision a Monty Pythonesque scene… the analysts in front of the TV… “HMMMM he’s carrying an umbrella” “IT MUST BE RAINING” “CALL THE NEWSPAPERS” Plus, that he is carrying an umbrella lends credibility to nothing. It’s merely consistent. And the source isn’t quite right either. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the blame for this. I never really intended the edit, as it was, to stand for as long as it has. I've been rather busy with real life for the last week... but, the thing with "analysis" was just a rough draft, you know? Actually, the whole point was a rewrite of something that someone else wrote to begin with, regardless... so, maybe I shouldn't feel too bad. Hey, at least it wasn't full of typos, right?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as i said, no offense meant, it's just that reading that analysts deduced that it might be raining for seeing an umbrella... you know... :D Also i didn't like the "lends credibility" because it's just incorrect, imo.But we're all doing our part here, so that's coolIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 13:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I agree. :) No offense was taken; Thanks for helping out!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good God, polite friendly agreement on the internet! The world must be ending soon.... TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out population density

It's a minor matter, but the map File:LibyanCivilWar.jpg of what territories are held contains a population density map which isn't very detailed. For example, it doesn't convey the extreme density of the Tripoli area relative to all else. Also, it has a digital watermark warning... So I wanted to make a new population density map, only to find out that Gadhafi has been excessively creative drawing and redrawing Districts of Libya. As a result, I was able to find km2 sizes for 15 of 22 of the modern districts in Libya, but the other 6 evade me. (Although, while Libya gives census information broken down by the 22 districts, it's a 2006 census and the redistricting was done in 2007...) I think I can make an SVG map using File:Lybian Shabiat 2007 with numbers.svg if I can get sizes for the other 6 districts - could someone fill in that data in the table at Libya? Thanks. Wnt (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchist element

In addition to waving the old flag, I have read and seen pictures of protesters holding pictures of the late King Idriss, and read an Al-Jazeera article calling restoration "possible", so is there a monarchist element and should the article mention it?

--Simfan34 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article a photograph

That article, by my reading, specifically says that the revolters aren't monarchists, though. I'm a bit confused, here...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There definitately are some monarchists among the rebels, but they dont seem to be leading the movement and as far as i know neither of the two claimants to the throne has returned to libya as of yet, though one of them has said that he does intend to return. As for what his intentions are when he arrives, i have niether heard nor read anything about.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both princes have made interviews for top news stations, Muhammed, [40] and Idris, [41]. Spongie555 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless there shall be a nod to the past, but the Libyan Pretenders shall, I suspect, devote themselves to charitable works in whatever new regime is set up. The current usage of the old, pre-Gadaffi royal flag is ipso facto anti-Gadaffi; he seized power in a coup in 1969, remember. Think Dubček; it'll be a new era's recognition of a past era before the past, so to speak. kencf0618 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I (no native speaker of English) understand this article, there are no comments given whatsoever by the protesters concerning the issue of monarchy or republic. They are anti-Gaddafi, that's it, and the old flag is mainly referred to as 'flag of independence'. I am sure that at the moment they are occupied by other things than discussing the question, if there should be a king or a president in post-Gaddafi Libya. (sorry for possible language mistakes)--Altaripensis (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders and leaders

Can we really come up with no one who has been driving forward protests, demonstrations, or offensives? I'm aware the opposition is largely spontaneous and lacks leadership on the national level, but individual officers who have mutinied could potentially be added here, or any protest leader with a citywide profile. I'm just surprised the section is left completely blank. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some educated guesses, personally. however, it's not what we think that matters. What matters is what the sources (read: news reports, at the moment) are reporting... which, in terms of this particular topic, is nothing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gadaffi biases : need neutrality to explain current conflict

Nutshell: Anti-Gaddafi biases torpedo explanation, there is still people supporting him, why? What are Gaddafi positive achievements ?

Hello, the recent events are against Gaddafi, pro political rights, and anti-dictatorship, that's a fact.

But! from key indicators (!) : literacy rate, education, Human development index, purchase power, it seems that INDEED, Gaddafi has also positive achievements. Under his rules, the government DID improved a lot the situation of Libyans, and more than in other nearby countries (source in the Background section). He leaded Libya from an almost medieval tribal society (1960's) to the current rich and well educated country. Digging in this direction: achievements, ideological leadership, then only we may explain the loyal and amazing support he still enjoy in part of the society, and so, the ongoing conflict.

However, the current article is almost only anti Gaddafi. Please, help to restore balance by documenting his positive achievement, an social support. Yug (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not really. This article is about the Libyan revolution, not about the achievements of the former government. Neutral Point of View means describing the revolution according to reliable sources and without bias. That’s all. If someone has reliable sources and wants to write an article regarding Gaddafi’s achievements, that’s a different article, and in said article you’ll be able to read about Gaddafi’s achievements, and not the revolution. It’s just two different thingsIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is reading this article we don't know WHY there is pro-Gaddafi. Almost ALL is pro-protesters. If the situation was so clear, why is there a war ? 140.120.55.63 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because Gaddafi has an army and hired mercenaries. I see what you're saying, but mercenaries do not indicate loyalty, imo. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add somthing on Gadaffi that is like water supplys and bad things like torture.Wipsenade (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, here’s what I’m getting from the news: the Libyan people are revolting and want to overthrow Gaddafi’s government. Libyans representatives and ambassadors are resigning as a protest against Gaddafi. People on the street are clashing with the Libyan Army, which is still loyal to Gaddafi. Gaddafi exhorted his loyalists to fight the revolt, but as far as I know no one is fighting “for” Gaddafi. Members of the army deserted and basically the whole country with the exception of Tripoli is in the hands of the opposition.

Now, this is what I can read on the news, and what – consequently – you’ll read on Wikipedia. This article deals with the Libyan revolution. It’s not a place to write about Gaddafi’s achievements.

If anyone has reliable sources claiming that, in fact, a “civil war” of sort between anti-Gaddafi and pro-Gaddafi forces is happening, of course cite said sources and write about it. But I doubt this is what’s actually happening, at least according to… uh… all media in the world? So, please, stay in-topicIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "as far as I know no one is fighting “for” Gaddafi". Are you naive ? There is not +1000 deaths without people to shoot at protesters. After one week of blood, Tripoli is still in pro-Gaddafi's hands, starting to fall (?). There are people fighting for the Gaddafi's status quo. They have been pro-Gaddafi's protests. Key indicators (literacy rate, education, Human development index, purchase power), ideology, may explain these supports. Medias are naturally pro-protester, while pro-Gaddafi's opinions / rational are scare, that's why -as an encyclopedia- we need to dig to find out this. Thus only, we will explain the situation. Yug (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, the army is (apparently) on gaddafi's side. That doesn't mean that we have reliable sources for a pro-gaddafi part of population. If a reliable source states so, of course cite it and write about it. Literacy rate etc don't really fit into that, and i also feel it would be OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.57.47 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree: the fact that quality of life improved under his regime does not make this a significant point of his supporters. Supporters might support him for a lot of reasons. Within the supporters, the ones that support him due to literacy rate, purchase power, etc. might be a minority. Without proper analysis, backed by verifiable facts, one can't say anything. And Wikipedia doesn't do analysis by itself; it publishes analysis made by secondary sources.
Citing the relevant policy, WP:SECONDARY says: Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
And I will agree with Yug too: I think the article can't be considered "neutral" before it discuss reasons for his continued support (on wherever he might still enjoy it). But as I understand, no pro-Gaddafi data (or anti-Gaddafi data, for that matter) can really be added unless it is backed by a reliable secondary source analysis, that establish its relevancy to this context. --187.40.204.220 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and losses in infobox

There is too much detail presenting itself as fact. Is it really realistic to suggest only two policeman have been killed? If we see a news report of a child being killed, do we add "1 child killed" to the infobox? Right now it looks like this:

Casualties and losses

465 protestors killed,
130 rebel soldiers killed[5][6][7]
111 soldiers killed[8]
65 mercenaries killed[9][10]
2 policemen killed[11]
1 militiaman killed[12]
236 mercenaries captured[13][14]

300–2000+ killed [15] 5000+ injured[16][17]

We need to keep this as a summary of the totals, so unless a source states the figures it gives are an estimate of a total, we don't include it in the infobox.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted "111 soldiers killed" as it was a 3-day old report from state-TV and so unlikely to be an accurate total now. Also removed "65 mercenaries killed", as it was a sum of two seperate reports from 19 Feb, not anything like a reliable total to put in the infobox. Both of these figures remain in the Casulaties section where we can give proper context including the dates.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, to remove their casualties from the box just because they are three days old is a little too much. The numbers we have are the only numbers. If you want a compromise solution I propose this. Put 111 soldiers killed (by Feb. 20) and 65 mercenaries killed (by Feb. 19), so that way it will not be missleading. Also those two battles, which in fact are battles since both sides are shooting at each other, should at least be merged into the timeline or uprising article, the information has been edited by many others besides me and that information should not go to waste. Thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it's not simply because the figures are old. The information is in the casulaties section of the article with the clarification that these are single reports. For the mercenaries, one source says 30 mercenaries were killed in one location, and another says 35 in another. Neither sources claims these are anything like the total number of mercenaries killed. To add these two numbers together and represent them as a total in the infobox is misleading. For the state TV report of soliders killed, you could add this in the infobox if you can fit in a disclaimer that it's a state report from 23 Feb. You should discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Casualties and losses in infobox here - don't jsut add the information back again until the discussion reaches a conclusion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries from Mali

We have once source that states: "...with eyewitnesses saying the French-speaking troops hail from nearby African countries such as Mali, Niger, and Chad. Although there is little independent media access to verify the events unfolding in Libya, experts say Colonel Qaddafi has strong relationships with various African warlords and rebel groups, some of whom may now be filling the role of for-hire mercenaries." This is enough to state "there was a report that Gaddafi had deployed French-speaking mercenaries from nearby countries such as Mali, Niger and Chad" but it is not enough to support placing Mali in the infobox list of countries that have supplied mercenaries. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. While above is entirely correct, please note that this barely differs from the basis for including Chad and Niger in the infobox, which is based on claims by one side of the conflict (quote from the ref: "The protesters accuse Gaddafi of sending foreigners from Libya's southern neighbors of Chad and Niger"). At present, I believe all claims of exact country are based on speculations without uninvolved confirmation. This The Guardian article perhaps stated it best: "Their origins vary according to speculation: Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Mali, Sudan and possibly even Asia and eastern Europe." In other words, including two countries (Chad and Niger) based on questionable sources (one side of the conflict), but not another (Mali) because the source is considered questionable is problematic. Either both go, or neither. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were multiple sources for Chad and Niger which is why I left them in the infobox, following what you have said and having reviewed these source I think we should remove mention of specific countries from the infobox. We could expand the section dealing with mercenaries per the Guardian article you cite, as at the moment it is merely a list of reports. The infobox however is something the reader sees before reading the article, and should provide only a summary of known facts - there is not space in the infobox to mention the possible unreliablity of reports. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is the best solution until we start getting confirmed info from uninvolved sources. Here is another source that deals with the issue: "It is said the fighters are from Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan. But the reality is hard to pin down." 62.107.209.191 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mercenery thing appers to be an anti-Gadaffi hoax by the rebels. Infact they were local malitia.Wipsenade (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? I don't see how all of the reports from different regions could be a deliberately co-ordinated hoax.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can understand, few doubt the accuracy of claims saying that Gaddafi use foreign mercenaries. What remains to be confirmed by uninvolved parties is the exact countries they originate from. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i give you a good link of the current situation of the cities en libya, The link is from "El Pais" the most important newspaper from Spain. Here is the link : http://www.elpais.com/graficos/internacional/revuelta/libia/toma/ciudades/norte/Tripoli/Sirte/elpepuint/20110225elpepuint_2/Ges/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.243.106 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same source says the Warfallah are with the protesters and the Margaha and Gaddafa (Gaddafi's tribe, so no surprise here) with Gaddafi. Time to put them in the info box?--150.244.131.195 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are Kenyans there to.Wipsenade (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenery news

It was confirmed on Thursday by Col Gaddafi's former Chief of Protocol Nouri Al Misrahi in an interview with the Al Jazeera that Malian, Nigeran, Chadian and Kenyan mercenaries are among foreign soldiers helping the besieged Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi fight off an uprising[1].

I think this aspect is getting very intresting.Wipsenade (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, as I noted previously, this is one side of the conflict (Nouri Al Misrahi defected, and therefore has a clear interest in the anti-Gaddafi side winning). WP:RS specifically warns about self-serving sources. Of course, that is the problem with a large part of the 2011 Libyan uprising (not just mercenaries); most reports are based on info by one side of the conflict, as there are few confirmations by uninvolved parties. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in the South-West

The map currently has no info on what's going there. Reports say that the Tuareg living there are fighting against Gaddafi, Ghat was shown as one of the cities with "protests" in early versions of this article and Awbari was said to have been attacked by Tuareg (though the lack of new info on this could mean they were repelled by pro-Gaddafi forces). --150.244.131.195 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but at this point all of the tribes living in or around the area have formally defected or informally broken ties with the regime. If the attacks had been repelled, then they should have been followed by a brutal crackdown. We know the gov't still holds Ghadamis in the West and Sabha in the central area, but there don't appear to be any reports at all from the areas south or east of there. This probably means that the authorities in the far southwest are ambiguous in their stance and the region is strategically irrelevant to the conflict, so the area is truly under the control of neither force.--Henohenomoheji (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice refactoring

I'd just like ot offer kudos to whomever it was who rewrote/re-factored the "Timeline of mercenary activity" into the current "Possible mercenary activity" section. Nice work!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started it to clarify that there is are uncertainty surrounding the reports, but it still needs some work.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail has a very different map

I just ran across a lovely but far grimmer map in the Daily Mail which credits the opposition with control only over a small coastal region in the East [42] as of February 25. I think it's important to figure out how there could be such a wide difference of opinion. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The present map is problematic for a number of reasons. I believe it qualifies as POV and we should change to a new map immediately/as soon as possible. We find issues regarding credibility of the information -- the map is from a twitter user who cites "sources found on the internet." Do we know what these sources are, and whether they meet our guidelines as credible sources? The map itself points out its own lack of quality by calling itself "a mess" and stating it was created in only 15 minutes. This is the most important story over the last several days and it's concerning to see such a problematic graphic here. I'll note in following this story closely for the last number of days, it's been vague and unclear what areas are still under Gaddafi's control. Also: the term "liberated" is definitely POV, might I suggest a change to "opposition controlled"? This article should serve as a neutral encyclopedia entry and not a political attempt to rally sentiment against Gaddafi -- I might personally sympathize with attempts of that nature at present, but there are other places for that, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the map had gone from the article, and I just reverted its re-addition stating that it was "out-of-date, possibly inaccurate and does not have transparent sourcing". If someone can create a new map addressing these concerns (and the copyright problem) that would be great.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela's Reaction

The map of international reactions appears to show Venezuela shaded yellow, indicating that protests have been made of the human rights situation in Libya. To the contrary, a series of sources seem to indicate that Hugo Chavez continues to back Qaddafi: [43] [44] [45]Neumannk (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Wipsenade (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warfalla tribe

Just a quick note that I've started an article at Warfalla tribe. Anyone interested is more than welcome to help out.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan 'royalty' and 'princes'

Those with a claim to the Libyan throne in the event of a monarchy being re introduced are not presently recognised as royalty by Libyan law. Whatever one thinks about the quality of governance of Libya over the past decades, there is no doubt as to who has been the internationally recognised government. Titles such as 'Prince' are equally not legally recognised at present, and have not been for decades. Speculation about whether a new regime in Libya will involve the reinstatement of the monarchy is just that, and does not justify suddenly calling individuals with claims 'Prince' or 'royalty'. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it is best to use terms like pretender. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, my post above was just to clarify why I had amended the title of that section of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually both pretenders where born before Gaddafi took power which means there titles are recognized by the former kingdom. Even though it is the former kingdom that government was recognized by the international community. If they where born during Gaddafi pretender would be more suitable. Also an example we still use royal titles for former monarchs would be Constantine II of Greece which many people and news still call king of greece. Spongie555 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks at the Pretender article, it accurately, describes these "princes". A pretender is someone who claims entitlement to a throne when someone else is the monarch in power or the monarchy has been abolished. Monarchs have not been the heads of state of Libya for many years. Thus, royal claimants to the throne of Libya are by definition pretenders. It's an objective classification regardless of one's value judgments about whether monarchy is good or bad. (On a side note, Constantine's article refers to him as a former king of Greece. The monarch was abolished, so he's not the king.) --JamesAM (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a response from Prince Hashem al-Senussi, brother of Idris. He is not a pretender to the throne like his brother though. So I guess technically the heading is inaccurate now. - dwc lr (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The former kingdom does not exist, has not existed for over four decades, and is not capable of recognising anything. That argument is as bizarre as saying that Gorbachev is still the President of the USSR.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We still refer to Gorbachev as the former USSR leader. Spongie555 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should refere to them as former princes as they had those titles during the kingdom of Libya like Constantines articles does with former king.(that is what I ment but phrased it wrong) Spongie555 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we should probably refer to them however the sources do. It is easier that way and it is what we are supposed to do anyway. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources give them a princely title from what I have seen. At any rate all royalty articles on Wikipedia use titles even if the country is republic like Germany, all members with articles of the former ruling families are given titles. - dwc lr (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some countries the monarchy has been abolished but titles are still legally recognised in some way. In such cases it is justifiable for the title to be used by Wikipedia without qualification. In cases where the monarchy has been abolished and titles are not legally recognised, as in Libya, there is no justification for Wikipedia using what are in effect self-proclaimed titles. If other articles are wrong then that does not justify this article also being wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and should not be giving legitimacy to the claims of royal pretenders. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Germany does not recognise titles either. Most titles are used and given as are courtesy, such as with these Libyan princes where the media are routinely calling them ‘Prince’. - dwc lr (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Russia we still refer to the Royal family there by their titles even though it's not recognized. Spongie555 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is 'we'? Do you know of a Wikipedia policy on this because I can't find one. However a royal family requires a kingdom and a king or queen, there is no royal family in Russia. They can call themselves what they want, and others may choose to join in, but the reality is that there has been no royal family in Russia for 80 years. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). There is no distinction made between ‘ruling’ and ‘non ruling’. I don’t have much of a problem with using ‘Pretender’ although there are responses from three members of the Libyan Royal Family now, Crown Prince Muhammad, Prince Idris and his brother Prince Hashem. Only two can be called ‘Pretenders’ so technically the heading is inaccurate. - dwc lr (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still say stick with what the sources say like we're supposed to in this case. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising

Can someone complete the split of Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising ? The duplication needs to be removed from this article, and a summary put in its place. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting work on this. Check back in a half hour. Sanpitch (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarized the timeline. A significant milestone which seemed to separate the stages of the "uprising" was news reports calling it a "civil war". Sanpitch (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tripoli

The media is calling the final battle; Battle of Tripoli. I know there is an article already called Battle of Tripoli (2011). It hasn't been mentioned in this article. Also, the media believes this is the final battle, is this correct? and is this battle currently taking place? or the people haven't gotten there yet? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What media? Edison (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The battle is currently not taking place. I believe the skirmishes that take place and the overall rebellion against Gadaffi is termed the Battle of Tripolli. I believe the real battle will be quite bloodys and If I were Gadaffi I would withdraw all my forces from surroundings and defend the city. The main oposition goal is the city and if Gadaffi wins the battle there the opposition morale will be broken severly and the millitary set back would be drastic. This would then allow Gadaffi to take back lost land.Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a "Battle of Cairo" before Mubarak gave up? This is a crystal ball exercise so far, grandiose, and premature. Shootings of demonstrators and atrocities toward civilians do not constitute a "battle" That requires two military forces in conflict. So far one military force only is in action in Tripoli, with big talk from opponents in Benghazi. Edison (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated that article for AfD.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background/History tone & source issue

The 3rd paragraph in the "History" section is taken solely from a single newspaper site and a blog at that. It doesn't seem that it would fit the nature and NPOV standards of Wiki. I don't know a whole lot about the particular issues the section deals with but I know it needs to be changed. The 3rd paragraph also gives the idea that because of Gaddafi's "absolute failure" (a term that may be hard to fully vindicate) Libya should be a wreck economically and in other ways whereas the 4th paragraph talks about the GDP & education levels being higher than that of surrounding nations calling Libyans rich and well-educated, conflicting with the above. If someone could fix this and add some "facts" that aren't coming from a "staff notes" blog from The New Yorker it would be great. Coinmanj (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Well maybe this will be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.125.207 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.Wipsenade (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the CIA WFB, ya? Why is Al Jawf not shown with anything? Do not discount Al Jawf good sirs. ._. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misratah/Misrata (or however you want to spell it, just east of Tripoli) is controlled by anti-Gaddafi forces. "Fighting" is based on the pro-Gaddafi attack that happen on the 24th as reported in BBC's article from that day (see link among sources for the map on commons), but as the BBC and others reported on the 25th, it was repelled by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The same happened in Zawiya aka Zuwarah on the 24th, but it is correctly shown as being under anti-Gaddafi control. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it in the article to replace the Gaddafi pic in the infobox, as it seems to be well-sourced. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that this map has sourcing directly annotated to it. The one problem I see is that it doesn't have a date-specific title. Maps like this should be dated, and new versions (and old versions also!) should be uploaded with new dates. Hopefully this map will be all red pretty soon when it is updated - but there won't be any reason to include that version in the article at all! Wnt (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author of the map, and what I'll do about the dating issue is I'll put a date in the corner and upload a new version. In such a rapidly changing situation, there's no need to upload several different files for what is essentially the same thing, except with minor changes. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Also, my map was originally added to the article, then taken down due to poor sourcing, and later re-added after I added direct sources. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In previous articles with maps of some breaking story, like the swine flu hoopla, it was an embarrassment when editors who had created maps lost interest and undated maps showed the "Present situation" but were sadly out of date, and no active editor had the savvy to update them. Please stick with this for the long run. Thanks. Edison (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will keep updating it. My map has been replaced with an svg file on English Wikipedia, but there are still several pages on foreign-language WP that use it. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No promotional material, please

I'm assuming that everyone here is trying to help. I think that's great, and I personally support whatever we can do to help out the citizens of Libya. However, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for promotional material. period. This is an encyclopedia article people, not an outreach program.

If you're pointing to an external website (even if it's through a wikilink), then you're likely on the wrong track. Please review WP:PROMO.

Thanks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info on US & UK is trivial

There are several mentions of the United States in the article that are highly trivial to the event. The world is not centered around the US, nor does the US really have that much dictatorial power. Perhaps this is because the people, like myself, who live in the US digest media that is geared towards an American perspective. Mentions such as travel warnings to US citizens and Libyan diplomats to the US are irrelevant to a summary of a week's events. I'm sure several nations have had diplomats changing shifting sides and travel warnings, many of which are on the same level of significance. I will be deleting superfluous information like this. NittyG (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly true, with one exception: Wikileaks released a lot of relevant information, such as Khamis Gaddafi trying to buy helicopters for the Khamis Brigade, which since apparently used them to kill protesters. Like it or not, the U.S. has become the world's foremost exporter of leaked diplomatic correspondence! Wnt (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Travel warnings? How many Americans actually vacation in Libya? Who would actually care about seeing that information? I agree though that this should definitely not be Amerocentric, especially because the English Wiki is read by many English-speaking Commonwealthers. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now, on top of that, info is being added about the UK picking up its citizens. This is really not as important as what is happening in Libya, for Libyans, and anything outside of Libya should only pertain to how it affects the the Libyan uprising (at most, sanctions or no-fly zones). Clearly, the English wikipedia is dominated by Americans and British people, and it is being shown from their perspective, which is irrelevant. Unless anyone objects, I am going to start deleting any irrelavent references like these that I see. NittyG (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving them to International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising‎ if they are not already there, and if they are, you can take out the ones that you feel are irrelevant? =p Anyone object to that? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is a reflection of the fact that, in terms of current English language sources, this type of material is all that is available. Remember, until Friday foreign media wasn't allowed in the country. Libyan media is largely in Arabic, and is/was state run regardless, so...
    I definitely support the idea of moving stuff to the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article, however.
    I would like to say that it's troubling to me, how this sort of subject comes up so often. There always seems to be someone who comes along, at some point, with an anti-establishment axe to grind. It's tiring. Look, the English language world is dominated by the US and England. I don't have a problem with people who go tilting at windmills over that, I just wish that such views didn't have as much sway as they occasionally seem to have.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, few people from those countries, myself included, wactuallyould really actually want to visit Libya (Gadafi ofc doesn't take kindly to Juice), so the info is not exactly useful and the only people who would visit probably know the dangers already. Besides, what country doesn't have a US Travel Advisory? Idk about the other guy, but I do acknowledge, and indeed not care about the US-UK hegemony etc etc. Try using an internal link to Don Quixote with that reference as the display text. I forget the formatting, but it's automatic. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow your point about visiting Libya. However, when the US State Department issues an official travel advisory, that's a Big Fucking Deal®. That action has (pretty severe) diplomatic consequences, if nothing else. There are travel notices and whatnot, issued to many places, but a full Travel Advisory is a fairly rare thing.
    Anyway, my only real point is that, given the fact that most English language current event information comes from the NYT, the Guardian, BBC News, CNN, NBC, Fox, etc..., is it really any wonder that there's a bit of a bias? What are we supposed to do? I can't help but to think of the point that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few points IMPORTANT

First of all thank you for your support. I tried to update the events but as you know there is no Internet access in Libya in the last 7 days My points are:

  • In the info box there are no such thing as (1. Libyan Interim Government 2. NCLO 3. Defecting Libyan Forces 4. Militia 5. Defected Tribes) among Anti-Gaddafi forces and also there are not Anti-Gaddafi FORCES there are the PEOPLE OF LIBYA.
  • There is no such thing as Battle of (Benghazi – Tripoli – Az Zawiyah – Misurata) as I told you before there are no such thing as Anti-Gaddafi FORCES, so we cannot named these as battles you may named them as unrest or protests or WHATEVER
  • An also there is no such thing as civil war in Libya

IN THE END THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND PLEASE PRAY FOR US. Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If not civil war, what would you like to label what is happening now in Libya? Is it an "uprising" or "revolution" or what? It is certainly violent, so it is hard to use the word 'protest' to describe what is happening. Does the word "revolution" have connections to Gaddafi that the people would like to avoid? If you watch Al Jazeera Arabic, what is the closest translation of the word used there? Sanpitch (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can called it "Uprising" against Gaddafi and soon will be "Revolution" 41.252.84.161 (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May our mutual God and prophets (yes they are mutual of course) watch over you and protect you. I'm sorry about the info, but we only can use the stuff given by the news sources who of course don't have a lot of access to the country. =( Shalom vSalaam! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag in battle info box?

The second flag in the info box under Libya, the one that is the Kingdom of Libya Flag, but with "Freedom" odd;y scrawled across it, is that actually being used. I highly suspect that it is a hoax/vandalism, but haven't been paying close enough attention to tell for sure. This is the file in question: File:Freedom for Libya Flag.png. Ravendrop 08:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nah, this is just graffiti. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Migraha"

There are at present about 500 google hits for a supposed "Migraha" tribe. But scepticism is advisable here, because such a tribe is not known to any publication on google books and it only seems to pop up with recent news. I think the tribe called "Migraha" in recent news is usually transliterated Maqarha or Magarha in literature (المقرحة). --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - Leader of the uprising

Mustafa_Mohamed_Abud_Al_Jeleil is apparently Chairman of an interim government based in Benghazi. There are no sources claiming he played any part in leading the uprising. The infobox is clearly entitled "2011 Libyan uprising" not "2011 Libyan government", so do not place his name in the infobox as a leader of the uprising. We can describe his role in the main text, but there is no place for his name in the infobox. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

collapse the References

Is it possible to collapse the references? --Rebel Alliance Coalition (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can only do that on mobile wikipedia. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zawiya, Misurata liberated

BBC Al Jazeera English --U5K0 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SVG map

I have made a more detailed svg map but someone has been replacing it with a png constantly. Please discuss here why do you think the png is better before reverting it.

Hello! I am the author of the PNG map, and I am glad that someone was willing to make an svg version of it, as I do not have such capabilities. It seems that the same user, Zenithfel, has been replacing the svg map with the png. We may have to talk to him directly if he keeps replacing the map. Also, would it be possible for you to be so kind as to put some kind of attribution to me for finding all the sources and preliminary data? Thanks - Interchange88 ☢ 14:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
imho the map should focus on the cities and do without the bucket-fill of the provinces, as this creates a false impression of scale. 90% of the territory of Libya is very sparsely populated, and this entire conflict is decided by whoever holds the cities along the coast. --dab (𒁳) 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The svg image also grossly exaggerates the significance of minor places such as Al Qatrun. I don't know if Gaddafi still has control of Al Qatrun, but it is irrelevant, because it is just a village in the desert. Yet in the map it is given equal importance with Benghazi or Sirt.
I would suggest that the svg image is cropped to show the country only as far south as Sabha. I would further suggest that the bucket-fill of the background is removed, and that the cities are marked with a dot size roughly expressing their population.
A nice extra would be symbols for major military installations and air bases (see Military of Libya), but this will probably be difficult to fit in the thumbnail
Finally, I would recommend that updated versions of the map should not overwrite older versions: once this is over, we will be glad to have a number of maps illustrating the chronology of events, while if we keep overwriting the same map, well, I think we all expect that the map will turn solid red over the next few days or weeks. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the map is as misleading as before, since the background color is bright green indicating support for Gaddafi. Gray would be better, following your reasoning. Otherwise I'm neutral in this topic. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; green is a poor choice of color for the background, as it implies Gaddafi control of those areas. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it should be beige or light brown or sandy yellow or grey or anything but green. —Nightstallion 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Ghadamis seems to have been liberated, at least that's the twitterverse's current wisdom. —Nightstallion 19:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since when do we use the Twitterverse as a source? =p (other than on official twitter pages) I agree, sandy yellow would be best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - grey is the best choice for province fill in my opinion - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is excellent. Red1530 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Kingdom of Libya
Flag of the People's Jamahiriya of Libya
Red is not a good choice for represent the rebels, because it is difficult for colourblind people to distinguish between red and green. Whereas black is a better choice as it is on the older flag of Libya, used by rebels against Gaddhafi's regime. ★ Nacho ★ (Contact me) ★ 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to state just that. My boyfriend asked me "Uhh... so the rebels control every city then?" since he's colourblind. Black would be perfect for the red instead. If anyone could change that, it'd make a slight minority able to actually use the map. Teafico (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good idea, a map suitable for the colour-blind. ValenShephard (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the map looks very nice and useful now, kudos to all involved. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that using larger dots for the large cities and smaller dots for the small ones gave a better sense of scale, showing the importance of Tripoli and Benghazi and the other coastal cites, and the minor strategic importance of most of the small interior cities. I wouldn't object to changing the colors for the benefit of color-blind readers. Is yellow easily distinguished from green? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I liked the map with the scaled dots. Yes, some of the dots seemed a mite too small, but it was much better at, as you said, showing the population density on the coast. If we use this current map, at least make Benghazi bigger. Teafico (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journalist are banned?

BBC News have been filming openly for the last few days. They say they have been invited by the Libyan government to go to the Capital. So I don't think they are banned anymore. Likelife (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Damn, I told that Libyan fellow otherwise. =/ TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to [46] Seif al-Islam Gaddafi announced a reversal of the ban on Thursday. There was then an effort to show foreign journalists Gaddafi's "control" over the city, which turned into an amusing debacle. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map coloring

I have difficulties distinguishing the colors of cities held by Gaddafi and and cities held by anti-Gaddafi forces. I have a weakness distinguishing certain green, brown and red tones, which is an inherited condition that is actually quite common. More distinguishable colors would be appreciated. Or some way to read the map without the colors, maybe by using different symbols. CuriousOliver (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the second person who has stated that they have had trouble with it, so I am guessing quite a few probably are having issues with this and as it was said above, there should be a colour change. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I complained before, maybe green and yellow on the map together is not that good as I am so confussed, can I suggest, black, white and a middle colour like red, with a well defined border around all circles. Tata. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three sons, three elite brigades, three headquarters...

Doing a bit of editing at Khamis Brigade I found the curious statement that "Gaddafi’s sons Saif, Sa’edi and Khamis are stationed in three security centres in the east, west and south of Tripoli to secure the capital from the revolutionaries"[47] The Khamis Brigade is "The 32nd is the most elite of three "regime protection units," which together total about 10,000 men... These units are the only armed forces directly loyal to Gaddafi, while the rest of the military is made up primarily of conscripts and is seeing heavy desertion".[48] The Khamis Brigade is reported to be headquartered in Misrata/Misurata, and currently under siege by rebels.[49]

Now Misrata is to the east of Tripoli. Is the headquarters of the Khamis Brigade on of the "security centers" described? Is there a "Saif Brigade" and a "Sa'edi Brigade" working out of cities to the west and south of Tripoli? (I don't have any source suggesting such a thing). Wnt (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article from "uprising" to "Civil War" or "Revolution?"

Collected here are several recent threads on renaming the article from "2011 Libyan Uprising" to something stronger like "2011 Libyan Revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War".

"Uprising" vs "Civil War" vs "Revolution"

At the time of start of the discussions above about the words "Uprising" to describe the conflict, that word ("Uprising") was appropriate. After another few days, it certainly looks to me like it is now very much a civil war or revolution, and the name of the article should be changed to reflect that. Sanpitch (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until we're sure. Also I think it only counts as a revolution if the old goverment (i.e. Gaddafi) is overthrown. THat's the description I got from a high school history book so I may be wrong 95.146.61.170 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always we should wait for most of the holy sources to start doing so first as that is where we get our info from. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! The Libyan opposition controls all of the country except Tripoli, according to Al Jazeera and the NY Times[50]. That sounds like a revolution to me! I added an appeal for a name change to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sanpitch (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a bit of motivation for the move to "2011 Libyan Revolution" see this google trends link[51] showing that "Libyan Revolution" is searched for more often than "Libyan uprising". Sanpitch (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well when the news sources start calling it such, then we can start thinking about doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few news sources calling it revolution or revolt: Al Jazeera[52], MSNBC[53], CBC[54], the Telegraph[55], Tehran Times[56], NPR[57], Toronto Star[58]. How many examples would you like? "Revolution" seems to be the word that is used most commonly in the mainstream media. We should do the same. Sanpitch (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about BBC, CNN, New York Times and the Jerusalem Post (alright the last one isn't necessary), but once they have picked that up then we can start doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voila: here is the BBC[59], CNN[60], and New York Times[61][62]. Also the threads below suggesting "Civil War" or "Revolution" are evidence that the time to make the change is *now*. Sanpitch (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very good, now all we need is consistency and one use being favoured over another by the majority of the sources. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "2011 Libyan Revolution"

As of 27 February, the uprising has turned into a fully-fledged revolution. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2011 Libyan civil war now?

With four articles made for battles and the country divided does the title civil war fit more so now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only when the lion's share of the major sources start calling it a civil war. Can we maybe put a redirect on 2011 Libyan Civil War in the meantime? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made the 2011 Libyan Civil War redirect. Sanpitch (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "uprising" is vague. It would have been better if at the closure of the move discussion, when "revolt" and "uprising" had both received support, the former had been chosen. Perhaps that should be revisited. It's particularly embarrassing that readers are supposed to understand, via the legend accompanying the region-wide map in {{2010–2011 MENA protests HTK}}, the label "uprising." That is a very weak term (in English it need mean no more than "major protests," which is how Oman is labeled) to compare what is different in Libya, where the government has lost control over much of the country. Wareh (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hate to disagree with a fellow waffle-lover and right-coaster, but I don't think that uprising is a weak term given the most famous uses such as Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Easter Rising, I would say that most people think of something very bloody. It might usually make people think of something that failed badly, but there they are. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see from the threads above, the only person (in the recent threads) who is in favor of keeping the terminology "uprising" is TheARchaeologist, while several have stated the obvious, that the name of the article should be changed by replacing "uprising" with "Revolt" or "Revolution" or "Civil War". I gave links above showing that the media consistently uses the words "revolution" and "revolt". Here is a link[63] to a Google Insights page showing that the term "Libyan Revolution" is used dramatically more than the terms "Libyan uprising" or "Libyan revolt", so I suggest that the name be changed to "Libyan Revolution". The discussion above about moving from "protest" to "uprising" suggests waiting until it is clear what has happened; It's clear to me, it's revolution. Sanpitch (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by the sources, and I didn't say I was in favour of keeping it, I was and still am in favour of using whatever term most of the sources use as we are supposed to and which is in fact the "obvious." =) If most of the sources are calling it a revolution then by all means I agree it should be changed. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I must admit that my only reason for the first post in this section was in reply to his apparent characterisation of an uprising (at least from the way I saw it) as something light was that I felt it did not do justice to either the Irish in the Easter Rising or the Warsaw Uprising, not that that was in any way his intention. I just wanted to point out historical usage. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If sources now call it a revolution, then we should call it a revolution. bobrayner (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the map because I think the classificatory implications of these labels have to be taken into account. I support "revolt" because it clearly means a revolution in progress (and partially successful), thus showing that Libya has not completely experienced a revolution as a state on the one hand, and on the other hand that it is not simply experiencing protests or cabinet reshuffles. By the way, I don't dispute that uprising can have the right meaning; I just think by using it we're being more poetic but less clear. P.S. I see the discussion below over "civil war" as wasted (oppose "Civil War"); it is a spreading revolt and progress towards revolution, and only if and when things get badly bogged down with indecisive battles, etc., do I think we will be ready to label it "civil war." Wareh (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think revolts and revolutions don't have much to do with each other (i keep challenging you on definitions; it's annoying I know, sorry) except when a revolt gets big enough that the revolting peasants/slaves/city (in the historical context) overwhelm the authority they are revolting against and throw off the offending authority. I don't think many think that revolt = revolution in progress, even though the beginning of the words are the same. Again though, most of the sources must also be using the term revolt for it to be the best choice. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm willing to accept that I simply personally find it more opaque, and in any case we're in agreement that the usage of WP:RS is the real arbiter. I only framed it this way because it seemed above that "uprising" and "revolt" were the two usage-supported alternatives being taken seriously as replacements for "protests" (even if that was true, things are moving swiftly, and we'd need to recanvass intelligently). I still feel that an uprising sounds more likely to get crushed than a revolt, which in turn better accords with something like your legions proclaiming their independence from you and claiming to represent the authentic government of the nation. But I could be wrong about that too. Wareh (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uprising does indeed have the conotation of a rebellion of some sort being crushed (though many historical revolts didn't fair too well either). Revolt actually does kind of work here as I would consider a revolt to typically be a city or what have you rising up against a central gov, or in this case, a good portion of the cities. Ofc as we bot agree, that's irrelevant because what matters is what the sources think it is. If they could just overthrow the swine (I know it's not gonna be easy) then we could all agree on Revolution! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If most do, then yes, by all means we should. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - what if the most popular term used "by a majority of sources" fluctuates from day-to-day? We don't move the article every day to keep up. As long as the name is not inappropriate (as "protests" would be now), and people can find the article easily, that's what matters.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point however we should remember that most modern mass media typically operates using herd mentality and they usually copy each other for many things. So if more people are using one thing, more are going to go with it until someone with influence in this area decides X sounds better and then they run with it. It's not going to be often though. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support It should be renamed civil war because there is two sides that are fighting for control of the country. That is a civil war. How can it not be? Seriously. Matthurricane

Not all violent uprisings and revolutions are civil wars.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a civil war now. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really is fairly simple per WP:V and WP:AT. Provide multiple high quality sources (BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and alike) that show it now is widely referred to as a civil war, and we should move it. What wiki editors "think" is should be called is entirely irrelevent. Wiki follows external sources, not POV by wiki editors. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see? That's what I've been saying this whole time. =p Too lazy to look up the actual link in wiki's rules for it though. Thanks! =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 08:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did come across articles from major media that talked about a civil-war in Libya. I don't feel like digging them up though :/. I'll let others do it :p. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but just Libyan Civil War, no need for the year--78.3.220.211 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think Libyan Civil War would be the best name now. —Nightstallion 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Not yet, what's the hurry? We lose nothing by retaining the current title until the majority of sources refer to it as a civil war. Sources are currently saying things like "...could push Libya into civil war", "As the propensity for civil war heightens in Libya...", "A near civil war in Libya", "The ...country is spiraling into civil war", "Libya, now on the brink of civil war", "close to the outbreak of a civil war". It's not our role to make history by contradicting these sources and renaming the article too soon. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 2011 libyan uprising/s is better --fwiw. the journalist John Simpson travelling in the middle of Libya, just said on BBC that he would not describe what he has seen/is seeing as a civil war.Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 62.107.209.191 and Pontificalibus. The current title is by far the most appropriate of the discussed options at present. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons outlined above.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait two weeks. These naming discussions tend to overshadow more important business, and you can't have a proper civil war in under two weeks. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Its been 14 days, at the moment, its just an uprising - an effective one, but just an uprising nonetheless. IF if drags out for a considerable time, where we actually see cities start to be retaken by Ghaddafi-loyal forces, we can call it a civil war. However, at the moment, Uprising is more appropriate, and I expect the next step will actually be to re-name it to "revolution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

"Evacuations"-section mostly contained trivial information, I removed them

As you can read here not only the UK and India are evacuation it's people. I do not see the need to put in this section that the HMS Cumberland (F85) and INS Jalashwa went to Libya (the line "some nations send ships" should be enough). No need to go into precise details in this wikipedia article. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted all details from section; create Evacuations from Libya during the 2011 Libyan uprising if you feel the world needs to know these useless details... Parts of it looked like promoting of the Royal and Indian Navy and Greece government anyhow...
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing about this conflict for a school project. :) 74.90.233.175 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://allafrica.com/stories/201102250009.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=416495610"