![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
According to Charter97 a military plane from Libya arrived to Belarus on September 26. [1] Närking ( talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The Timeline shouldn't say present anymore except with a small note saying small mop up operations contiune for the NTC. cause a vast majority of the war is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicevan ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please respect Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:V. Wikipedia is not an NTC leaflet. For instance, take this sentence: "Libyan citizen journalist Mohammed Nabbous was shot in the head by Gaddafi's soldiers..." There is no evidence (much less a court verdict) of who shot Nabbous, so please remove that part of the statement.-- 217.157.165.109 ( talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There are reports of renewed clashes in Zwara between NTC and loyalists forces. Also, NTC consolidated the full control of Ghat 180.183.120.55 ( talk) 13:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's correct. There have been some clashes following an attack with GRAD missiles. As for Ghat, the source is this Tripolitan organization,but I am not sure if it's good enough (check the updates in the center-right of the page). http://wmclibya.org/
BTW Today according to Al Jazeera-which is a reliable source-, Mutassim Ghaddafi fled Sirte towards southern Libya , one of his convoy was captured by NTC. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya 180.183.120.55 ( talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is need to create a specific article to collect information about the power transition, political forces, political moves, incidents, etc. The transitional phase is as important as the war itself, and need an independent coverage and article to let us work smoothly. Yug (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
After the capture of Sirte and the promised declaration of "liberated Libya" by NTC, we might consider start this chapter. But I am afraid unless Ghaddafi is captured, guerrilla and clashes in some parts of the country will go on. So,let's wait for the right time to do that. 180.183.127.41 ( talk) 08:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Turkey is mentioned only one throughout the article. However Turkey is one of the major players of the civil war.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan is a belligerent of this war. Turkey arranged several meetings in Istanbul. Please see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/15/c_13987890.htm and http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Diplomats-Meet-in-Turkey-to-Discuss-Libyas-Future-128427383.html
In addition Turkey provided 300 million USD in cash to NTC ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html). This should be added to the funding table because it is a bigger then France.-- Starcrescent ( talk) 07:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Alert Net and other sources have reported that Abdullah Senussi has been killed in battle. Should we add the (KIA) to his name in the info-box. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 11:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How about a link to your source first? 97.92.36.131 ( talk) 19:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I am essentially proposing the article be expanded to include the following (which can be copied an pasted mostly as-is, though with some expansion). (I have removed the other sections that this includes.)
++Aftermath++
++Impact++
GHADDAFI’S removal from power…
+++Casualties and war crimes+++
No final tally of the casualties of the conflict could be confirmed…
Or
In the final tally, …
In terms of war crimes, …
+++Home fronts and production+++
During the conflict, Lybian production was reduced, especially of their main export (oil)…
+++Advances in technology and warfare+++
Extensive use of
technicals (civilian or military non-combat vehicle modified to provide an offensive capability), many with improvised armor (an attempt to improve survivability) by loyalist and anti-Gaddafi forces was seen to move to and fro on the desert terrain. They quickly become the vehicle of choice for both sides (despite the use of tanks and helicopters). Medium flatbed trucks carrying the Soviet-made towed quad barreled
ZPU and twin barreled
ZU-23-2 guns,
recoilless rifles, and
UB-32 helicopter rocket launcher pods were the most common seen; In the case of rocket launchers, low-tech devices were improvised to activate the weapons (such as the use of doorbells).
Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (
talk)
22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The status quo overview map has served this article well, but at this point it conveys no information other than "Bani Walid surrounded, fighting in Sirte". A map that doesn't say more than six words isn't worth the screen space.
Instead we should look towards compiling a map that shows an overview of the developments during March to September. -- dab (𒁳) 08:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
this map is ridiculous. today there was reported heavy fightings inside of tripolis. there are no rebels left in sirte. etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to mention the high toll of casualities due to friendly fire and unexperience by local FF. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/oct/14/libya-muammar-gaddafi In the battle of Sirte there have been many casualities as such and also during celebrations in Tripoli there have been many casualities due to bullets shot for celebration.
It worths mentioning that. 180.183.53.77 ( talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Please take notice german media reported http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/libyenkonflikt102.html USA and NTC rejected offers for international observed elections and peace.
Also it breaks international law to intervene a civil war. Period. This should be considered in one of the first sentences, since this is an obvious fact and outstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
So plz. Zawya is green... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want that added, you will need to provide a source. Jeancey ( talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok CIA worker Jeancey;)
Before and after will be presented ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 17:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Seeing the Civil war is drawing to a close with almoist all of Libya under the NTC's control my proposal is to create new maps that show dates of the battles (area of control over time in a time lapse photo maybe?) or something of the sort, does anyone have any other ideas for this? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a fair number of people are dissatisfied with the current name, though there's been no clear consensus to move. Perhaps first we should decide, if we want it moved, which name do we want? The proposals, from status quo to most radical, have been:
Can we maybe narrow down the possibilities? — kwami ( talk) 07:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera reporting Anti-Gaddafi victory over most of Bani Walid: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/2011101713437351911.html 38.112.107.215 ( talk) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Another Source claiming the fall of Bani Walid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8832220/Libya-Gaddafi-stronghold-Bani-Walid-falls-NTC-forces-claim.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.1 ( talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
When fighting stops, when Gaddafi is captured, or when a formal agreement is reached? -- Polmas ( talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right. MG is capable of anything , but regarding Wikipedia being "better" than the weekly world news, It's not a matter of being better ,it's a matter of being DIFFERENT. A daily news bulletin is different from a Encyclopedia. Thanks God we have both of them ! 180.183.142.239 ( talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the piece of news is still to be confirmed amidst contradictory news. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya This Libyan war will be remembered as the double-war, one on the field and another one of rumors. 180.183.119.47 ( talk) 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Pravda.ru reported that 2% of the population of Sirte was killed by NATO bombings, i guess this should be added on "Humanitarian Situation" Source: Pravda.ru 177.9.187.70 ( talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sirte has been captured according to AP and Aljazeera, but is this the end of the war? Should we wait until Jalil announces the liberation of Libya? Also, I updated the map and some of the article to reflect the capture of Sirte. -- Skipbox ( talk) 09:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The NTC is careful not to announce the end of the conflict, and we should do the same. Apparently, Gaddafi is lurking somewhere in southern Libya and gathering tribal mercenaries. Until they capture Gaddafi, he can potentially still cause a lot of damage.
But with the main conflict is over, there is no point in showing a map of the "current frontline", as there is none. Instead, we should compile a map summarizing the major developments, February to October. -- dab (𒁳) 10:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The War is over! Change the page to stating that the war completed on October 20th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.17.219 ( talk) 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator of most maps of the conflict and I intend on creating one last map now the war is almost over. What would be better: an animated gif or a map showing front lines' development similat to the Tripoli one?-- Rafy talk 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
How about one with the dates over the cities like the mountains map. An animated GIF is not that good. -- Skipbox ( talk) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A suggestion is to colour the map according to when the different areas were captured. The colour wavelength could be made to correspond to the timeline. The reason is that colours are easier to see even within a thumbnail. Text is notoriously mangled in pictures. A link to an animated gif would be neat thoe. Electron9 ( talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh Come on guys¡¡¡..I think it is fair to say that this is right now a Revolution...why do not make the changes?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.105.62 ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
¿Where did my section on “after the war” go? It was much less than 20 days old, and I hadn’t added it yet as there were no comments (in support, opposition, or something else entirely), meaning someone removed it. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' ( talk) 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has messed up this section of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willknowsalmosteverything ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Denmark have just had elections and a new Prime Minister is in power. Shouldn't Helle Thorning-Schmidt now be listed in the infobox instead of Lars Løkke Rasmussen? Froztbyte ( talk) 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
the commander in chief of the Danish forces is the monarch of Denmark, the same can be said for the monarchs of the UK, should they also not be listed -- Scottykira ( talk) 05:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the war over now that all places have been taken by the rebel troops? Shouldn't that be said in the beginning? -- Metron ( User talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice someone has updated the article to give an end date and shift the language to past tense. None of the sources I've read so far confirm this viewpoint, rather the essence I've gotten from the sources is that there's still ongoing fighting between NTC forces and Gaddafi loyalists. Could someone provide some sources that explicitly state the civil war is over? The fact that Gaddafi is dead or that the NTC holds all major population centres does not mean the war is over. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a small note/request, but in the Belligerents box on the sidebar, there should be a (POW) next to Saif's name, because it was confirmed by NTC / The Justice Minister that he was captured.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.128.156 ( talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is far from being confirmed independently - the probably got it wrong the first time, and all major news networks still say he is probably still at large. 75.38.193.168 ( talk) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead is in desperate need of more info covering the Libyan-led advance; almost everything military-related is about the UN right now, even after I pruned a bunch of excessive info. That seems a bit lopsided for an article about a civil war. :) I haven't followed all the specific battles and such, so it would be nice if someone could add some info to flesh it out... – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The above is a query I've wondered about for sometime and, since this article is receiving as much attention as it ever will, now seems the right time to raise it.
When did the situation in Libya reach the point at which it can be defined as a civil war? Protests started on February 15, but protests do not in of themselves constitute the start of a civil war: after all, they weren't part of a pre-conceived plan on the way to a civil war. The protests happened and somewhere along the lines a civil war emerged. Perhaps when it started depends on whether this article is renamed to cover the wider pre/post-war Libyan Revolution (at which point I'd say the start date can be brought back right to the earliest set of protests) or whether the civil war and revolution are separated into different articles (e.g. Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War), but my guess is a civil war as is historically understood did not begin until one of these defining points. No real certainty on my part as to which one:
February 17 - 'Day of Revolt': the name for the successful push to increase the scale of the protests.
February 19 - Gaddafi forces withdraw from Bayda - the first area seemingly where protests turned into a direct usurpation of Gaddafi's control over an area in the country.
February 27 - National Transitional Council established, thus representing a clear break between sections of Libyan society into two opposing camps committed to opposing each other militarily.
If every set of initial protests were called a civil war, then plenty of articles on protests could be called civil wars despite failing rapidly. I guess that's the jist of what I'm getting at. In the end, maybe because of the fluidity and rapidity of how protests turned to civil war, it might best to stick with February 15 as the starting point. But, whatever the result, seems wise to get a consensus on this point before proceeding further in sprucing up the article. :) Redverton ( talk) 01:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The war started at the very moment the conflict between loyalists and anti-Gaddafists started, that's 15 February. Most civil wars in history didn't start as wars but more of as civil unrests and later evolved into civil wars. In that respect, 15 February is a solid date. EkoGraf ( talk) 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone recently got rid of the KIA by the head of Libya's secret police saying that he was in Egypt. If that was true, then why was he leading the defenses of Sabha after he was reported to have fled http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8754761/All-eyes-on-the-desert-as-the-hunt-for-Gaddafi-continues.html? Can someone please find the answer and provide a source? 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 11:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The KIA symbol was removed because no sources were provided that confirm he was killed. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's my rationale: normally, alternate names are used in this fashion for different *proper* names, and especially not for different names that are just generic synonyms in the case of things like events. (Or, in this case, a subset; the revolution is part of the civil war.) If there were multiple sources stating the name of this thing as the "Libyan Civil War" or "Libyan Revolution," I'd take that as a valid proper name, and if both were used, including the alternate would make sense.
However, we're really referring to the "Libyan civil war." Likewise, media mentions are the same; they refer to a "civil war" in Libyan and/or a "revolution" in Libya, not "the Libyan <Whatever-proper-name>"... So, going back to the previous case, we're left as having two non-proper name synonyms, which really doesn't flow with the article nor does it make sense...since again, the civil war did indeed include and consist of a revolution. But we refer to it as a civil war, for reasons that have been discussed elsewhere... So no need for the synonym, especially when it's just being generically used in the media, since media mentions were the rationale to add it. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What bugs me much more than the "revolution" question is the pompous claim that the "native name" of this war is "al-ḥarb al-ahlīyah fī Lībiyā ‘ām 2011". We give native names for *proper* names of article topics. While this is simply the straightforward Arabic translation of the English article title. It isn't even the article title on ar-wiki, which has the equivalent of "Revolution of 17 February". -- dab (𒁳) 10:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It says on this page that the civil war ended on 20-th of october. I found a source (CNN) however, that says the NTC will declare saturday to be the 'official date' Libya is free. Shouldn't that also mark the official end of the civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.91.20 ( talk) 10:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I can't put the source link in here... I just pressed 'save page' but ik won't save it... This wikipedia is hopelesly complicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.91.20 ( talk) 10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The NTC HAS sort of declared victory. The old regime is dead. Gadaffi is DEAD and most of his top supporters are in exile or have been either killed or co-opted. A revolution is a change of regime, right? In Egypt for instance, the only people to go were Mubarak and his immediate family (both literal and political). The government of Egypt as of now contain about 80% of the same people who were the government a year ago. The same with Tunisia, if the top guy and his family are gone, then it's a revolution. Remember, the new regime in Tunisia fell a few months after Zia did. Also remember that there were TWO Russian revolutions, one in February and one in October. THEN there was a civil war. In this case, the civil war is effectively over (the last Republicans in the Spanish hills didn't surrender until the early 1950s). If there's a revolt against the NTC, then it's an entirely DIFFERENT revolution. change the color back to black. Ericl ( talk) 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems the line "NTC said 30.000 died, one month later, the NTC reduced the estimated number of killed to 25,000." is based only McCain briefly saying that "They've got thousands and thousands of wounded. They say that they've lost 25,000 people killed, 3000 have been maimed, 60,000 injured. That's their government figures," McCain told CBS television's Face the Nation program.
Is this really a good source? Could McCain have gotten the numbers wrong? Where did the 5.000 less casualties come from? The 30.000 number was given as 15.000 dead Ghaddafi soldiers, 5000 dead rebel soldiers and 10.000 civilians.
The NTC also stated that with the 30k number that "War wounded were estimated as at least 50,000, of which about 20,000 were serious injuries,", McCain puts this at 3000 maimed and 60.000 injured, shouldn't this be updated as well if we go with what he said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the "Tripolitanian Front" map has become practically all red with a little green dot for Bani Walid, shouldn't we create a new map showing just Bani Walid, as was done for Sirte? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
the time will come you realize tripoli is green and the rebels are on the run. stay ignorant so i can enjoy the coming victory even more. you will learn your lesson if you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 19:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
seriously don't you have a critical rationalness? how many times did they capture this or that person, take sirte and other "last strongholds" over and over again? even CNN is much more critically to NTC-reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I must say that the pro gaddafi people on this are either brainwashed or deluded as evidenced in the above comments. The NTC control the whole country and Gaddafi is dead, his governments is gone. The War is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.243 ( talk) 13:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXyg317-NI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no way to verify that the place pictured is actually zawiya, or when the video was taken.... Jeancey ( talk) 18:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Rebel flag on one building is "all" day before ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And still no way to prove when the video was taken. Jeancey ( talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Under heavy censorship, it is amazing to news coming... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
When a reliable source states that Zawiya has been taken by pro-gaddafi forces, it will be added. Jeancey ( talk) 18:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Jeancey, if for you reliable source CNN and BBC.. in this case my grandma is very competent for discussion ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source would be any news agency, preferably several, with actual dates, names of sources, and verifiable information. Also, please stop adding new sections. Discussion can happen in this section. Jeancey ( talk) 18:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
"A reliable source would be any news agency, preferably several, with actual dates, names of sources, and verifiable information." of courese.. I just say - my grandma is very competent for all. All kidding aside .. where is your valid source, and it is not western or Al-Jazzier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You need a valid source to ADD information. You don't need a source to NOT add information. Jeancey ( talk) 18:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And what is valid for you??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course.. it is wiki :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Jeancey you show on your account pure anti-Gaddafi position.. so I think - you have not rights for any discussion... I'm just neutral, and I don't want your lies CIA worker ;)
That video is 6 months old. And great, this article is beeing spammed by bunch of trolls, thank god for this page beeing locked. EllsworthSK ( talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Zawiya could be under Pro G control, i doubt there are many there who support him, not after what happened back in March to the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.243 ( talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Libyancivilwar2.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
(ABC News)
(Wall Street Journal)
(The Jerusalem Post)
Should the end of the civil war be marked as this date? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
THIS MEANS THAT IT'S A REVOLUTION! SERIOUSLY GUYS! STOP TRYING TO CHANGE HISTORY! Rab777hp ( talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
With the war almost reaching its end, would it be a good idea to prepare a montage as the main image for the infobox? I've already prepared one as an example:
Clockwise, from the top-left: The Libyan National Transitional Council flag is flown from a communications tower in Bayda in July; Anti-Gaddafi forces shelling loyalists positions during the Battle of Sirte; Protesters stand on a tank, in Benghazi, at the start of the uprising; a French rescue helicopter lands on USS Mount Whitney, at the beginning of the military intervention; Remains of two Palmaria heavy howitzers of the Libyan Army, destroyed by French warplanes near Benghazi; USS Barry launches one of the Tomahawk missiles during Operation Unified Protector.
Any ideas? -- 70.82.134.146 ( talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Great idea! I almost wanted to say about this too whereby you put images in the infobox after the civil war is over. 175.144.125.245 ( talk) 10:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out above there needs to be something for the infobox, the battle maps are now all but worthless and dont add much to the article now. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Description has been modified according to the new montage found in the infobox of the article. Could someone add it below it?-- NovusLux ( talk) 02:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(who were wearing some weird variation of a German uniform) were raping Arab and Mulum women in prison… Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' ( talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955 The BBC are on the reliable list, I think... 89.238.141.2 ( talk) 11:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
AJA says he was killed, so will will wait to see if killed or captured. -- Skipbox ( talk) 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There's now a picture claimed to be one of Gaddafi after capture in this picture and article. Undetermined weather he's alive or not. Electron9 ( talk) 12:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this signify the end of the war? Noneofyour ( talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is confirmed I will agree that we should put 20 October as the end of the war. Without Gaddafi, there is no "pro-Gaddafi" cause and, mercenaries will not get paid, and will probably just go away. -- dab (𒁳) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
To add (still from Al Jazeera English): Mutassim Gaddafi is still alive, and is reportedly captured and still held in Sirte. (In other words, remove the KIA symbol beside his name) Heran et Sang'gres ( talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
CNN is also reporting his death. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/20/libyan-fighters-say-they-have-captured-gadhafi/?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1 Wingtipvortex ( talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the end of the War as it exists now. If the country devolves back into conflict again, it will be for different reason and honestly a different conflict all together. So yes, 20-Oct-2011 is as good a date as any to mark the end of the conflict. There may be some holdouts, but there is no hope for Gadaffi to return to power now that he is dead, his senior leaders dead, and his Army destroyed. ArcherMan86 ( talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is that several quotable sources have now stated that "the war is over". Don't forget that we are just supposed to be a tertiary source. The beautiful thing is that plain common sense most often does correspond to the general consensus of respectable sources. Regardless of the often unbelievable degree of human stupidity, especially online, it is reassuring that the general consensus will still get it mostly right most of the time. It's why Wikipedia's approach makes sense. -- dab (𒁳) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
With the death of Gaddafi now it's ok to rename the article Libyan Revolution or 2011 Libyan revolution, please do this speedily thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see the reason why the article about this civil war should be renamed now it is over, or because it is over? The article was about an ongoing civil war, and now it is about a civil war that has just ended. Whatever considerations could be brought up regarding the article title, the events of today have nothing to do with them. Compare Russian Revolution vs. Russian civil war. One is about the political revolution, the other about the military conflict. Of course the two are related, but this doesn't mean they are one and the same. -- dab (𒁳) 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why does the year have to be specified? Has there ever been another Libyan civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 ( talk) 21:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For those of you guys who don't understand: the only difference between a Civil War and Revolution is the outcome. A Civil War is a failure or ongoing, and a Revolution is a success. Thus, as the regime changed, Gadahfi overthrown and killed, it's a revolution. Also now IS fitting because it's not just the fall of Gadhafi, but pretty much the fall of his regime, as Sirte was the last place not under NTC control Rab777hp ( talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Rab, please stop trying to redirect the article without consensus. I have reverted your second attempt. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, if you want the article to be moved, please file a move request, so that it will appear on appropriate lists and editors will be made aware that a discussion is underway. Secondly, be very careful of the distinction between someone naming an event and someone describing an event. A newspaper article that says 'More civilian deaths have been reported as the Libyan civil war heats up' are naming the event as the 'Libyan civil war'. Barack Obama saying 'You have won your revolution' is him describing the event as a revolution. Our article is titled based on what the majority of reliable sources are naming the conflict, not on how they are describing it. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Google nets 29.8 million for Libyan civil war, and only 16 million for Libyan revolution. Jeancey ( talk) 04:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jeancy, who do you think you are? the owner of Wikipedia? I didn't feel like making a full bureaucratic move request, it's a pretty obvious thing that what happened in Libya is a revolution, have you ever thought about the fact we don't need to wait for what CNN would call it but what the scholars and academia would call it? (and yes I don't have the sources, I will get them eventually) but IT IS a revolution whether CNN, MSNBC or FAUX news wants to call it like that or not. I am tired of every time one wants to make a change or an addition to an article there is some "editor" asking you to do some kind of regulatory-mandatory-guideline oriented procedure. -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 05:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
First, the “fact” that GADDAFI is dead is not yet verified. (Yes, I think it’s true, but I also “think” there will be a colony on the moon someday; That doesn’t make it true.)
Second, the conflict is not yet over; Assuming he is dead, the NTC still isn’t a government, it’s a loose coalition of militias and other factions, each with their agenda, and as such there is not only a possibility but in fact a probability of further violence (such as occurred in Somalia after their “revolution” that still isn’t over).
As such, of the time being, keep the name and location, await events, and THEN let’s do whatever has to be done that that point.
Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (
talk)
18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The English version of " Revolution" defines as revolution as a "fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time." This is clearly the case for Libya. The former leader has been deposed and killed, the former regime has been replaced with a caretaker government, and many international actors have recognized that caretaker government as the sole legitimate governing authority for Libya. Had Gaddafi remained in power and his regime survived, then I believe "civil war" would have been appropriate. However, with this fundamental change in Libya, "revolution" best describes the events. See examples like the American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and the Tunisian Revolution. In summary, I support the proposed change. Rougher07 ( talk) 20:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I've run into this for a while, and it's really bugging me. For some reason, most of the New York Times links have been tagged "Registration Required" but I have NEVER found this to be true. Every time I clink on the link (and I do it EVERY time I see it) and I can view the entire article in question. I'm not signed up for any New York Times affiliated organization or anything. Why are these there? Is registration required for some people? And if not, who added all these tags? Thanks for clearing up an issue thats been really bothering me! Jeancey ( talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There have been a number of editors and Ip's over at Talk:Arab Spring that continie to push for the name Revolution for the conflict, the most recent being someone who put forward 4 reliable sources with the name Revolution down in it. I would like some input here on what should be done here as this article links from the Article Arab Spring. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Can we seriously get a topic ban on this for now? This can not seriously be brought up every two days, especially when it gets little or no support. I'm all for the whole consensus changes, but this is ridiculous.-- JOJ Hutton 17:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A massacre is generally accepted to be the mass killing of people WITHOUT ARMED FIGHTING AROUND, OR AFTER THE ARMED FIGHTING STOPPED. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre) So large numbers of civilian casualties during fighting, although often a war crime, are NOT automatically a massacre, as long as there was shooting from two sides. As a consequence, this Massacre- section needs a lot of work.
Proposal to take out: The paragraph citing Amnesty, because the cited reports nowhere name or suggest massacres, and only speculate about 'may even have been killed'
The directly following paragraphs I propose also to be taken out, because they do not relate to massacres, except, indirectly, to the February 20 massacre of unarmed demonstrators on the Green Square, by Ghaddafi forces. This Feb 20-massacre merits a strongly worded paragraph, there are now much better, first hand sources for that massacre.
Also the paragraph about the International Fed Hum Ri should be considred to throw out, as it is almost only speculative, based on few resources that are now considered doubtful, and it is largely proven wrong by events in the field.
The last alinea (Gaddafi continued these tactics..) also apparently refers to mass casualties DURING fighting, so in this form it doesn't belong under this header.
Also the following chapter (Execution of own soldiers) I propose to be deleted, as research on Youtube video's shatters the believeworthyness of the initial report about where and by whom these soldiers were killed ( http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/al-baida-massacre-further-behind-scenes.html) Doubt has further increased because the only source attributing this 'massacre' to the Ghaddafi side (Int Fed Human Rights) has failed to substantiate or even stand by their initial report in spite of such requests from several media. They even don't mention the report on their own web-site.
There have, on top of the Green Square massacre, been several massacres during this war that do deserve a paragraph each under this header: -Time reported that at february 18, 15 suspected mercenaries were hanged by rebels in front of the court house of Al Baida, after they had surrendered; -The massacre of 70 Chadian oil workers and several Sudanese by attackers from the rebel side, reported by BBCnews.com at 25 february 2011; -The 50 + prisoners of the Khamis-brigade in southern Tripoly, massacred at august 23rd 2011(likely under responsibility of Ghaddafi's son Khamis)( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJw-IKKbzpg), -The mid-October massacre of handcuffed soldiers and civilians in Mahari hotel, Sirte, which literally bears the signature of rebel brigades ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/middleeast/libyas-interim-leaders-to-investigate-qaddafi-killing.html?_r=1&hpw), and (if credible reports appear) the as yet unverified reports of more groups of bodies in Sirte, seemingly killed by rebel brigades after the fighting stopped.
Also, maybe Ghaddafi-forces massacred people on at least one occasion in their offensive in the Western Mountains, but from the conflicting reports, to me it is unclear if this was deliberately shooting of non-fighting civilians or not.
(I strongly desire that the list of massacres ends here.) Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Footnote 99 erroneously refers to an Amnesty International report. The quote about Western media is actually from the report by the International Crisis Group mentioned in the quoted Independent story. Please correct. The ICG report is here, with the relevant section on p. 4: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/107%20-%20Popular%20Protest%20in%20North%20Africa%20and%20the%20Middle%20East%20V%20-%20Making%20Sense%20of%20Libya.pdf.
193.65.255.1 ( talk) 07:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just come back from Libya and nobody there(not even the imprisoned Gaddfi loyalists) refer to the revolution as a civil war. some of them even felt insulted that I had defiled there revolution with such a name. it has become very clear that the events in Libya will not go down in history as a civil war but only as a revolution since it is ultimately the country's inhabitants who will right its history. I've noticed you were quick to call the events in Egypt and Tunisia a revolution (although they are not really as the system has more or less stayed the same) but yet you called them revolutions because it's inhabitants referred to it as that. Surely you should now do the same for the Libya (the first genuine revolution of the Arab spring so far as it very broad social-economic support and completely eradicated the old system much as the French,american and Russian revolutions did) as you did for Egypt and Tunisia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not a journalist, I'M a student who has an interest in history, and I decided to visit all three successful Arab spring nations before going back to to university Libya was by far the most interesting (from an historical perspective). it was the only true revolution. It almost felt like being in post revolutionary France or Russia.
Ok yes Gadaffi is dead but his son and other high ranking officials is still at large, what's to say further clashes between merceneries and insurgents wont happen? What's to say the scenes in Tripoli won't repeat themselves elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 ( talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Curious, why is "2011" in the article's title? The article only mentions one other civil war in the country's history — Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795, which likely would be better entitled "Tripolitanian Civil War..." and is a redlink anyway. Nyttend ( talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Too bad. A lot of NTC photos and illustrations in this article. I think most of the Wikipedian editors are pro-rebel Libyans. Remember that neutrality is important!! P.S I am not a pro-Gaddafi! But can we add some of the pro gaddafi images too? [User:Muhammad Mukhriz|Muhammad Mukhriz]] ( talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I Agree! Just note that the great number of references is from the media from countries directly involved in conflict on rebels side. Thus, neutrality is heavily disputed. E.g. do you remember how Al Jazeera reported about protest on Green square in Tripoli, which was actually fake and staged in Qatar. Even NTC admitted it was fake. Al Jazeera cannot be held as reliable source after this stunt, and many references are coming from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.221.2 ( talk) 09:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to: Commanders and Leaders Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Prime Minister of Turkey)
Please add to table: Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya Turkey 300 Million USD July 2011 ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html)
Starcrescent (
talk)
08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
All the major British news channels (BBC, Sky news, ITV news and channel 4 news) now only use the term revolution as well as major Arab news channels(Aljazeera, Alarabiya etc). Most British and Arab newspapers also now only use the term revolution. Expets on conflicts such as Michael Ignatieff openly states its not a civil war on his article on the CBC website and experts on Libya itself such as Jason Pack never useses the term civil war on his article in the Gaudian. The term "Civil war" is very deciving, it gives the imprssion that almost half the population supported Gaddafi, when according to the BBC's latest video on libya; 20% of libyans were loyal to Gaddafi. I know 20% is still a signicant minorty but bear in mind 25% of americans were were still loyal to king George III during the American Revolution and anywhere between 20%-35% of the french public were still loyal to louis XVI during the french revolution; just because the entire population doesnt support the opposition doesn't make it any less of a Revoluton. Various world leaders only use the term Revolution (Obama, Cameron, Erdoğan etc) even the Chairmen of the NTC Mustafa Abdul Jalil stated its not a civil war in his latest interview with CNN. The term 'civil war' is no longer widly used in arab or european newspapers, the term also gives the false impresson that the conflict in libya was along tribal lines, but as you probably already know tribes had a small role in the Libyan Revolution. So it is now time to rename this page to the Libyan Revolution.
Also when you do rename this page to The Libyan Revolution will you create a seperate page for the transition or will you put the transition and conflict together under the Libyan Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So when are you going to rename the article? I've provided you with enough evidence if you look at all European and Arab articles on Libya from late august onwards the term 'Revolution' is much more wildly used than the term 'civil war', especially in AP and AFP articles which both stated back in September they would no longer use the term 'rebels' to describe the opposition but instead usethe terms 'former rebels' or 'revolutionaris', showing their acknoledgment of the Libyan Revolution. Libyans aren't going to celebrate febuary 17th as the start of a civil war but as the start of their revolution. There is no longer an excuse to continue to use the term 'civil war': the old system is completly gone, the revolt clearly had popular support, i've provided you with more than enough reliable sources above; Now is the time to rename this article 'The Libyan Revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The person has a good point. Why aren't you changing the page to The Libyan Revolution? He/she appears to have given good solid points which none of you are actually answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that we wait a year or so for things to settle down a bit and then see what the RS consensus name is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely true. The American Revolution was as much about american fighting american as it was about american fighting British. Many Americans joined the red coat loyalist army (thats why it's usally called a loyalist army). Americans were among the feicest units of the loyalist army. The fact that there was a mass migration of american loyalists to Canada once the revolution was over shows how much support the king still enjoyed in America. Similar thing with the french revolution (frenchmen were fighting other frenchmen) yet few historians call the French Revolution the French civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I mildly support the renaming of the article from 2011 Libyan civil war to 2011 Libyan Revolution, or at the very least major alterations to the current article if the title is to remain 2011 Libyan Civil war. The main reason being is that the current article seems much to skewed towards the revolutionaries/rebels for it to be the titled civil war. For example all the pictures seem to be that of the opposition supporters, non of Qaddafi militias or supporters, and text of the article seems better suited for explaining an uprising than a civil war. A true civil war article is meant to explain how Libyan society and Libyan families were divided(the old brother against brother expression) the only problem is, this does not seem to apply to the Libyan case, in fact they seem more united throughout this conflict then they've ever been throughout there history, (and will likely never be that united again). If the BBC figure is correct in that 20% of Libyans were loyal to Qaddafi (which is conveniently the same percentage of Libyans who either had links or were involved in Qaddafi's security apparatus and militias) then this truly was the case of the people against the state, which in my opinion seems more like a Revolution rather than a civil war. Another change you must make if you want to keep the title 2011 Libyan Civil war is the date in which it started. The official start of civil wars throughout history is the start of the first battle, which was Zawiya on the 24th Febuary 2011 prior to this you can not legitimacy call it a civil war as there were no two opposing armies facing each other prior to this it was security forces against mostly unarmed protesters, that's why I think the 1st battle of Benghazi should be renamed the 'Storming of the Katiba' as it would better express the event that really kicked off the libyan Revolution/civil war. So either you have rename the article 2011 Libyan Revolution, or keep the current title and make serious alternations so the event seems more like an actual civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim74 ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are some samples from the British media:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15500682
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15557403
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412220
news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16094625
blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/where-were-the-women-in-libyas-revolution/18208
www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-not-the-only-victim-of-libya-s-revolution
Here are some samples of articles that further prove my point:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/post-gaddafi-libya-local?INTCMP=SRCH
www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/libya-women-idUSL6E7M41OY20111104
Also if you go on to Aljazeera or Alarabiya and type in Libya on their search engines you’ll the term Revolution is used far more than the term 'civil war' in most of their articles. This is also true for highly rated British and American newspapers (e.g. Wall street journal, Financial times, New york times, The Telegraph etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 01:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. For the umpth time. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155. — http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.127.89 ( talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Even the link provided states that it's unconfirmed, and its only source was a facebook account of al-Rai network, but as i remember, al-Rai later said it was hacked by someone; also that info published on the hacked page was retelling of the already refuted old news about Khamis killed in one airstrike alongside Abdulla Senoussi (who's definitely alive and well and later seen in Niger). There were also other mentions of Khamis long after that supposed date of his death. I will try to find some specific links, but in any case, should the people there be presented as dead based on such a weak proof which isn't sure being a proof itself? 77.45.171.127 ( talk) 09:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new article titled 2011 Libyan revolution. Unlike the attempts to rename the present article, the new article does not concern the armed conflict, but the social and political changes entailed by the civil war. Adding new events the present article does not seem consistent with the fact that the lede describes the conflict in past tense.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have seen zero reliable sources that advocate such a distinction. Unless you can produce a number of sources that split the events into a distinct "civil war" and "revolution", the entire article is essentially pure unencyclopaedic WP:SYNTH and should be deleted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
On balance, I agree with Anders' view and with his article, but Lothar is also right. Reliable sources have not referred to the revolution as the wider changes around which the civil war forms a central part, and it would be SYNTH to write as if that were the case. However, in my view Anders makes a decisive point: there are a huge amount of social, economic and political changes about to happen. What are we going to do: put them all onto a 'post civil-war' section on this article? :( There is a point where practicality trumps many other things: it just won't be possible to describe the wider background and future changes all on this article. And Techno's right: accepting SYNTH and that such precedent hasn't been applied to Libya by reliable sources yet, there is indeed that precedent that a revolution and civil war can be separated. Take American Revolution and American Revolutionary War. In my mind, my only dispute is whether to trump other people's views and remove the PROP-DELETE template from Anders' article: I don't want my view to trump consensus. We at least have 6 days to clarify our position. So, to conclude, I support Anders' idea, and I'm willing to offer my help to improve the article yet further. I really do think this is achievable and a good idea. Redverton ( talk) 06:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I fully support the idea and here are some samples of reliable sources that could only really work under the title 2011 Libyan Revolution: Women’s role in the revolution and how relationships between men and women within Libya society have changed:
[ List of links mirrored at Talk:2011 Libyan revolution -- Anders Feder ( talk) 03:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ]
As I said they are only samples many more articles were written on each of these subject during the course of the armed revolution which would mean you would have to look back on article dating from February to August it’s going to be a lot of work but I’m sure many of the editors working on 2011 Libyan civil war will help you. it would also probably be a good idea to include the NTC road map to democray as well. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 02:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you find a single source saying Libya is still at war?-- Anders Feder ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A little late to the conversation but I was just thinking if the term Revolution is such a "loaded" word, then why were you so quick to use the term for the events in Tunisia and Egypt? Yes they both saw mass protests which saw the resignation of their Presidents which could be labelled as successful uprisings. But neither nation witnessed any of the massive social, cultural or even political changes of their society(that Iran and the eastern bloc nations witnessed)that would require it to be a revolution. It could be argued that what happened in Egypt and Tunisia was no more a Revolution than Nixon's' resignation after protest and the threat of impeachment in USA was a revolution.
As for Libya their were many reliable sources written during the 8 month conflict that were about the revival of art, free media, music, civil society, education system, Berber culture and wider Libyan culture as well as the radical change of women role within Libyan society and a massive return of former Libyan exiles. If you look back on articles written on these subjects most of them use the term revolution and it wouldn't make sense to put them under Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war as the events happened during the 8 month uprising. Libya not only witnessed massive social and cultural change but it also witnessed the complete overhaul of the old political order allowing it to start from scratch(unlike Egypt and Tunisia). If Revolution is not too "loaded" a word for Tunisia or Egypt then it's certainly not too "loaded" for Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The Qatari army chief confirmed today that several hundred Qatari soldiers fought alongside Libyans against Gaddafi. Should we add Qatar above NATO as a combatant in the infobox? [9] - Kudzu1 ( talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This article [10] even gives his words as "hundreds in every region" of Libya. Anyway, thats definitely goes way over "enforcing the UNSC resolution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.186.101 ( talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Qatar should not be a belligerent, the "boots on the ground" were military advisors and trainers, giving them aid with tactics and communications supervising their operations, they were not involved in frontline fighting as far as i can see putting them in line with all the other nations that did the same but are not listed as belligerents.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/26/173833.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 ( talk) 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Were there other Civil Wars, or like wars in Libya that would require that we disambiguate this Civil war from another? I couldn't find one doing a quick search, but others may have different thoughts. Couldn't we just drop the "2011" and call the page "Libyan Civil War"?-- JOJ Hutton 23:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many reports about clashes in Libya(Gaddafi loyalists,rival militias) . I dont see why the death of Gaddafi should mark the end of the war. it is still going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.245.130 ( talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a recent article published in the LRB that may be of use to editors who have been working on this article, especially if people feel that the NTC's POV is getting too much uncritical acceptance. The article, from what I can tell (I'm hardly an expert on the subject), is thorough, well-researched, and critically aware. I've added it to the Further reading section, and here's the reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).Hope that helps. Sindinero ( talk) 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Following the precedents set by the vast majority of like pages (Chinese Civil War, American Civil War, English Civil War, Greek Civil War, etc.), shouldn't this be renamed Libyan Civil War? Dan Wang ( talk) 01:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Barack Obama be listed as "commander-in-Cheif of The U.S. army" instead of President? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.115.5 ( talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If no-one responds, I will just change it. 142.22.115.5 ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I cannot because it is locked. 142.22.115.5 ( talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
this article talk about a "civil war" but the only side we talk of is the NTC !!!
This look like modern propaganda!!!
we cannot talk about a civil war talking only of one faction
It is non sense!!!
their lot of Kadhafi supporter in Lybia, why you don't show some pictures? propaganda i say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.94.173 ( talk) 16:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is unacceptable to have only one side of the argument presented in a Wikipedia article, with only one reference (47) refuting some of the claims. Since it is very difficult to find reliable sources because of the extensive western propaganda, I have not been able to find much to support the other side. However, what I have found deserves to be included into the article. See testimonies by Dan Glazebrook (independent analyst), Lizzie Phelan (journalist), and Harpal Brar (politician and writer) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J3SU9qUAkSg#! Also, an interview with Lizzie Phelan by the New York Times: http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-york-times-interview-with-lizzie.html Nmenry ( talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article is misleading: The Libyan Civil War ... was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government. Surely it would be both more accurate and more neutral to say something like The Libyan Civil War ... was an armed conflict between the government of the North African state of Libya and the United States, Great Britain, France, and the tribe of the former King of Libya. This is amply supported by the record, and a reasonable summary. Son of eugene ( talk) 05:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I see with surprise that some users had put 23 October as finishing date of the Libyan War. Their argument is that the NTC declared the end of the war in that date. Ok, so following that argument, we can put a finish date on the Iraq War (ousting or execution of Saddam Hussein), for example, or the Afghan war (ousting of the Talibans). Making that difference seems to be a clear double standart, one more of the list. Regards.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 21:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The war ended. Three has not been a single skirmish between NTC forces and gaddafi forces since oct 23. Even if there was, that does not constitute an ongoing war. 100% of all Gaddafi forces commanders have been killed, captured, or left Libya.
Sopher99 (
talk)
16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This war is of a completely different nature than that in Afghanistan or Iraq, so comparisons to those two are inappropriate. The primary actors on both sides were both Libyans, and one side was defeated. Lastly, I haven't seen a single source saying the war is still ongoing. -- Yalens ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
As a compromise I added as a note in the result section that there is still sporadic low-level fighting as of late November. It's properly sourced so it's not in dispute. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to object to calling the Libyan series of events beginning in February 18th a "civil war". Rather, I believe it should be called a "revolution", at least primarily so, and can be secondarily called a civil war. The definition of a civil war as stated by the Wikipedia article "Civil War" states that "The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory." The beginning of the Libyan revolution did not involve a "party". It was merely peaceful demonstrations calling for the ousting of the Muammar Qaddafi rule. These people were not in possession of a part of the national territory. In essence, the naming "Civil War" suggests a struggle for power, and this was not the case in Libya. Rather, it was simply a "Revolution" for the ousting of a regime labelled by international standards as a "brutal, unlawful" one.
Thank you 99.122.202.192 ( talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're a little late with this request. There have been half a dozen requests like yours to change the title to revolution and each time an overwhelming majority of editors decided that the proper term is civil war and not revolution. So, no point in starting another discussion on this topic for a seventh time. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I know this has already been dealt with but i have to say something, firstly, the party in revolt, which in the first week were just protesters, were actually in control. They had control Benghazi and everything east of it and set up local commitees, before the NTC was formed. They also had Misrata and Zawiya, all before the formation of the National Liberation Army. Plus the conflict dragged on for months with Gaddafi in control of most of the west and the rebels holding the east, therefor both sides held territory and as such is a civil war. ( talk) 20:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Why Albania is removed from the NATO countries that have contributed? ( http://www.balkanweb.com/TV/index.php?id_ansalive=10871&id_categoria=48) Irvi Hyka UTC 22:52 26 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.77.228 ( talk) 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What was the death count before foreign intervetion (19 Feb)? Why has no foregin action been taken in Syria? Chesdovi ( talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article called 2011 Libyan civil war and not just Libyan civil war? I can't find any other use of the term, so surely the year is unncessary as a disambiguation? 213.1.240.149 ( talk) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above statement, there is no previous libyan civil war, so 2011 seems pointless, the 2011 part of the title came from the orgial name "2011 libyan protests", this was to disguingish it from previous libyan protests. Since there has been civil war in libya before 2011, it should jsut be Libyan civil war. Kspence92( talk) 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We have had this pop up at least 5 times within the last few months. There are sources: [12], [13] that support multiple civil wars in Libya's history, and wikipedia should not go against history here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - Only if there weren't any other Libyan Civil Wars in History. OKelly ( talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy procedural close - proposals like this one keep coming up again and again, while a quick peek in the Talk page archives shows that there's no consensus for such a move. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 10:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - It's probably the most notable civil war in Libyan history, at the very least, far more notable than the Tripolitanian Civil War (1791 - 1795) someone brought up way back when. 48Lugur ( talk) 04:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - As per above comments. Jonjonjohny ( talk) 13:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - For several reasons. There have been civil wars in the past, and in the future there might be some. The Greek Civil War is likely named as such because it was the first in recent memory, and thus, no one changed the name, despite the fact that there were others. In the future, if there was ANOTHER libyan civil war, this article would be confused with it, if the 2011 is dropped. What I have never understood, throughout all this, is why it MATTERS to anyone that it has 2011 in the name of the article... there is nothing wrong with being slightly more specific, so I don't get why so many people want to drop the 2011 from the name. Hopefully that all made sense. Jeancey ( talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
support - The Libya as a nation has never had a civil war in the past. There have been civil conflicts in Tripolitania in the 18th centaury as someone else mentioned, but that was not Libya. Libya did not exist at that point. If there is a future civil war the 2011 can be readded to this page, or indeed this page would just be renamed Second Libyan civil war. My main points is, a civil war has never occured in the Libyan nation since it came into existance, other than the one that jus occured, so why is the 2011 neccesary ? all news organisations and governments genreally jsut say Libyan civil war anyway. Most of us here don bother tacking on a 2011 when we speak of it do we ? we just say libyan civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 ( talk) 15:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Never has been one in the past in the nation of Libya. Goltak ( talk) 07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Strong support This is the first civil war, so this is a very clear support. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war - A previous civil war. I doubt anyone would ever get confused between the two, but, obviously, many people do not know about it. With the logic here we should rename that article First Libyan civil war and this one Second Libyan civil war - The latter of which would undoubtedly cause further confusion. As per above comments, there's no consensus for such a move, so it shouldn't be done. - Royal Mate1 02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Well there are valid arguements for both points here i must concede, however, the 1793 - 1795 Tripolitanian civil war was not a Libyan civil war, as Libya did not exist as a nation by that point, nor did the concept of Libya as a nation even exist. Tripolitania was a seperate country. Libya only came into existance as a real, unified country at independence in 1951, and the name Libya was created by the Italians in 1934, therefor, a libyan civil war cannot have occured before Libya existed. unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 ( talk) 11:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.211.205 ( talk)
Support — There doesn't appear to have been any other civil wars in Libya's history. Master&Expert ( Talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - Honestly, what other Libyan civil wars have take place when Libya was actually... well, Libya? What other Libyan civil wars match their weight of notability to this one? And as others have stated above me, the Tripolitanian civil war occurred long before Libya came into existence as a nation, so I find this whole "there's been more than one Libyan civil war" argument very unconvincing. -- 24.107.235.192 ( talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Very odd to have a year attached to this article, as there is no other notable Libyan Civil War. Having a year attached to it suggests that there is one.-- JOJ Hutton 01:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Per others. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Support This is the first civil war in the nation state called Libya, that has had an impact on all Libyans. The Tripolitanian Civil war was not in the nation state of Libya, nor did it have an impact on all the people of the modern day state. (In the 1790s Tripolitania might not have even been considered part of Libya the region.) 106.71.170.41 ( talk) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Support per 48Lugur and 106.71.170.41. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply Sorry, why not label the "English Civil War" the "1642 English Civil War" as the Barons' Revolts and the War of the Roses were both beforehand. Why don't we change the title of the "Chinese Civil War" to the "1927 Chinese Civil War". It is simply a matter of relevance, impact, scope and context. In context the Tripolitanian Civil War was not a [b]Libyan[/b] civil war just as a dark age squabble in East Anglica is not The English Civil War 106.71.170.41 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC).
Support as per the Greek, English and Chinese examples. That 1790's Tripolitanian conflict that is mentioned did not take place in the modern Libyan state (In its territory, but not the state). It's like referring to a conflict within a particular Native American tribe or between nobles vying for the crown in one of the pre-Spanish Iberian kingdoms as the American Civil War or Spanish Civil War (respectively), or like IP 106.71.170.41 mentioned, medieval civil conflicts in one of the heptarchy kingdoms as the English Civil War. The inclusion of 2011 is simply needless - remember WP:COMMONNAME. As an alternative though (and to further complicate things), what about Libyan Civil War (2011) instead? -- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose - there have already been several proposals that failed to reach a consensus for move. As there's no additional facts raised, this proposal should also be closed with no move. 1exec1 ( talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I still cant understand the concerns for not changing the title. The 2011 exists to differentiate the 2011 Libyan civil war from any previous such conflict. The issue is, there is no previous such conflict in the history of the Libyan nation since it came into existance.
Besides, when you are looking for info on the conflict in Libya, most people dont type in 2011 libyan civil war , its just Libyan civil war they are looking for. Also ive yet to hear of any news organisation using the term 2011 Libyan civil war, its just Libyan civil war, or occasionally the libyan conflict.( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.248.120 ( talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note, I have removed the move notice due to clear lack of consensus needed for such a move. Jeancey ( talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Support In the 1790s, there was no unified Libya or even a concept of it. Clearly this is the only conflict that could be thought of as a "Libyan Civil War". Putting the date ahead of it implies that there have been other civil wars in Libya since its' foundation as a nation-state. -- Tocino 12:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
On what grounds is the "1 [British] airman killed in traffic accident in Italy" included as a casualty or loss on the NTC/UN side? While an unfortunate loss, this death did not result from enemy action, take place in the Libyan theatre, or even involve a serviceman who was bound for Libya- he was merely delivering supplies to UK forces in Italy. Worldbeing ( talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not an causalty of war at all, just an accident while driving. Goltak ( talk) 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
He has been declared by the British MoD to have been a casualty of the NATO-led operation and by extension a casualty of the war. Numereous other war articles include in their death tolls non-combat deaths also, like the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, Afghan wars, etc. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Vengeance in Libya December 15, 2011 by Joshua Hammer; JANUARY 12, 2012 The New York Review of Books 99.181.147.68 ( talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
no way is this over just because nato and its stooges decree so. Bani Walid was just retaken (and the terrorists dont have air support without which theyre just rabble rousers) and there are contant pro vs. anti-gaddafi fights and even intra-rebel fights as a DIRECT consequence of the uprising/civil war.( Lihaas ( talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).
Sorry if I seem to be rehashing an old point but, why was the article title changed to Libyan civil war instead of Libyan Civil War? (i.e. Why was it not capitalized?) I noted what Jeancey said in the above discussion, but my question is this: What about such articles as the American Civil War or the English Civil War? Nearly every other article on a specific civil war is capitalized. If the argument can be made that it should be lower case, then I would expect that argument to include why it is different from all the other civil war articles on Wikipedia - or otherwise why the other articles should be changed. - Noha307 ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, not again. Yes, you ARE rehashing an old point. By reading the relevant archive page you could've easily found out that the decision to write "civil war" instead of "Civil War" was well argumented. Therefore I oppose any further renaming of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am missing something huge here, but it seems to me that the (rather voluminous, as I recall) archives for this talkpage have gone missing. I find it more than likely that they got left behind under the 2011 prefix after the recent move. Can this be confirmed and/or rectified? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
So as not to repeat what has been stated before, here is the previous discussion. It is still unclear whether or not Libyan transition is the best way to call it, or if this kind of information might be able to fit inside another page that I do not yet know of. There seems to be several pages related to the aftermath of wars in Category:Aftermath of war so it seems that one related to this one would fit in with the rest.-- A ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Title of article should be renamed to 2011 Libyan Revolution. The date February 17th has been titled revolution day by many reliable sources:
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-17/news/31072469_1_jay-carney-libya-moammar-gadhafi
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Libya+marks+revolution+leader+issues+warning/6174171/story.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0218/1224311977150.html
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2012_pg4_1
http://main.omanobserver.om/node/83692
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/world/africa/libya-anniversary/
The term 'Civil war' is now very rarely, if ever, used. Furthermore their has never been a source that has quoted a Libyan (government official or otherwise) using the term 'civil war'. Just because Libya had an armed uprising doesn't make it less of a Revolution. Cuba also had an armed uprising in the 1950's yet the main title for that page on Wikipedia is the 'Cuban Revolution' not the 'Cuban Civil War'. it is now probably the right time to rename this article to [2011 Libyan Revolution] as the term Libyan civil war is becoming increasingly outdated term by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The Majority of reliable sources refer to the events in Libya as Libyan uprising (3,940) not Libyan civil war (3,030). Therefore we must rename this article from Libyan civil war to Libyan Uprising. The term 'civil war' is also very deceptive; it implies that there were to large armies from the start. When in fact during the first two weeks of the revolution it was mostly unarmed civilians against security forces, the new title of Libyan uprising would fit in far more in the wider context of the Arab spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 09:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Here you go:
Libyan Uprising
Libyan civil war
I don’t know where you got that impression from, the term ‘Libyan civil war’ has never really been used by major news networks such as the BBC, CNN or Aljazeera; although it is commonly used by Russia Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per chat after chat that has already been discussed about this. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Support It no longer matters if you had this discussion before the fact is that the Majority of reliable sources are now referring to it as “Libyan Uprising” not “Libyan civil war”. Therefore we must change the main title of this article Libyan Uprising. It would be highly hypocritical of us not to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are right and I apologize for my mistake. However it is a fact that when done the proper way the majority of reliable sources use the term “Libyan Revolution”(111) far more than either “Libyan uprising”(81) or “Libyan civil war” (73). Therefore I would like to change my rename request to change the title of this article from ‘Libyan civil war’ to “Libyan Revolution”. Considering that the ‘2011-2012 Yemeni uprising’ page was change to ‘2011-2012 Yemeni revolution’ for that exact reason, it only seems logical to change the Libyan tittle page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
One problem is, that there were both a civilian uprising AND a civil war. Contrary to Egypt and Tunisia, in Libya the civilian uprising (unarmed protesters demanding real change) quickly became overshadowed by first the gunning down of unarmed protesters by security forces, then improvised arson and gun attacks against government targets, [1] and a few days later whole sections of the state army turning against their line of command, joining opposition. And then all the militia's also formed and joined and took over much of the initiative. It resulted in front line battles, urban warfare and a number of mass killings from both sides.
One could argue to simply call it the 'Libyan war (of 2011), because Nato involvement was so crucial in crippling government supply lines and taking out tanks and airplanes. And in giving so many local fiefs the courage to start their own militia.
But as the current events show (many militia's still armed and active, refusing orders from any authority, doing their own arbitrary justice) the armed actors are indeed the main defining characteristic of the Libyan uprising. That would justify calling it a civil war. There WAS a libyan war, and because on the ground the majority of the armed opposition were improvised militia, it was a civil war.
The best way to do respect to it, is to clearly introduce the beginning of the civil war. We could rename the section "Uprising and civil war" into: "Uprising turning into civil war", which would necessitate some re-editing, because lots of peaceful protest continued while the civil war grew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was the article will be subject to a move moratorium for 6 months. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
A 6-month moratorium is proposed on new requested moves on this talkpage, inclusive of both capitalisation changes and new terms.
Consensus for this motion will be determined below by a discussion lasting no more than two weeks (starting 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) and ending on 1 April), and will judged and closed by an uninvolved administrator (to be found by neutrally-worded request at the administrator's noticeboard). If no or unfavourable consensus is judged, new move requests will be allowed as usual following the closure of the discussion. If consensus is judged to be in favour of the moratorium, it will begin immediately following the closure of the discussion.
For the duration of the moratorium, the article's name will remain at the status quo. Any and all attempted move requests will be closed immediately and permanently as no consensus without further discussion. A notice linking to the discussion result will be posted prominently at the top of the article to advise against initiating requested moves.
At the end of 6 months, the moratorium will expire, unless consensus is achieved for an extension. Expiration or extension of the moratorium will be decided by discussion, with the default result (i.e., no consensus) being expiration. Expiration will not, however, mean that the name will necessarily be changed, only that new requests will be allowed.
The move proposal in the section above will be frozen during the discussion period, as will any new ones proposed during said period. If the moratorium is not enacted, all frozen proposals will be reopened to discussion. If the moratorium is enacted, all frozen proposals will be immedately and permanently closed as no consensus.
Any proposed edits or amendments to this proposal may be discussed below. Participants are advised to look through the talkpage archives to familiarise themselves with the history of requested moves and naming discussions of this page.
List of past move discussions: 1–8 9–11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21–23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31–32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
NOTE: This is not a requested move. Discussion of preferred titles here is inappropriate.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
According to Charter97 a military plane from Libya arrived to Belarus on September 26. [1] Närking ( talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The Timeline shouldn't say present anymore except with a small note saying small mop up operations contiune for the NTC. cause a vast majority of the war is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicevan ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please respect Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:V. Wikipedia is not an NTC leaflet. For instance, take this sentence: "Libyan citizen journalist Mohammed Nabbous was shot in the head by Gaddafi's soldiers..." There is no evidence (much less a court verdict) of who shot Nabbous, so please remove that part of the statement.-- 217.157.165.109 ( talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There are reports of renewed clashes in Zwara between NTC and loyalists forces. Also, NTC consolidated the full control of Ghat 180.183.120.55 ( talk) 13:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's correct. There have been some clashes following an attack with GRAD missiles. As for Ghat, the source is this Tripolitan organization,but I am not sure if it's good enough (check the updates in the center-right of the page). http://wmclibya.org/
BTW Today according to Al Jazeera-which is a reliable source-, Mutassim Ghaddafi fled Sirte towards southern Libya , one of his convoy was captured by NTC. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya 180.183.120.55 ( talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is need to create a specific article to collect information about the power transition, political forces, political moves, incidents, etc. The transitional phase is as important as the war itself, and need an independent coverage and article to let us work smoothly. Yug (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
After the capture of Sirte and the promised declaration of "liberated Libya" by NTC, we might consider start this chapter. But I am afraid unless Ghaddafi is captured, guerrilla and clashes in some parts of the country will go on. So,let's wait for the right time to do that. 180.183.127.41 ( talk) 08:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Turkey is mentioned only one throughout the article. However Turkey is one of the major players of the civil war.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan is a belligerent of this war. Turkey arranged several meetings in Istanbul. Please see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/15/c_13987890.htm and http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Diplomats-Meet-in-Turkey-to-Discuss-Libyas-Future-128427383.html
In addition Turkey provided 300 million USD in cash to NTC ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html). This should be added to the funding table because it is a bigger then France.-- Starcrescent ( talk) 07:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Alert Net and other sources have reported that Abdullah Senussi has been killed in battle. Should we add the (KIA) to his name in the info-box. 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 11:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How about a link to your source first? 97.92.36.131 ( talk) 19:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I am essentially proposing the article be expanded to include the following (which can be copied an pasted mostly as-is, though with some expansion). (I have removed the other sections that this includes.)
++Aftermath++
++Impact++
GHADDAFI’S removal from power…
+++Casualties and war crimes+++
No final tally of the casualties of the conflict could be confirmed…
Or
In the final tally, …
In terms of war crimes, …
+++Home fronts and production+++
During the conflict, Lybian production was reduced, especially of their main export (oil)…
+++Advances in technology and warfare+++
Extensive use of
technicals (civilian or military non-combat vehicle modified to provide an offensive capability), many with improvised armor (an attempt to improve survivability) by loyalist and anti-Gaddafi forces was seen to move to and fro on the desert terrain. They quickly become the vehicle of choice for both sides (despite the use of tanks and helicopters). Medium flatbed trucks carrying the Soviet-made towed quad barreled
ZPU and twin barreled
ZU-23-2 guns,
recoilless rifles, and
UB-32 helicopter rocket launcher pods were the most common seen; In the case of rocket launchers, low-tech devices were improvised to activate the weapons (such as the use of doorbells).
Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (
talk)
22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The status quo overview map has served this article well, but at this point it conveys no information other than "Bani Walid surrounded, fighting in Sirte". A map that doesn't say more than six words isn't worth the screen space.
Instead we should look towards compiling a map that shows an overview of the developments during March to September. -- dab (𒁳) 08:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
this map is ridiculous. today there was reported heavy fightings inside of tripolis. there are no rebels left in sirte. etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to mention the high toll of casualities due to friendly fire and unexperience by local FF. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/oct/14/libya-muammar-gaddafi In the battle of Sirte there have been many casualities as such and also during celebrations in Tripoli there have been many casualities due to bullets shot for celebration.
It worths mentioning that. 180.183.53.77 ( talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Please take notice german media reported http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/libyenkonflikt102.html USA and NTC rejected offers for international observed elections and peace.
Also it breaks international law to intervene a civil war. Period. This should be considered in one of the first sentences, since this is an obvious fact and outstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
So plz. Zawya is green... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want that added, you will need to provide a source. Jeancey ( talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok CIA worker Jeancey;)
Before and after will be presented ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 17:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Seeing the Civil war is drawing to a close with almoist all of Libya under the NTC's control my proposal is to create new maps that show dates of the battles (area of control over time in a time lapse photo maybe?) or something of the sort, does anyone have any other ideas for this? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a fair number of people are dissatisfied with the current name, though there's been no clear consensus to move. Perhaps first we should decide, if we want it moved, which name do we want? The proposals, from status quo to most radical, have been:
Can we maybe narrow down the possibilities? — kwami ( talk) 07:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera reporting Anti-Gaddafi victory over most of Bani Walid: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/2011101713437351911.html 38.112.107.215 ( talk) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Another Source claiming the fall of Bani Walid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8832220/Libya-Gaddafi-stronghold-Bani-Walid-falls-NTC-forces-claim.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.1 ( talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
When fighting stops, when Gaddafi is captured, or when a formal agreement is reached? -- Polmas ( talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right. MG is capable of anything , but regarding Wikipedia being "better" than the weekly world news, It's not a matter of being better ,it's a matter of being DIFFERENT. A daily news bulletin is different from a Encyclopedia. Thanks God we have both of them ! 180.183.142.239 ( talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the piece of news is still to be confirmed amidst contradictory news. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya This Libyan war will be remembered as the double-war, one on the field and another one of rumors. 180.183.119.47 ( talk) 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Pravda.ru reported that 2% of the population of Sirte was killed by NATO bombings, i guess this should be added on "Humanitarian Situation" Source: Pravda.ru 177.9.187.70 ( talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sirte has been captured according to AP and Aljazeera, but is this the end of the war? Should we wait until Jalil announces the liberation of Libya? Also, I updated the map and some of the article to reflect the capture of Sirte. -- Skipbox ( talk) 09:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The NTC is careful not to announce the end of the conflict, and we should do the same. Apparently, Gaddafi is lurking somewhere in southern Libya and gathering tribal mercenaries. Until they capture Gaddafi, he can potentially still cause a lot of damage.
But with the main conflict is over, there is no point in showing a map of the "current frontline", as there is none. Instead, we should compile a map summarizing the major developments, February to October. -- dab (𒁳) 10:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The War is over! Change the page to stating that the war completed on October 20th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.17.219 ( talk) 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator of most maps of the conflict and I intend on creating one last map now the war is almost over. What would be better: an animated gif or a map showing front lines' development similat to the Tripoli one?-- Rafy talk 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
How about one with the dates over the cities like the mountains map. An animated GIF is not that good. -- Skipbox ( talk) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A suggestion is to colour the map according to when the different areas were captured. The colour wavelength could be made to correspond to the timeline. The reason is that colours are easier to see even within a thumbnail. Text is notoriously mangled in pictures. A link to an animated gif would be neat thoe. Electron9 ( talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh Come on guys¡¡¡..I think it is fair to say that this is right now a Revolution...why do not make the changes?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.105.62 ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
¿Where did my section on “after the war” go? It was much less than 20 days old, and I hadn’t added it yet as there were no comments (in support, opposition, or something else entirely), meaning someone removed it. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' ( talk) 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has messed up this section of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willknowsalmosteverything ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Denmark have just had elections and a new Prime Minister is in power. Shouldn't Helle Thorning-Schmidt now be listed in the infobox instead of Lars Løkke Rasmussen? Froztbyte ( talk) 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
the commander in chief of the Danish forces is the monarch of Denmark, the same can be said for the monarchs of the UK, should they also not be listed -- Scottykira ( talk) 05:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the war over now that all places have been taken by the rebel troops? Shouldn't that be said in the beginning? -- Metron ( User talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice someone has updated the article to give an end date and shift the language to past tense. None of the sources I've read so far confirm this viewpoint, rather the essence I've gotten from the sources is that there's still ongoing fighting between NTC forces and Gaddafi loyalists. Could someone provide some sources that explicitly state the civil war is over? The fact that Gaddafi is dead or that the NTC holds all major population centres does not mean the war is over. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a small note/request, but in the Belligerents box on the sidebar, there should be a (POW) next to Saif's name, because it was confirmed by NTC / The Justice Minister that he was captured.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.128.156 ( talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is far from being confirmed independently - the probably got it wrong the first time, and all major news networks still say he is probably still at large. 75.38.193.168 ( talk) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead is in desperate need of more info covering the Libyan-led advance; almost everything military-related is about the UN right now, even after I pruned a bunch of excessive info. That seems a bit lopsided for an article about a civil war. :) I haven't followed all the specific battles and such, so it would be nice if someone could add some info to flesh it out... – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The above is a query I've wondered about for sometime and, since this article is receiving as much attention as it ever will, now seems the right time to raise it.
When did the situation in Libya reach the point at which it can be defined as a civil war? Protests started on February 15, but protests do not in of themselves constitute the start of a civil war: after all, they weren't part of a pre-conceived plan on the way to a civil war. The protests happened and somewhere along the lines a civil war emerged. Perhaps when it started depends on whether this article is renamed to cover the wider pre/post-war Libyan Revolution (at which point I'd say the start date can be brought back right to the earliest set of protests) or whether the civil war and revolution are separated into different articles (e.g. Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War), but my guess is a civil war as is historically understood did not begin until one of these defining points. No real certainty on my part as to which one:
February 17 - 'Day of Revolt': the name for the successful push to increase the scale of the protests.
February 19 - Gaddafi forces withdraw from Bayda - the first area seemingly where protests turned into a direct usurpation of Gaddafi's control over an area in the country.
February 27 - National Transitional Council established, thus representing a clear break between sections of Libyan society into two opposing camps committed to opposing each other militarily.
If every set of initial protests were called a civil war, then plenty of articles on protests could be called civil wars despite failing rapidly. I guess that's the jist of what I'm getting at. In the end, maybe because of the fluidity and rapidity of how protests turned to civil war, it might best to stick with February 15 as the starting point. But, whatever the result, seems wise to get a consensus on this point before proceeding further in sprucing up the article. :) Redverton ( talk) 01:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The war started at the very moment the conflict between loyalists and anti-Gaddafists started, that's 15 February. Most civil wars in history didn't start as wars but more of as civil unrests and later evolved into civil wars. In that respect, 15 February is a solid date. EkoGraf ( talk) 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone recently got rid of the KIA by the head of Libya's secret police saying that he was in Egypt. If that was true, then why was he leading the defenses of Sabha after he was reported to have fled http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8754761/All-eyes-on-the-desert-as-the-hunt-for-Gaddafi-continues.html? Can someone please find the answer and provide a source? 50.129.89.173 ( talk) 11:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The KIA symbol was removed because no sources were provided that confirm he was killed. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's my rationale: normally, alternate names are used in this fashion for different *proper* names, and especially not for different names that are just generic synonyms in the case of things like events. (Or, in this case, a subset; the revolution is part of the civil war.) If there were multiple sources stating the name of this thing as the "Libyan Civil War" or "Libyan Revolution," I'd take that as a valid proper name, and if both were used, including the alternate would make sense.
However, we're really referring to the "Libyan civil war." Likewise, media mentions are the same; they refer to a "civil war" in Libyan and/or a "revolution" in Libya, not "the Libyan <Whatever-proper-name>"... So, going back to the previous case, we're left as having two non-proper name synonyms, which really doesn't flow with the article nor does it make sense...since again, the civil war did indeed include and consist of a revolution. But we refer to it as a civil war, for reasons that have been discussed elsewhere... So no need for the synonym, especially when it's just being generically used in the media, since media mentions were the rationale to add it. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What bugs me much more than the "revolution" question is the pompous claim that the "native name" of this war is "al-ḥarb al-ahlīyah fī Lībiyā ‘ām 2011". We give native names for *proper* names of article topics. While this is simply the straightforward Arabic translation of the English article title. It isn't even the article title on ar-wiki, which has the equivalent of "Revolution of 17 February". -- dab (𒁳) 10:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It says on this page that the civil war ended on 20-th of october. I found a source (CNN) however, that says the NTC will declare saturday to be the 'official date' Libya is free. Shouldn't that also mark the official end of the civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.91.20 ( talk) 10:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I can't put the source link in here... I just pressed 'save page' but ik won't save it... This wikipedia is hopelesly complicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.91.20 ( talk) 10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The NTC HAS sort of declared victory. The old regime is dead. Gadaffi is DEAD and most of his top supporters are in exile or have been either killed or co-opted. A revolution is a change of regime, right? In Egypt for instance, the only people to go were Mubarak and his immediate family (both literal and political). The government of Egypt as of now contain about 80% of the same people who were the government a year ago. The same with Tunisia, if the top guy and his family are gone, then it's a revolution. Remember, the new regime in Tunisia fell a few months after Zia did. Also remember that there were TWO Russian revolutions, one in February and one in October. THEN there was a civil war. In this case, the civil war is effectively over (the last Republicans in the Spanish hills didn't surrender until the early 1950s). If there's a revolt against the NTC, then it's an entirely DIFFERENT revolution. change the color back to black. Ericl ( talk) 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems the line "NTC said 30.000 died, one month later, the NTC reduced the estimated number of killed to 25,000." is based only McCain briefly saying that "They've got thousands and thousands of wounded. They say that they've lost 25,000 people killed, 3000 have been maimed, 60,000 injured. That's their government figures," McCain told CBS television's Face the Nation program.
Is this really a good source? Could McCain have gotten the numbers wrong? Where did the 5.000 less casualties come from? The 30.000 number was given as 15.000 dead Ghaddafi soldiers, 5000 dead rebel soldiers and 10.000 civilians.
The NTC also stated that with the 30k number that "War wounded were estimated as at least 50,000, of which about 20,000 were serious injuries,", McCain puts this at 3000 maimed and 60.000 injured, shouldn't this be updated as well if we go with what he said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the "Tripolitanian Front" map has become practically all red with a little green dot for Bani Walid, shouldn't we create a new map showing just Bani Walid, as was done for Sirte? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
the time will come you realize tripoli is green and the rebels are on the run. stay ignorant so i can enjoy the coming victory even more. you will learn your lesson if you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 19:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
seriously don't you have a critical rationalness? how many times did they capture this or that person, take sirte and other "last strongholds" over and over again? even CNN is much more critically to NTC-reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 ( talk) 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I must say that the pro gaddafi people on this are either brainwashed or deluded as evidenced in the above comments. The NTC control the whole country and Gaddafi is dead, his governments is gone. The War is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.243 ( talk) 13:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXyg317-NI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no way to verify that the place pictured is actually zawiya, or when the video was taken.... Jeancey ( talk) 18:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Rebel flag on one building is "all" day before ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And still no way to prove when the video was taken. Jeancey ( talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Under heavy censorship, it is amazing to news coming... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
When a reliable source states that Zawiya has been taken by pro-gaddafi forces, it will be added. Jeancey ( talk) 18:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Jeancey, if for you reliable source CNN and BBC.. in this case my grandma is very competent for discussion ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source would be any news agency, preferably several, with actual dates, names of sources, and verifiable information. Also, please stop adding new sections. Discussion can happen in this section. Jeancey ( talk) 18:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
"A reliable source would be any news agency, preferably several, with actual dates, names of sources, and verifiable information." of courese.. I just say - my grandma is very competent for all. All kidding aside .. where is your valid source, and it is not western or Al-Jazzier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You need a valid source to ADD information. You don't need a source to NOT add information. Jeancey ( talk) 18:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And what is valid for you??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course.. it is wiki :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 ( talk) 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Jeancey you show on your account pure anti-Gaddafi position.. so I think - you have not rights for any discussion... I'm just neutral, and I don't want your lies CIA worker ;)
That video is 6 months old. And great, this article is beeing spammed by bunch of trolls, thank god for this page beeing locked. EllsworthSK ( talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Zawiya could be under Pro G control, i doubt there are many there who support him, not after what happened back in March to the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.243 ( talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Libyancivilwar2.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
(ABC News)
(Wall Street Journal)
(The Jerusalem Post)
Should the end of the civil war be marked as this date? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
THIS MEANS THAT IT'S A REVOLUTION! SERIOUSLY GUYS! STOP TRYING TO CHANGE HISTORY! Rab777hp ( talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
With the war almost reaching its end, would it be a good idea to prepare a montage as the main image for the infobox? I've already prepared one as an example:
Clockwise, from the top-left: The Libyan National Transitional Council flag is flown from a communications tower in Bayda in July; Anti-Gaddafi forces shelling loyalists positions during the Battle of Sirte; Protesters stand on a tank, in Benghazi, at the start of the uprising; a French rescue helicopter lands on USS Mount Whitney, at the beginning of the military intervention; Remains of two Palmaria heavy howitzers of the Libyan Army, destroyed by French warplanes near Benghazi; USS Barry launches one of the Tomahawk missiles during Operation Unified Protector.
Any ideas? -- 70.82.134.146 ( talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Great idea! I almost wanted to say about this too whereby you put images in the infobox after the civil war is over. 175.144.125.245 ( talk) 10:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out above there needs to be something for the infobox, the battle maps are now all but worthless and dont add much to the article now. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Description has been modified according to the new montage found in the infobox of the article. Could someone add it below it?-- NovusLux ( talk) 02:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(who were wearing some weird variation of a German uniform) were raping Arab and Mulum women in prison… Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' ( talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955 The BBC are on the reliable list, I think... 89.238.141.2 ( talk) 11:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
AJA says he was killed, so will will wait to see if killed or captured. -- Skipbox ( talk) 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There's now a picture claimed to be one of Gaddafi after capture in this picture and article. Undetermined weather he's alive or not. Electron9 ( talk) 12:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this signify the end of the war? Noneofyour ( talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is confirmed I will agree that we should put 20 October as the end of the war. Without Gaddafi, there is no "pro-Gaddafi" cause and, mercenaries will not get paid, and will probably just go away. -- dab (𒁳) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
To add (still from Al Jazeera English): Mutassim Gaddafi is still alive, and is reportedly captured and still held in Sirte. (In other words, remove the KIA symbol beside his name) Heran et Sang'gres ( talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
CNN is also reporting his death. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/20/libyan-fighters-say-they-have-captured-gadhafi/?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1 Wingtipvortex ( talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the end of the War as it exists now. If the country devolves back into conflict again, it will be for different reason and honestly a different conflict all together. So yes, 20-Oct-2011 is as good a date as any to mark the end of the conflict. There may be some holdouts, but there is no hope for Gadaffi to return to power now that he is dead, his senior leaders dead, and his Army destroyed. ArcherMan86 ( talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is that several quotable sources have now stated that "the war is over". Don't forget that we are just supposed to be a tertiary source. The beautiful thing is that plain common sense most often does correspond to the general consensus of respectable sources. Regardless of the often unbelievable degree of human stupidity, especially online, it is reassuring that the general consensus will still get it mostly right most of the time. It's why Wikipedia's approach makes sense. -- dab (𒁳) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
With the death of Gaddafi now it's ok to rename the article Libyan Revolution or 2011 Libyan revolution, please do this speedily thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see the reason why the article about this civil war should be renamed now it is over, or because it is over? The article was about an ongoing civil war, and now it is about a civil war that has just ended. Whatever considerations could be brought up regarding the article title, the events of today have nothing to do with them. Compare Russian Revolution vs. Russian civil war. One is about the political revolution, the other about the military conflict. Of course the two are related, but this doesn't mean they are one and the same. -- dab (𒁳) 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why does the year have to be specified? Has there ever been another Libyan civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 ( talk) 21:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For those of you guys who don't understand: the only difference between a Civil War and Revolution is the outcome. A Civil War is a failure or ongoing, and a Revolution is a success. Thus, as the regime changed, Gadahfi overthrown and killed, it's a revolution. Also now IS fitting because it's not just the fall of Gadhafi, but pretty much the fall of his regime, as Sirte was the last place not under NTC control Rab777hp ( talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Rab, please stop trying to redirect the article without consensus. I have reverted your second attempt. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, if you want the article to be moved, please file a move request, so that it will appear on appropriate lists and editors will be made aware that a discussion is underway. Secondly, be very careful of the distinction between someone naming an event and someone describing an event. A newspaper article that says 'More civilian deaths have been reported as the Libyan civil war heats up' are naming the event as the 'Libyan civil war'. Barack Obama saying 'You have won your revolution' is him describing the event as a revolution. Our article is titled based on what the majority of reliable sources are naming the conflict, not on how they are describing it. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Google nets 29.8 million for Libyan civil war, and only 16 million for Libyan revolution. Jeancey ( talk) 04:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jeancy, who do you think you are? the owner of Wikipedia? I didn't feel like making a full bureaucratic move request, it's a pretty obvious thing that what happened in Libya is a revolution, have you ever thought about the fact we don't need to wait for what CNN would call it but what the scholars and academia would call it? (and yes I don't have the sources, I will get them eventually) but IT IS a revolution whether CNN, MSNBC or FAUX news wants to call it like that or not. I am tired of every time one wants to make a change or an addition to an article there is some "editor" asking you to do some kind of regulatory-mandatory-guideline oriented procedure. -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 05:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
First, the “fact” that GADDAFI is dead is not yet verified. (Yes, I think it’s true, but I also “think” there will be a colony on the moon someday; That doesn’t make it true.)
Second, the conflict is not yet over; Assuming he is dead, the NTC still isn’t a government, it’s a loose coalition of militias and other factions, each with their agenda, and as such there is not only a possibility but in fact a probability of further violence (such as occurred in Somalia after their “revolution” that still isn’t over).
As such, of the time being, keep the name and location, await events, and THEN let’s do whatever has to be done that that point.
Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (
talk)
18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The English version of " Revolution" defines as revolution as a "fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time." This is clearly the case for Libya. The former leader has been deposed and killed, the former regime has been replaced with a caretaker government, and many international actors have recognized that caretaker government as the sole legitimate governing authority for Libya. Had Gaddafi remained in power and his regime survived, then I believe "civil war" would have been appropriate. However, with this fundamental change in Libya, "revolution" best describes the events. See examples like the American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and the Tunisian Revolution. In summary, I support the proposed change. Rougher07 ( talk) 20:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I've run into this for a while, and it's really bugging me. For some reason, most of the New York Times links have been tagged "Registration Required" but I have NEVER found this to be true. Every time I clink on the link (and I do it EVERY time I see it) and I can view the entire article in question. I'm not signed up for any New York Times affiliated organization or anything. Why are these there? Is registration required for some people? And if not, who added all these tags? Thanks for clearing up an issue thats been really bothering me! Jeancey ( talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There have been a number of editors and Ip's over at Talk:Arab Spring that continie to push for the name Revolution for the conflict, the most recent being someone who put forward 4 reliable sources with the name Revolution down in it. I would like some input here on what should be done here as this article links from the Article Arab Spring. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Can we seriously get a topic ban on this for now? This can not seriously be brought up every two days, especially when it gets little or no support. I'm all for the whole consensus changes, but this is ridiculous.-- JOJ Hutton 17:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A massacre is generally accepted to be the mass killing of people WITHOUT ARMED FIGHTING AROUND, OR AFTER THE ARMED FIGHTING STOPPED. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre) So large numbers of civilian casualties during fighting, although often a war crime, are NOT automatically a massacre, as long as there was shooting from two sides. As a consequence, this Massacre- section needs a lot of work.
Proposal to take out: The paragraph citing Amnesty, because the cited reports nowhere name or suggest massacres, and only speculate about 'may even have been killed'
The directly following paragraphs I propose also to be taken out, because they do not relate to massacres, except, indirectly, to the February 20 massacre of unarmed demonstrators on the Green Square, by Ghaddafi forces. This Feb 20-massacre merits a strongly worded paragraph, there are now much better, first hand sources for that massacre.
Also the paragraph about the International Fed Hum Ri should be considred to throw out, as it is almost only speculative, based on few resources that are now considered doubtful, and it is largely proven wrong by events in the field.
The last alinea (Gaddafi continued these tactics..) also apparently refers to mass casualties DURING fighting, so in this form it doesn't belong under this header.
Also the following chapter (Execution of own soldiers) I propose to be deleted, as research on Youtube video's shatters the believeworthyness of the initial report about where and by whom these soldiers were killed ( http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/al-baida-massacre-further-behind-scenes.html) Doubt has further increased because the only source attributing this 'massacre' to the Ghaddafi side (Int Fed Human Rights) has failed to substantiate or even stand by their initial report in spite of such requests from several media. They even don't mention the report on their own web-site.
There have, on top of the Green Square massacre, been several massacres during this war that do deserve a paragraph each under this header: -Time reported that at february 18, 15 suspected mercenaries were hanged by rebels in front of the court house of Al Baida, after they had surrendered; -The massacre of 70 Chadian oil workers and several Sudanese by attackers from the rebel side, reported by BBCnews.com at 25 february 2011; -The 50 + prisoners of the Khamis-brigade in southern Tripoly, massacred at august 23rd 2011(likely under responsibility of Ghaddafi's son Khamis)( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJw-IKKbzpg), -The mid-October massacre of handcuffed soldiers and civilians in Mahari hotel, Sirte, which literally bears the signature of rebel brigades ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/middleeast/libyas-interim-leaders-to-investigate-qaddafi-killing.html?_r=1&hpw), and (if credible reports appear) the as yet unverified reports of more groups of bodies in Sirte, seemingly killed by rebel brigades after the fighting stopped.
Also, maybe Ghaddafi-forces massacred people on at least one occasion in their offensive in the Western Mountains, but from the conflicting reports, to me it is unclear if this was deliberately shooting of non-fighting civilians or not.
(I strongly desire that the list of massacres ends here.) Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Footnote 99 erroneously refers to an Amnesty International report. The quote about Western media is actually from the report by the International Crisis Group mentioned in the quoted Independent story. Please correct. The ICG report is here, with the relevant section on p. 4: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/107%20-%20Popular%20Protest%20in%20North%20Africa%20and%20the%20Middle%20East%20V%20-%20Making%20Sense%20of%20Libya.pdf.
193.65.255.1 ( talk) 07:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just come back from Libya and nobody there(not even the imprisoned Gaddfi loyalists) refer to the revolution as a civil war. some of them even felt insulted that I had defiled there revolution with such a name. it has become very clear that the events in Libya will not go down in history as a civil war but only as a revolution since it is ultimately the country's inhabitants who will right its history. I've noticed you were quick to call the events in Egypt and Tunisia a revolution (although they are not really as the system has more or less stayed the same) but yet you called them revolutions because it's inhabitants referred to it as that. Surely you should now do the same for the Libya (the first genuine revolution of the Arab spring so far as it very broad social-economic support and completely eradicated the old system much as the French,american and Russian revolutions did) as you did for Egypt and Tunisia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not a journalist, I'M a student who has an interest in history, and I decided to visit all three successful Arab spring nations before going back to to university Libya was by far the most interesting (from an historical perspective). it was the only true revolution. It almost felt like being in post revolutionary France or Russia.
Ok yes Gadaffi is dead but his son and other high ranking officials is still at large, what's to say further clashes between merceneries and insurgents wont happen? What's to say the scenes in Tripoli won't repeat themselves elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 ( talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Curious, why is "2011" in the article's title? The article only mentions one other civil war in the country's history — Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795, which likely would be better entitled "Tripolitanian Civil War..." and is a redlink anyway. Nyttend ( talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Too bad. A lot of NTC photos and illustrations in this article. I think most of the Wikipedian editors are pro-rebel Libyans. Remember that neutrality is important!! P.S I am not a pro-Gaddafi! But can we add some of the pro gaddafi images too? [User:Muhammad Mukhriz|Muhammad Mukhriz]] ( talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I Agree! Just note that the great number of references is from the media from countries directly involved in conflict on rebels side. Thus, neutrality is heavily disputed. E.g. do you remember how Al Jazeera reported about protest on Green square in Tripoli, which was actually fake and staged in Qatar. Even NTC admitted it was fake. Al Jazeera cannot be held as reliable source after this stunt, and many references are coming from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.221.2 ( talk) 09:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to: Commanders and Leaders Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Prime Minister of Turkey)
Please add to table: Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya Turkey 300 Million USD July 2011 ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html)
Starcrescent (
talk)
08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
All the major British news channels (BBC, Sky news, ITV news and channel 4 news) now only use the term revolution as well as major Arab news channels(Aljazeera, Alarabiya etc). Most British and Arab newspapers also now only use the term revolution. Expets on conflicts such as Michael Ignatieff openly states its not a civil war on his article on the CBC website and experts on Libya itself such as Jason Pack never useses the term civil war on his article in the Gaudian. The term "Civil war" is very deciving, it gives the imprssion that almost half the population supported Gaddafi, when according to the BBC's latest video on libya; 20% of libyans were loyal to Gaddafi. I know 20% is still a signicant minorty but bear in mind 25% of americans were were still loyal to king George III during the American Revolution and anywhere between 20%-35% of the french public were still loyal to louis XVI during the french revolution; just because the entire population doesnt support the opposition doesn't make it any less of a Revoluton. Various world leaders only use the term Revolution (Obama, Cameron, Erdoğan etc) even the Chairmen of the NTC Mustafa Abdul Jalil stated its not a civil war in his latest interview with CNN. The term 'civil war' is no longer widly used in arab or european newspapers, the term also gives the false impresson that the conflict in libya was along tribal lines, but as you probably already know tribes had a small role in the Libyan Revolution. So it is now time to rename this page to the Libyan Revolution.
Also when you do rename this page to The Libyan Revolution will you create a seperate page for the transition or will you put the transition and conflict together under the Libyan Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So when are you going to rename the article? I've provided you with enough evidence if you look at all European and Arab articles on Libya from late august onwards the term 'Revolution' is much more wildly used than the term 'civil war', especially in AP and AFP articles which both stated back in September they would no longer use the term 'rebels' to describe the opposition but instead usethe terms 'former rebels' or 'revolutionaris', showing their acknoledgment of the Libyan Revolution. Libyans aren't going to celebrate febuary 17th as the start of a civil war but as the start of their revolution. There is no longer an excuse to continue to use the term 'civil war': the old system is completly gone, the revolt clearly had popular support, i've provided you with more than enough reliable sources above; Now is the time to rename this article 'The Libyan Revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The person has a good point. Why aren't you changing the page to The Libyan Revolution? He/she appears to have given good solid points which none of you are actually answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that we wait a year or so for things to settle down a bit and then see what the RS consensus name is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely true. The American Revolution was as much about american fighting american as it was about american fighting British. Many Americans joined the red coat loyalist army (thats why it's usally called a loyalist army). Americans were among the feicest units of the loyalist army. The fact that there was a mass migration of american loyalists to Canada once the revolution was over shows how much support the king still enjoyed in America. Similar thing with the french revolution (frenchmen were fighting other frenchmen) yet few historians call the French Revolution the French civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I mildly support the renaming of the article from 2011 Libyan civil war to 2011 Libyan Revolution, or at the very least major alterations to the current article if the title is to remain 2011 Libyan Civil war. The main reason being is that the current article seems much to skewed towards the revolutionaries/rebels for it to be the titled civil war. For example all the pictures seem to be that of the opposition supporters, non of Qaddafi militias or supporters, and text of the article seems better suited for explaining an uprising than a civil war. A true civil war article is meant to explain how Libyan society and Libyan families were divided(the old brother against brother expression) the only problem is, this does not seem to apply to the Libyan case, in fact they seem more united throughout this conflict then they've ever been throughout there history, (and will likely never be that united again). If the BBC figure is correct in that 20% of Libyans were loyal to Qaddafi (which is conveniently the same percentage of Libyans who either had links or were involved in Qaddafi's security apparatus and militias) then this truly was the case of the people against the state, which in my opinion seems more like a Revolution rather than a civil war. Another change you must make if you want to keep the title 2011 Libyan Civil war is the date in which it started. The official start of civil wars throughout history is the start of the first battle, which was Zawiya on the 24th Febuary 2011 prior to this you can not legitimacy call it a civil war as there were no two opposing armies facing each other prior to this it was security forces against mostly unarmed protesters, that's why I think the 1st battle of Benghazi should be renamed the 'Storming of the Katiba' as it would better express the event that really kicked off the libyan Revolution/civil war. So either you have rename the article 2011 Libyan Revolution, or keep the current title and make serious alternations so the event seems more like an actual civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim74 ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are some samples from the British media:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15500682
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15557403
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412220
news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16094625
blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/where-were-the-women-in-libyas-revolution/18208
www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-not-the-only-victim-of-libya-s-revolution
Here are some samples of articles that further prove my point:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/post-gaddafi-libya-local?INTCMP=SRCH
www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/libya-women-idUSL6E7M41OY20111104
Also if you go on to Aljazeera or Alarabiya and type in Libya on their search engines you’ll the term Revolution is used far more than the term 'civil war' in most of their articles. This is also true for highly rated British and American newspapers (e.g. Wall street journal, Financial times, New york times, The Telegraph etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 01:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. For the umpth time. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155. — http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.127.89 ( talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Even the link provided states that it's unconfirmed, and its only source was a facebook account of al-Rai network, but as i remember, al-Rai later said it was hacked by someone; also that info published on the hacked page was retelling of the already refuted old news about Khamis killed in one airstrike alongside Abdulla Senoussi (who's definitely alive and well and later seen in Niger). There were also other mentions of Khamis long after that supposed date of his death. I will try to find some specific links, but in any case, should the people there be presented as dead based on such a weak proof which isn't sure being a proof itself? 77.45.171.127 ( talk) 09:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new article titled 2011 Libyan revolution. Unlike the attempts to rename the present article, the new article does not concern the armed conflict, but the social and political changes entailed by the civil war. Adding new events the present article does not seem consistent with the fact that the lede describes the conflict in past tense.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have seen zero reliable sources that advocate such a distinction. Unless you can produce a number of sources that split the events into a distinct "civil war" and "revolution", the entire article is essentially pure unencyclopaedic WP:SYNTH and should be deleted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
On balance, I agree with Anders' view and with his article, but Lothar is also right. Reliable sources have not referred to the revolution as the wider changes around which the civil war forms a central part, and it would be SYNTH to write as if that were the case. However, in my view Anders makes a decisive point: there are a huge amount of social, economic and political changes about to happen. What are we going to do: put them all onto a 'post civil-war' section on this article? :( There is a point where practicality trumps many other things: it just won't be possible to describe the wider background and future changes all on this article. And Techno's right: accepting SYNTH and that such precedent hasn't been applied to Libya by reliable sources yet, there is indeed that precedent that a revolution and civil war can be separated. Take American Revolution and American Revolutionary War. In my mind, my only dispute is whether to trump other people's views and remove the PROP-DELETE template from Anders' article: I don't want my view to trump consensus. We at least have 6 days to clarify our position. So, to conclude, I support Anders' idea, and I'm willing to offer my help to improve the article yet further. I really do think this is achievable and a good idea. Redverton ( talk) 06:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I fully support the idea and here are some samples of reliable sources that could only really work under the title 2011 Libyan Revolution: Women’s role in the revolution and how relationships between men and women within Libya society have changed:
[ List of links mirrored at Talk:2011 Libyan revolution -- Anders Feder ( talk) 03:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ]
As I said they are only samples many more articles were written on each of these subject during the course of the armed revolution which would mean you would have to look back on article dating from February to August it’s going to be a lot of work but I’m sure many of the editors working on 2011 Libyan civil war will help you. it would also probably be a good idea to include the NTC road map to democray as well. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 02:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you find a single source saying Libya is still at war?-- Anders Feder ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A little late to the conversation but I was just thinking if the term Revolution is such a "loaded" word, then why were you so quick to use the term for the events in Tunisia and Egypt? Yes they both saw mass protests which saw the resignation of their Presidents which could be labelled as successful uprisings. But neither nation witnessed any of the massive social, cultural or even political changes of their society(that Iran and the eastern bloc nations witnessed)that would require it to be a revolution. It could be argued that what happened in Egypt and Tunisia was no more a Revolution than Nixon's' resignation after protest and the threat of impeachment in USA was a revolution.
As for Libya their were many reliable sources written during the 8 month conflict that were about the revival of art, free media, music, civil society, education system, Berber culture and wider Libyan culture as well as the radical change of women role within Libyan society and a massive return of former Libyan exiles. If you look back on articles written on these subjects most of them use the term revolution and it wouldn't make sense to put them under Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war as the events happened during the 8 month uprising. Libya not only witnessed massive social and cultural change but it also witnessed the complete overhaul of the old political order allowing it to start from scratch(unlike Egypt and Tunisia). If Revolution is not too "loaded" a word for Tunisia or Egypt then it's certainly not too "loaded" for Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The Qatari army chief confirmed today that several hundred Qatari soldiers fought alongside Libyans against Gaddafi. Should we add Qatar above NATO as a combatant in the infobox? [9] - Kudzu1 ( talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This article [10] even gives his words as "hundreds in every region" of Libya. Anyway, thats definitely goes way over "enforcing the UNSC resolution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.186.101 ( talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Qatar should not be a belligerent, the "boots on the ground" were military advisors and trainers, giving them aid with tactics and communications supervising their operations, they were not involved in frontline fighting as far as i can see putting them in line with all the other nations that did the same but are not listed as belligerents.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/26/173833.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 ( talk) 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Were there other Civil Wars, or like wars in Libya that would require that we disambiguate this Civil war from another? I couldn't find one doing a quick search, but others may have different thoughts. Couldn't we just drop the "2011" and call the page "Libyan Civil War"?-- JOJ Hutton 23:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many reports about clashes in Libya(Gaddafi loyalists,rival militias) . I dont see why the death of Gaddafi should mark the end of the war. it is still going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.245.130 ( talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a recent article published in the LRB that may be of use to editors who have been working on this article, especially if people feel that the NTC's POV is getting too much uncritical acceptance. The article, from what I can tell (I'm hardly an expert on the subject), is thorough, well-researched, and critically aware. I've added it to the Further reading section, and here's the reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).Hope that helps. Sindinero ( talk) 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Following the precedents set by the vast majority of like pages (Chinese Civil War, American Civil War, English Civil War, Greek Civil War, etc.), shouldn't this be renamed Libyan Civil War? Dan Wang ( talk) 01:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Barack Obama be listed as "commander-in-Cheif of The U.S. army" instead of President? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.115.5 ( talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If no-one responds, I will just change it. 142.22.115.5 ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I cannot because it is locked. 142.22.115.5 ( talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
this article talk about a "civil war" but the only side we talk of is the NTC !!!
This look like modern propaganda!!!
we cannot talk about a civil war talking only of one faction
It is non sense!!!
their lot of Kadhafi supporter in Lybia, why you don't show some pictures? propaganda i say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.94.173 ( talk) 16:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is unacceptable to have only one side of the argument presented in a Wikipedia article, with only one reference (47) refuting some of the claims. Since it is very difficult to find reliable sources because of the extensive western propaganda, I have not been able to find much to support the other side. However, what I have found deserves to be included into the article. See testimonies by Dan Glazebrook (independent analyst), Lizzie Phelan (journalist), and Harpal Brar (politician and writer) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J3SU9qUAkSg#! Also, an interview with Lizzie Phelan by the New York Times: http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-york-times-interview-with-lizzie.html Nmenry ( talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article is misleading: The Libyan Civil War ... was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government. Surely it would be both more accurate and more neutral to say something like The Libyan Civil War ... was an armed conflict between the government of the North African state of Libya and the United States, Great Britain, France, and the tribe of the former King of Libya. This is amply supported by the record, and a reasonable summary. Son of eugene ( talk) 05:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I see with surprise that some users had put 23 October as finishing date of the Libyan War. Their argument is that the NTC declared the end of the war in that date. Ok, so following that argument, we can put a finish date on the Iraq War (ousting or execution of Saddam Hussein), for example, or the Afghan war (ousting of the Talibans). Making that difference seems to be a clear double standart, one more of the list. Regards.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 21:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The war ended. Three has not been a single skirmish between NTC forces and gaddafi forces since oct 23. Even if there was, that does not constitute an ongoing war. 100% of all Gaddafi forces commanders have been killed, captured, or left Libya.
Sopher99 (
talk)
16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This war is of a completely different nature than that in Afghanistan or Iraq, so comparisons to those two are inappropriate. The primary actors on both sides were both Libyans, and one side was defeated. Lastly, I haven't seen a single source saying the war is still ongoing. -- Yalens ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
As a compromise I added as a note in the result section that there is still sporadic low-level fighting as of late November. It's properly sourced so it's not in dispute. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to object to calling the Libyan series of events beginning in February 18th a "civil war". Rather, I believe it should be called a "revolution", at least primarily so, and can be secondarily called a civil war. The definition of a civil war as stated by the Wikipedia article "Civil War" states that "The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory." The beginning of the Libyan revolution did not involve a "party". It was merely peaceful demonstrations calling for the ousting of the Muammar Qaddafi rule. These people were not in possession of a part of the national territory. In essence, the naming "Civil War" suggests a struggle for power, and this was not the case in Libya. Rather, it was simply a "Revolution" for the ousting of a regime labelled by international standards as a "brutal, unlawful" one.
Thank you 99.122.202.192 ( talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're a little late with this request. There have been half a dozen requests like yours to change the title to revolution and each time an overwhelming majority of editors decided that the proper term is civil war and not revolution. So, no point in starting another discussion on this topic for a seventh time. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I know this has already been dealt with but i have to say something, firstly, the party in revolt, which in the first week were just protesters, were actually in control. They had control Benghazi and everything east of it and set up local commitees, before the NTC was formed. They also had Misrata and Zawiya, all before the formation of the National Liberation Army. Plus the conflict dragged on for months with Gaddafi in control of most of the west and the rebels holding the east, therefor both sides held territory and as such is a civil war. ( talk) 20:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Why Albania is removed from the NATO countries that have contributed? ( http://www.balkanweb.com/TV/index.php?id_ansalive=10871&id_categoria=48) Irvi Hyka UTC 22:52 26 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.77.228 ( talk) 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What was the death count before foreign intervetion (19 Feb)? Why has no foregin action been taken in Syria? Chesdovi ( talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article called 2011 Libyan civil war and not just Libyan civil war? I can't find any other use of the term, so surely the year is unncessary as a disambiguation? 213.1.240.149 ( talk) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above statement, there is no previous libyan civil war, so 2011 seems pointless, the 2011 part of the title came from the orgial name "2011 libyan protests", this was to disguingish it from previous libyan protests. Since there has been civil war in libya before 2011, it should jsut be Libyan civil war. Kspence92( talk) 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We have had this pop up at least 5 times within the last few months. There are sources: [12], [13] that support multiple civil wars in Libya's history, and wikipedia should not go against history here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - Only if there weren't any other Libyan Civil Wars in History. OKelly ( talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy procedural close - proposals like this one keep coming up again and again, while a quick peek in the Talk page archives shows that there's no consensus for such a move. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 10:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - It's probably the most notable civil war in Libyan history, at the very least, far more notable than the Tripolitanian Civil War (1791 - 1795) someone brought up way back when. 48Lugur ( talk) 04:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - As per above comments. Jonjonjohny ( talk) 13:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - For several reasons. There have been civil wars in the past, and in the future there might be some. The Greek Civil War is likely named as such because it was the first in recent memory, and thus, no one changed the name, despite the fact that there were others. In the future, if there was ANOTHER libyan civil war, this article would be confused with it, if the 2011 is dropped. What I have never understood, throughout all this, is why it MATTERS to anyone that it has 2011 in the name of the article... there is nothing wrong with being slightly more specific, so I don't get why so many people want to drop the 2011 from the name. Hopefully that all made sense. Jeancey ( talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
support - The Libya as a nation has never had a civil war in the past. There have been civil conflicts in Tripolitania in the 18th centaury as someone else mentioned, but that was not Libya. Libya did not exist at that point. If there is a future civil war the 2011 can be readded to this page, or indeed this page would just be renamed Second Libyan civil war. My main points is, a civil war has never occured in the Libyan nation since it came into existance, other than the one that jus occured, so why is the 2011 neccesary ? all news organisations and governments genreally jsut say Libyan civil war anyway. Most of us here don bother tacking on a 2011 when we speak of it do we ? we just say libyan civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 ( talk) 15:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Never has been one in the past in the nation of Libya. Goltak ( talk) 07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Strong support This is the first civil war, so this is a very clear support. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war - A previous civil war. I doubt anyone would ever get confused between the two, but, obviously, many people do not know about it. With the logic here we should rename that article First Libyan civil war and this one Second Libyan civil war - The latter of which would undoubtedly cause further confusion. As per above comments, there's no consensus for such a move, so it shouldn't be done. - Royal Mate1 02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Well there are valid arguements for both points here i must concede, however, the 1793 - 1795 Tripolitanian civil war was not a Libyan civil war, as Libya did not exist as a nation by that point, nor did the concept of Libya as a nation even exist. Tripolitania was a seperate country. Libya only came into existance as a real, unified country at independence in 1951, and the name Libya was created by the Italians in 1934, therefor, a libyan civil war cannot have occured before Libya existed. unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 ( talk) 11:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.211.205 ( talk)
Support — There doesn't appear to have been any other civil wars in Libya's history. Master&Expert ( Talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - Honestly, what other Libyan civil wars have take place when Libya was actually... well, Libya? What other Libyan civil wars match their weight of notability to this one? And as others have stated above me, the Tripolitanian civil war occurred long before Libya came into existence as a nation, so I find this whole "there's been more than one Libyan civil war" argument very unconvincing. -- 24.107.235.192 ( talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Very odd to have a year attached to this article, as there is no other notable Libyan Civil War. Having a year attached to it suggests that there is one.-- JOJ Hutton 01:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Per others. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Support This is the first civil war in the nation state called Libya, that has had an impact on all Libyans. The Tripolitanian Civil war was not in the nation state of Libya, nor did it have an impact on all the people of the modern day state. (In the 1790s Tripolitania might not have even been considered part of Libya the region.) 106.71.170.41 ( talk) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Support per 48Lugur and 106.71.170.41. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply Sorry, why not label the "English Civil War" the "1642 English Civil War" as the Barons' Revolts and the War of the Roses were both beforehand. Why don't we change the title of the "Chinese Civil War" to the "1927 Chinese Civil War". It is simply a matter of relevance, impact, scope and context. In context the Tripolitanian Civil War was not a [b]Libyan[/b] civil war just as a dark age squabble in East Anglica is not The English Civil War 106.71.170.41 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC).
Support as per the Greek, English and Chinese examples. That 1790's Tripolitanian conflict that is mentioned did not take place in the modern Libyan state (In its territory, but not the state). It's like referring to a conflict within a particular Native American tribe or between nobles vying for the crown in one of the pre-Spanish Iberian kingdoms as the American Civil War or Spanish Civil War (respectively), or like IP 106.71.170.41 mentioned, medieval civil conflicts in one of the heptarchy kingdoms as the English Civil War. The inclusion of 2011 is simply needless - remember WP:COMMONNAME. As an alternative though (and to further complicate things), what about Libyan Civil War (2011) instead? -- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose - there have already been several proposals that failed to reach a consensus for move. As there's no additional facts raised, this proposal should also be closed with no move. 1exec1 ( talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I still cant understand the concerns for not changing the title. The 2011 exists to differentiate the 2011 Libyan civil war from any previous such conflict. The issue is, there is no previous such conflict in the history of the Libyan nation since it came into existance.
Besides, when you are looking for info on the conflict in Libya, most people dont type in 2011 libyan civil war , its just Libyan civil war they are looking for. Also ive yet to hear of any news organisation using the term 2011 Libyan civil war, its just Libyan civil war, or occasionally the libyan conflict.( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.248.120 ( talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note, I have removed the move notice due to clear lack of consensus needed for such a move. Jeancey ( talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Support In the 1790s, there was no unified Libya or even a concept of it. Clearly this is the only conflict that could be thought of as a "Libyan Civil War". Putting the date ahead of it implies that there have been other civil wars in Libya since its' foundation as a nation-state. -- Tocino 12:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
On what grounds is the "1 [British] airman killed in traffic accident in Italy" included as a casualty or loss on the NTC/UN side? While an unfortunate loss, this death did not result from enemy action, take place in the Libyan theatre, or even involve a serviceman who was bound for Libya- he was merely delivering supplies to UK forces in Italy. Worldbeing ( talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not an causalty of war at all, just an accident while driving. Goltak ( talk) 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
He has been declared by the British MoD to have been a casualty of the NATO-led operation and by extension a casualty of the war. Numereous other war articles include in their death tolls non-combat deaths also, like the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, Afghan wars, etc. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Vengeance in Libya December 15, 2011 by Joshua Hammer; JANUARY 12, 2012 The New York Review of Books 99.181.147.68 ( talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
no way is this over just because nato and its stooges decree so. Bani Walid was just retaken (and the terrorists dont have air support without which theyre just rabble rousers) and there are contant pro vs. anti-gaddafi fights and even intra-rebel fights as a DIRECT consequence of the uprising/civil war.( Lihaas ( talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).
Sorry if I seem to be rehashing an old point but, why was the article title changed to Libyan civil war instead of Libyan Civil War? (i.e. Why was it not capitalized?) I noted what Jeancey said in the above discussion, but my question is this: What about such articles as the American Civil War or the English Civil War? Nearly every other article on a specific civil war is capitalized. If the argument can be made that it should be lower case, then I would expect that argument to include why it is different from all the other civil war articles on Wikipedia - or otherwise why the other articles should be changed. - Noha307 ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, not again. Yes, you ARE rehashing an old point. By reading the relevant archive page you could've easily found out that the decision to write "civil war" instead of "Civil War" was well argumented. Therefore I oppose any further renaming of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am missing something huge here, but it seems to me that the (rather voluminous, as I recall) archives for this talkpage have gone missing. I find it more than likely that they got left behind under the 2011 prefix after the recent move. Can this be confirmed and/or rectified? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
So as not to repeat what has been stated before, here is the previous discussion. It is still unclear whether or not Libyan transition is the best way to call it, or if this kind of information might be able to fit inside another page that I do not yet know of. There seems to be several pages related to the aftermath of wars in Category:Aftermath of war so it seems that one related to this one would fit in with the rest.-- A ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Title of article should be renamed to 2011 Libyan Revolution. The date February 17th has been titled revolution day by many reliable sources:
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-17/news/31072469_1_jay-carney-libya-moammar-gadhafi
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Libya+marks+revolution+leader+issues+warning/6174171/story.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0218/1224311977150.html
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2012_pg4_1
http://main.omanobserver.om/node/83692
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/world/africa/libya-anniversary/
The term 'Civil war' is now very rarely, if ever, used. Furthermore their has never been a source that has quoted a Libyan (government official or otherwise) using the term 'civil war'. Just because Libya had an armed uprising doesn't make it less of a Revolution. Cuba also had an armed uprising in the 1950's yet the main title for that page on Wikipedia is the 'Cuban Revolution' not the 'Cuban Civil War'. it is now probably the right time to rename this article to [2011 Libyan Revolution] as the term Libyan civil war is becoming increasingly outdated term by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 ( talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The Majority of reliable sources refer to the events in Libya as Libyan uprising (3,940) not Libyan civil war (3,030). Therefore we must rename this article from Libyan civil war to Libyan Uprising. The term 'civil war' is also very deceptive; it implies that there were to large armies from the start. When in fact during the first two weeks of the revolution it was mostly unarmed civilians against security forces, the new title of Libyan uprising would fit in far more in the wider context of the Arab spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 09:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Here you go:
Libyan Uprising
Libyan civil war
I don’t know where you got that impression from, the term ‘Libyan civil war’ has never really been used by major news networks such as the BBC, CNN or Aljazeera; although it is commonly used by Russia Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per chat after chat that has already been discussed about this. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Support It no longer matters if you had this discussion before the fact is that the Majority of reliable sources are now referring to it as “Libyan Uprising” not “Libyan civil war”. Therefore we must change the main title of this article Libyan Uprising. It would be highly hypocritical of us not to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are right and I apologize for my mistake. However it is a fact that when done the proper way the majority of reliable sources use the term “Libyan Revolution”(111) far more than either “Libyan uprising”(81) or “Libyan civil war” (73). Therefore I would like to change my rename request to change the title of this article from ‘Libyan civil war’ to “Libyan Revolution”. Considering that the ‘2011-2012 Yemeni uprising’ page was change to ‘2011-2012 Yemeni revolution’ for that exact reason, it only seems logical to change the Libyan tittle page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 ( talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
One problem is, that there were both a civilian uprising AND a civil war. Contrary to Egypt and Tunisia, in Libya the civilian uprising (unarmed protesters demanding real change) quickly became overshadowed by first the gunning down of unarmed protesters by security forces, then improvised arson and gun attacks against government targets, [1] and a few days later whole sections of the state army turning against their line of command, joining opposition. And then all the militia's also formed and joined and took over much of the initiative. It resulted in front line battles, urban warfare and a number of mass killings from both sides.
One could argue to simply call it the 'Libyan war (of 2011), because Nato involvement was so crucial in crippling government supply lines and taking out tanks and airplanes. And in giving so many local fiefs the courage to start their own militia.
But as the current events show (many militia's still armed and active, refusing orders from any authority, doing their own arbitrary justice) the armed actors are indeed the main defining characteristic of the Libyan uprising. That would justify calling it a civil war. There WAS a libyan war, and because on the ground the majority of the armed opposition were improvised militia, it was a civil war.
The best way to do respect to it, is to clearly introduce the beginning of the civil war. We could rename the section "Uprising and civil war" into: "Uprising turning into civil war", which would necessitate some re-editing, because lots of peaceful protest continued while the civil war grew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was the article will be subject to a move moratorium for 6 months. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
A 6-month moratorium is proposed on new requested moves on this talkpage, inclusive of both capitalisation changes and new terms.
Consensus for this motion will be determined below by a discussion lasting no more than two weeks (starting 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) and ending on 1 April), and will judged and closed by an uninvolved administrator (to be found by neutrally-worded request at the administrator's noticeboard). If no or unfavourable consensus is judged, new move requests will be allowed as usual following the closure of the discussion. If consensus is judged to be in favour of the moratorium, it will begin immediately following the closure of the discussion.
For the duration of the moratorium, the article's name will remain at the status quo. Any and all attempted move requests will be closed immediately and permanently as no consensus without further discussion. A notice linking to the discussion result will be posted prominently at the top of the article to advise against initiating requested moves.
At the end of 6 months, the moratorium will expire, unless consensus is achieved for an extension. Expiration or extension of the moratorium will be decided by discussion, with the default result (i.e., no consensus) being expiration. Expiration will not, however, mean that the name will necessarily be changed, only that new requests will be allowed.
The move proposal in the section above will be frozen during the discussion period, as will any new ones proposed during said period. If the moratorium is not enacted, all frozen proposals will be reopened to discussion. If the moratorium is enacted, all frozen proposals will be immedately and permanently closed as no consensus.
Any proposed edits or amendments to this proposal may be discussed below. Participants are advised to look through the talkpage archives to familiarise themselves with the history of requested moves and naming discussions of this page.
List of past move discussions: 1–8 9–11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21–23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31–32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
NOTE: This is not a requested move. Discussion of preferred titles here is inappropriate.