![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Shouldn't the first part of the Arms traffic in Gaddafi's situation be moved too International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising? Them Nashi boys are no arm dealers (as for as we know) and past arm deals so nothing about today. Besides the Dassault Mirage F1's who are now used to by Muammar Gaddafi are not Russian. Seems unfair to single Russia out and not mention France and other countries who supplied him with weapons... — Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed "Al Aziziyah" is partly cut off and the city of Zawiyah says "Az Zawiyah". It seems in all of the press reports I've read the Az part is left off, so I think it should be taken off the label for clarity and uniformity. This earlier version of the map [1] seems to look less cutoff than the current map.-- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 10:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't wish to decry the efforts of another editor, but can aircraft.zurf.info be considered a reliable Source? I've noticed a number of references citing this website, but most don't seem to reflect the content I find at http://aircraft.zurf.info/article/libyan-air-force-during-revolt. Also, these edits are made by User:AircraftZurf, which makes me a little suspicious that this may be, to some degree, WP:OR. Regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There's been heavy fighting reported in and around BinJawad, I think the colour should be changed to yellow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8371550/Fierce-fighting-rages-around-Bin-Jawad.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.172.117 ( talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed notion on AVAAZ petition, due to no independent sources prooving notability of this fact are given.-- Abiyoyo ( talk) 23:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The source is the organization's website itself. It is not claiming any external facts, only internal ones. For example it is like BBC claiming they have sent reports to tripoli rather than BBC claiming CNN has sent reporters. Internal not External information. Zenithfel ( talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok then how about we write this: AVAAZ.org established a petition on their site calling for the establishment of a no fly zone by the UN, and claim that over 750,000 have signed so far. Zenithfel ( talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that Fallschirmjäger is singular and plural. No need for the additional S in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.45.152 ( talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
In Gaddafi's personal perception he defends his country against a Swiss expedition force. The Switzerland sent their troops in, to divide Libya, as an answer to Gaddafi's proposal to do so with their home-country. The Cyrenaica may be added to Egypt, Tripolitania to Tunisia and the Fezzan to Algeria. -- 2.201.173.236 ( talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Praghmatic ( talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Look here: Libya–Switzerland relations-- 90.187.1.57 ( talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Now Gaddafi openly accuses the "Zionists" to destabilise his country. In European press there are accusations, that the Austrian Airforce is supporting the Gaddafi-regime: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20110220_OTS0056/verteidigungsministerium-widerlegt-internet-geruechte-um-einsatz-der-c-130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.107.144 ( talk) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
When was the last time the Swiss invaded anyone? No one is alive to remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 ( talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But they were talking about Switzerland as a nation state. Sure we can say Madagascar or New Zealand invaded someone if a mercenary was from their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 ( talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think countries are usually responsible for the actions of their private citizens. As an official representative of the Zionist conspiracy btw, I would like to say we had nothing to do with this one :p (about as serious a source as any other on this topic) TheArchaeologist 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift ( talk • contribs)
Could this aspect be covered in more detail? Is there really a plot to take him out?
Col Gadhafi has traditionally blamed Islamists, tribal rivals and the USA, until the Lockerbie bombing alienated him with most of Europe (Italy, a few Swiss bankers, the UK's Labour party and Scotland's SNP party being the only exceptions). During both the Gulf Wars, he condemned Saddam Hussien, but then refused to help the Coalition forces. He has also slammed Hosni Mubarak's sons, Iran, Zionists and the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt toppled its government last month. Now he blames the Swiss.
Has he so annoyed the world that he public enemy number 1 or is he finally cracking up? Either way it is an important issue. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Finally cracking up? He has been a crack pot for many years. Gadhafi and his son blamed anyone they could think of in their speeches. They blamed:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is no evidence about foreign involvement. But e.g. Castro says so. Any foreign support for the protesters, either from Egypt, from Turkey or anywhere else, would give him the impression he is right. It would be very interesting, if there is any medical research about his mental state.-- 2.201.170.22 ( talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
His accusations of foreign involvement cant be taken seriously. He has blamed so many sources and is now blaming Al-Qaeda. Several of the supposed foreign influences would never co-oporate just to bring him down(USA and Al-Qaeda...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.217.172 ( talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
He said he was hated for having a beard and blamed El-Queada in the Hour Long Speach. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In an interview he had with the BBC he blamed drug crazed youth and people on hallucinogenic drugs supplied by El-Queada for the protests and denied there were any outside Bengazi.
currently al jazeera english tv.
collection of news
|
---|
italy evacuation in libya + |
Collected here are several recent threads on renaming the article from "2011 Libyan Uprising" to something stronger like "2011 Libyan Revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War".
At the time of start of the discussions above about the words "Uprising" to describe the conflict, that word ("Uprising") was appropriate. After another few days, it certainly looks to me like it is now very much a civil war or revolution, and the name of the article should be changed to reflect that. Sanpitch ( talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As of 27 February, the uprising has turned into a fully-fledged revolution. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
With four articles made for battles and the country divided does the title civil war fit more so now? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
support It should be renamed civil war because there is two sides that are fighting for control of the country. That is a civil war. How can it not be? Seriously. Matthurricane
Support. It's a civil war now. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, but just Libyan Civil War, no need for the year-- 78.3.220.211 ( talk) 10:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose Not yet, what's the hurry? We lose nothing by retaining the current title until the majority of sources refer to it as a civil war. Sources are currently saying things like "...could push Libya into civil war", "As the propensity for civil war heightens in Libya...", "A near civil war in Libya", "The ...country is spiraling into civil war", "Libya, now on the brink of civil war", "close to the outbreak of a civil war". It's not our role to make history by contradicting these sources and renaming the article too soon. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - 2011 libyan uprising/s is better --fwiw. the journalist John Simpson travelling in the middle of Libya, just said on BBC that he would not describe what he has seen/is seeing as a civil war. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per 62.107.209.191 and Pontificalibus. The current title is by far the most appropriate of the discussed options at present. Adlerschloß ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons outlined above.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just wait two weeks. These naming discussions tend to overshadow more important business, and you can't have a proper civil war in under two weeks. Wnt ( talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Its been 14 days, at the moment, its just an uprising - an effective one, but just an uprising nonetheless. IF if drags out for a considerable time, where we actually see cities start to be retaken by Ghaddafi-loyal forces, we can call it a civil war. However, at the moment, Uprising is more appropriate, and I expect the next step will actually be to re-name it to "revolution". Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 ( talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Support with reservations Clearly, this uprising fits the criteria of a civil war, as it has escalated beyond just a mere uprising, and an opposition government has been formed while Qadaffi is still in power (thus meaning two governments fighting for control over the same country). However, it is probably a good idea to wait until sources start referring to it as a 'civil war' rather than a revolt, uprising, or revolution. ANd the only reason they probably arent calling it a civil war now, is because oil prices would probably go even more nuts if they called it that, instead of a 'revolt' or an 'uprising' which sound less serious and more contained.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Support What is going on in Libya right now fits every description of a civil war I've heard of.
Sixer Fixer (
talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I support a change from 'uprising' to 'revolt' or 'revolution'. Sanpitch ( talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Media dont call it civil war? They're just waiting for naming it in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.69.206 ( talk) 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - just check out the Wikipedia definitions themselves on the terms Revolution and Civil War. In a nutshell -
Revolution - "(1) Complete change from one constitution to another, or (2) Modification of an existing constitution." Neither of those has happened, so it's not necessarily a revolution, at least to stay consistent within the definitions of the term currently expressed here at this site.
Civil War - "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources." - Now that's a very close description of what's happening. If one of the two were to be used, Civil War would be closer as far accuracy, insofar as remaining consistent with the defintions of the two terms currently expressed here at Wikipedia.
And just to throw uprising in there - "Rebellion, or uprising, is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience and mass nonviolent resistance, to violent and organized attempts to destroy an established authority such as a government. Those who participate in rebellions are known as 'rebels'." - That, currently, is the closest consistent definition. Allstargeneral ( talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - I would say that revolution is a process involving elements of voilences or protests compare Russian Octoberrevolution. That is, Libya could be seen as a revolution in progress.
Also the use of heavy weapons including tanks and warplanes is something that resebles war. In the end the clashes migth have already passed 1.000 battle death (per year), which according to Baylis et al (Globalization of World Politics 2008 p.214) is one criteria for war. Compare this to "high-intensity".
Support - Some news channels have started calling it a "war" or "civil war", and it's clear now that this is going to drag on for a while. This is now full-scale military operations fighting each other in a splintered country. bob rulz ( talk) 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Many newsmedia have now started to call it a Civil War.
CNN: "The development comes as Libya enters its fourth week of bloody clashes Tuesday and there was little doubt that the situation had turned into all-out civil war.": http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/08/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1#
National Post: "Libya’s peaceful Day of Rage has lurched into civil war and the regional ramifications are immense": http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/08/goodspeed-analysis-libyas-civil-war-could-destabilize-africa/
The Telegraph: Libya: civil war breaks out as Gaddafi mounts rearguard fight - Forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi made good on threats to trigger a civil war in Libya on Wednesday night ...": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 ( talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for a move, at this time. Note however that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for the page to remain at it's current title, either. This is probably one of those pages where the title will be in flux for a while, pending what actually occurs in Libya. Please keep in mind that the page can still be moved. If anyone feels strongly enough that a page move is required now, feel free to start another RM (if I might be bold enough to offer a suggestion, what about
2011 Libyan conflict?)
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 04:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 Libyan uprising →
Libyan Civil War — Libya is currently divided between government and opposition-run areas. Thousands of civilians equipped with firearms and defecting military and police forces are engaged in open battles with forces loyal to Gaddafi, including mercenaries. There are real battles taking place across the country, as seen in the infobox. These have been hundreds of deaths on both sides. I think that this is no longer simply an uprising, but a real war. The time has come to at least discuss whether it should be named "Libyan Civil War".--
RM (
Be my friend) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
EDITORS: Rather than just adding an entry in the support or oppose lists above, please be aware this is NOT a VOTE, and make your reasoned comments and contribution to the CONSENSUS below. Lynbarn ( talk)
Comment: I believe the previous polls suggested that we should wait a bit longer until more WP:RS calls it a civil war. Maybe we can wait a few more days and see. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
ultimately, the term "civil-war" may not necessarily be that widely used depending on how quickly the conflict is resolved. In this case, I think the situation can still drag on for a few more weeks at least, given the relative strength of Gadaffi's forces (at least according to Western media). Bobthefish2 ( talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment We don't have enough information to call it a civil war. The only time I recall the term being used was by the Gaddafis themselves who threatened Libya could enter into one and by Hilary Clinton who said she feared the situation could turn into a civil war if Gaddafi didn't leave. Therefore civil war is only a possibility. The people of Tripoli are not going to war against the people of Benghazi. According to the reports of many reliable news sources, the people of Tripoli actually support the rebellion and I think we might be jumping the gun to go ahead and rename the article. I echo the above comments: the best solution is to wait and see how the sources dub it. --
Al Ameer son (
talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support It is not an uprising. That uprising happened and failed, and now it is settled into
civil war. Uprising = protests tending to get out of hand [ie. what we had]. Civil war = two teams with guns attempting to solely rule the terrain of the same named country [ie. what we HAVE]. There's more google hits for 'Libyan civil war' (19.3 million) than for '2011 Libyan uprising' (18 million). It's very much an insult to Libyan people suffering from this
war to belittle their suffering as the result of only an 'uprising' and not a war. Would you look the bereaved in the eye, and belittle the circumstances in such a way?
114.31.207.18 (
talk)
Comment Once again all, let's reiterate that it is not our job to reach such conclusions like what this thing in Libya is ourselves but that of the sources. I think everyone should look at WP:synth, if the sources ain't saying it, then we should not be saying it in the article. We only go by what the sources are saying, we do not reach our own conclusions etc. See WP:Source. Can everyone please read these and then see if they still want to support the idea when most of the sources (except one or two in India last I checked) are not saying it? These are two of the three core principles of this Wiki and should be respected as such. Re: Nightstallion, we can indeed help it if the MSM is "reluctant to call it a civil war", we do the same because without sources it is just us reaching our own conclusions about what is going on rather than the sources and presenting it to the world as fact. WP:Common, we use the name it is commonly being called. Even if everyone is thinking oh it's a civil war (which I am), it's what they're saying that matters. Regardless of what WP:Duck says, we should respect the common name being used and wp:source and wp:synth. When the sources finally start calling it a civil war then we should do this. Until then, what we think and want to call it does not matter. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support...A civil war is when two sides fight for control of a country, right. Appears to be what is occurring.--
Matthurricane (
talk) 04:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state". Although the rebels have (especially in Benghazi) been organising themselves, I don't think they are really organised enough to call this a civil war. There doesn't seem to be any structural connection or even communication between the rebels at Benghazi and Zawiya. Right now I think it's still mostly relatively minor skirmishes between spontaneously formed groups of gunmen (perhaps formed on the spot during an attack) and organised government forces. Therefore calling this a civil war is still premature. A strong argument is also that most news organisations also keep calling just an uprising. Nanobear ( talk) 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
Weak Support The death toll is at least 1000 on each side, the rebels have taken control of most of the country and have gathered many weapons and explosives. I really don't think that Gaddafi is going to step down any time soon, so the fighting will probably continue. Still though, it does seem a bit early to call it a civil war, lets wait a week or two and see what happens. Gabe896 ( talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm inclined to support a change in article title to civil war on the grounds that the pro-Ghadafi forces have been successful enough to withstand the initial wave of revolution. Look to historical examples to find the October Revolution took less than a week to complete, as did the July Revolution and the February Revolutions in France. The fact there there are two organized camps, pro and anti governmen who are in armed conflict against each other should be basis enough to change the article title. Sixer Fixer ( talk) 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The military's split, militias formed, an opposition government is being created, there have been several battles. If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is. Joe routt ( talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The country is now both geographically and politically divided. Large numbers of both civilians and army-defectors have joined rebel forces. There have been pitched battles involving heavy weaponry by both sides. I think it is now safe to call this a Civil War MCQknight ( talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (MWT)
Support BBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12660095), CBC ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/06/libya.html) and the guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/05/libya-civil-war-gaddafi-zawiyah) are now referring to it as a civil war. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support: It very clearly fits with the most common definitions of the term "Civil War". Gaddafi still have his loyalists and supporters, including a significant proportion of the army. It doesnt make sense to reject the term "civil war" purely due to the fact that the regime is viewed as unpopular. I can see no reason to fence-sit on the issue any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.T kire ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, if tentatively. The head of the ICRC has called it a civil war; Arab media outlets (in Arabic, which I speak) prefer "revolution," but that is arguably because that term plays better in the Arab street. As to the point that it's more a rebellion than a civil war, the two are not mutually exclusive; even though actual support for Qaddafi is rather low, he still has enough in the way of military strength to render his lack of support a moot point. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, as noted the Red Cross is calling it a civil war, it fits the definition of a civil war as there are two organised factions within one country. The Libyan National Council has been fully recognised by France, and other countries are likely to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.20.124 ( talk) on 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment, though I wouldn't be surprised if we moved this way tomorrow or even today. Actually, if you use quotation marks as we well should ("Libyan Civil War" and "Libyan Uprising" as search terms), uprising edges out civil war 589K to 346K, and revolution edges out both with 671K (although we should keep in mind that also includes the revolution in which Gaddafi took control). In news, using quotes and a week setting, revolution overshadows the other two, but I don't see how we can call it a revolution when a revolution is such only when it succeeds. Al Jazeera, contrary to what JoeC 3rd says, is still using the term uprising for Libya and revolution only for Tunisia and Egypt. 140.247.239.247 ( talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I think at the moment it is not in 'full scale' civil war yet and the uprising may well be crushed as Gadaffi's forces gain momentum. However if the same state continues then it's only a matter of time before every news station etc. is calling it a civil war. I say just keep the current title for the time being and see if the uprising escalates even further. On a side note the BBC is still calling it an 'Uprising'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.33.149 ( talk) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Its clear that we have wo different sides with flag, weapons and leadership fighting in the battlefield with certain cities controled by them. Its definitely a civil war as the events of the last few days saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsakiropoulos Dimitris ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment The Arab League is now recognizing the rebels as the only legitimate gov't of Libya and says it wants to hold talks with them, and for all those people who care about google hits, "Libyan Civil War" now has 21.6 million to "Libyan Uprising" having 18.3 million. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Any way that this could be linked as an example of how consensus things should not be done? I mean we've had voting ( WP:VOTE), original research ( WP:OR, synthesis WP:SYNTH, ignoring of WP:COMMONNAME and many other wikirules after being posted innumerable times. As noted by the Knowledgekid87, it's been for a while. I find it kind of funny (as in amusing) and it's no one's fault this is so messy, but I think it could make a good example for people to learn from. Hopefully by the time it is settled (apparently in favour of Civil War), that's going to be the common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously a voting system is not going to work here - the situation changes day by day, so we need to reassess regularly or come up with a stance. In Medicine articles we generally use the scientific name, having common names or the popular names redirecting to this. This makes the Wikipedia article more neutral, leaving arguments about the name for other arenas ( usually discussed in article as 'commonly known as' in lead). To this end I checked out WPs article on Civil War. Summarizing definition of civil war from the article -
As you can seee this uprising satisfies the criteria for civil war, although it is interesting that the geneva convention does not use the term, probably because it is so evocative. If we are to accept using civil war as an article title, surely we must use the above criteria. If we take the line of the geneva convention, then we need to come up with another term. Whatever happens we should have a guideline for future uprisings/ revolts etc to aoid this protracted process of voting. Some clear definitions of when an article should be renamed ... or maybe a single title that covers all stages, using redirects to allow for changes in popular perception? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:DUCK has now been modified to show that it refers to internal stuff only, not content. (felt this needed a baby section as it has been so central to the debate) As well, and in reply to the subsection stuff, going by WP's article for what constitutes a civil war is in violation of WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. Thanks! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the comments made above about archiving the entire conversation and starting over for a consensus, so many people have chimed in over the last few days its impossible to know whats really going on. The situation has changed a lot in that time as well, and continues to. That said, I seriously doubt we will actually find any consensus on this which is somewhat unfair as I get the sense that the majority of people favour changing the name. Oh well, what can ya do. People have cited a lot about common name and the like, but the reality is that this incident does not have any sort of common name, and any common name we would ascribe to it would be very biased in terms of western media sources. Thus my food for thought is this: the current name isn't the common name, any future name won't be the common name. We need to use some other criteria to decide the name of this article. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Under move requests this is listed as 2011 Libyan uprising → page = Talk:2011 Libyan uprising is this right? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Today the National Transitional Council has declared their selves to be "sole representative all over Libya" [2], for all purposes this now qualifies as a Civil War according to the definition of the Wikipedia article, that is A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state, [...]. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, further more, The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict., this has been exceeded six fold
Therefore it should be accepted that this is now definitively a civil war, and the title of the article changed to Libyan Civil War to accurately reflect this, ignoring the use of the year in parentheses as to my knowledge, this is Libya's first and currently only civil war, with the year in the title being redundant -- 98.194.17.255 ( talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. It had been said at least a hundred times that the editor must go based on the conclusions of the sources for article content, not their own conclusions. It is your job to decide what from the sources should be included and in what manner, and how good the source itself is. It is not your responsibility to come to your own conclusions about what is going on unless the source clearly says it, or to take 2+2 (material from different sources) and make it equal 4 (a conclusion based on that material from the different sources). That is the responsibility of the source and the source alone. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we make a faq about this? Otherwise we'll just be explaining the same thing over and over again. Our article titles are decided by plain English common usage, not by any official definition, be it the National Transitional Council or any other.
If you google 'civil war in Libya', you will find lots of phrases such as "nascent civil war in Libya", "threat of civil war in Libya", all written by journalists during the past two days. What is a "civil war" in plain English? It is a conflict such as the one we see in Libya today that goes on for a substantial period of time. What is a "substantial period of time"? That's a subjective judgement, of course, but usually more than a year, or at least more than a couple of months. Kindly compare our articles on the Satsuma Rebellion (January to September 1879) with Chilean Civil War (January to September 1891). It seems that a conflict shorter than a couple of months is not usually termed a "civil war". Since this conflict is barely a month old, naming the article "civil war" will seem to imply the prediction that it is going to continue for at least another couple of months. This is why journalists are reluctant to call it a "civil war" without qualification. Wikipedia simply follows common usage, and as long as people are reluctant to call it a civil war, so should we be. -- dab (𒁳) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article needs to be renamed to Libyan Civil War (2011), major news sources are now calling this a civil war (which it has been for some time) see [ [84]] for an example. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Why have we opened this discussion again? It is currently being discussed in an above thread which has yet to be closed? -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
CommentI'm 174.114.87.236 ( talk) from above, apparently the page has been protected for some reason. Anyways, google hits don't determine Wikipedia page titles, and neither does consensus in the media. When is there ever any consensus on contentious topics in the media? The question is if there is an authoritive, verifiable source that we can all agree would back up the change on here. Clearly that consensus doens't exist yet, but it is worth noting that there is no common name being given to this "occurance" shall we call it within the media, for some its an uprising, for some its a civil war, for some its a just rebels and pro-gaddafi forces. But the article does have to be named something, and clearly the Libyan case is quite different from the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt (which wikipedia is now calling revolutions, but which began as uprisings in name here). If a successful uprising is named a revolution, then what shall we call an uprising which cannot be decisively defeated or won by either side? I believe that is the textbook definition of a civl war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietminh ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The title for this article should be civil war or revolution. Why? There is a war going on. You have two opposing armies. One army is under the control of the current government of Moammar Gadhafi and the other army is controlled by the rebels. The armies are battling over territory (cities, army installations, etc...) and soldiers are being killed in battle. The people of Libya are being killed.
The rebel council has declared their independence. They have stated they are the legitimate government of Libya. They have asked the nations of the world to recognize them as the legitimate government of Libya. They are coordinating the movements of the army. Aljazeera English is calling it a civil war. These events are the definition of civil war or revolution.
The American war for independence was a revolutionary war not when they were given independence by England after the battle of Yorktown but after the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Americans declared their independence. The American Civil War was a civil war not when Lee surrendered to Grant or when Jefferson Davis was captured by Union troops but when the southern states declared their independence and shooting started at Fort Sumter.
This article should have been called Libyan civil war or revolutionary war at least two weeks ago. It is no longer an uprising and the description should be changed. Remember there is a war going on for control of Libya. JoeC 3rd ( talk) 21:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. On CNN they are now calling it a civil war on TV. I think it is now safe to say this is an all out civil war. The time to wait to change the article's title is over. Two organized forces are fighting each other. When you have airstrikes, heavy machine gun fire, and tanks it is generally a war. Also, when someone is attacking a city and someone else is defending it, it is clearly a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.225.132 ( talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - I opposed this two weeks ago, because it was not clear how long it would take to overthrow Ghadaffi. However, now that it is very clear that this will drag out at least until foreign nations get involved, I agree we should title it 2011 Libyan Revolution. I also believe we need to create a new page for the Libyan Republic. Ghaddafi has not shown the power to take back any parts of East Libya, which means, at very least, Eastern Libya will become a new country if Ghaddafi cannot be toppled. I will create the page, but I want support first for Libyan Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 ( talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The main map at the top of this page is naturally subject to constant change as the situation is in such an unpredictable state of flux. I suggest the last time it is edited, somebody writes the date they made the edit under the map as it can go out of date quite quickly and lead to confustion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArinArshavin ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wrote under the explanation what the symbols on the map mean (that can be described in one word... but I forgot which word...) the date and hour of the last update of the map on Wikipedia Commons. — Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Its called a key and thanks. ArinArshavin ( talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
so far, the map has been updated at least daily, and there hasn't to my knowledge been any problem with the map being out of date. So this is rather like a solution looking for a problem. In fact, if you are proposing to manually keep track of map updates here in the article, you are creating the problem of these updates on the map updates being out of date. Thus, the article now says "Last map update: 8 March 2011 at 15:36", while the current map was in fact updated 9 March 2011 at 11:51. I hope you see the problem. This is quite apart from the complete irrelevancy of the hour and minute of the actual upload, if anything, the date given should be that of the last report taken into account in the current map. -- dab (𒁳) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ajdabiya is under Gaddafi's control. :) Change the map immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Shouldn't the first part of the Arms traffic in Gaddafi's situation be moved too International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising? Them Nashi boys are no arm dealers (as for as we know) and past arm deals so nothing about today. Besides the Dassault Mirage F1's who are now used to by Muammar Gaddafi are not Russian. Seems unfair to single Russia out and not mention France and other countries who supplied him with weapons... — Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed "Al Aziziyah" is partly cut off and the city of Zawiyah says "Az Zawiyah". It seems in all of the press reports I've read the Az part is left off, so I think it should be taken off the label for clarity and uniformity. This earlier version of the map [1] seems to look less cutoff than the current map.-- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 10:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't wish to decry the efforts of another editor, but can aircraft.zurf.info be considered a reliable Source? I've noticed a number of references citing this website, but most don't seem to reflect the content I find at http://aircraft.zurf.info/article/libyan-air-force-during-revolt. Also, these edits are made by User:AircraftZurf, which makes me a little suspicious that this may be, to some degree, WP:OR. Regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There's been heavy fighting reported in and around BinJawad, I think the colour should be changed to yellow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8371550/Fierce-fighting-rages-around-Bin-Jawad.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.172.117 ( talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed notion on AVAAZ petition, due to no independent sources prooving notability of this fact are given.-- Abiyoyo ( talk) 23:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The source is the organization's website itself. It is not claiming any external facts, only internal ones. For example it is like BBC claiming they have sent reports to tripoli rather than BBC claiming CNN has sent reporters. Internal not External information. Zenithfel ( talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok then how about we write this: AVAAZ.org established a petition on their site calling for the establishment of a no fly zone by the UN, and claim that over 750,000 have signed so far. Zenithfel ( talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that Fallschirmjäger is singular and plural. No need for the additional S in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.45.152 ( talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
In Gaddafi's personal perception he defends his country against a Swiss expedition force. The Switzerland sent their troops in, to divide Libya, as an answer to Gaddafi's proposal to do so with their home-country. The Cyrenaica may be added to Egypt, Tripolitania to Tunisia and the Fezzan to Algeria. -- 2.201.173.236 ( talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Praghmatic ( talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Look here: Libya–Switzerland relations-- 90.187.1.57 ( talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Now Gaddafi openly accuses the "Zionists" to destabilise his country. In European press there are accusations, that the Austrian Airforce is supporting the Gaddafi-regime: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20110220_OTS0056/verteidigungsministerium-widerlegt-internet-geruechte-um-einsatz-der-c-130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.107.144 ( talk) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
When was the last time the Swiss invaded anyone? No one is alive to remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 ( talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But they were talking about Switzerland as a nation state. Sure we can say Madagascar or New Zealand invaded someone if a mercenary was from their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 ( talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think countries are usually responsible for the actions of their private citizens. As an official representative of the Zionist conspiracy btw, I would like to say we had nothing to do with this one :p (about as serious a source as any other on this topic) TheArchaeologist 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift ( talk • contribs)
Could this aspect be covered in more detail? Is there really a plot to take him out?
Col Gadhafi has traditionally blamed Islamists, tribal rivals and the USA, until the Lockerbie bombing alienated him with most of Europe (Italy, a few Swiss bankers, the UK's Labour party and Scotland's SNP party being the only exceptions). During both the Gulf Wars, he condemned Saddam Hussien, but then refused to help the Coalition forces. He has also slammed Hosni Mubarak's sons, Iran, Zionists and the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt toppled its government last month. Now he blames the Swiss.
Has he so annoyed the world that he public enemy number 1 or is he finally cracking up? Either way it is an important issue. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Finally cracking up? He has been a crack pot for many years. Gadhafi and his son blamed anyone they could think of in their speeches. They blamed:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is no evidence about foreign involvement. But e.g. Castro says so. Any foreign support for the protesters, either from Egypt, from Turkey or anywhere else, would give him the impression he is right. It would be very interesting, if there is any medical research about his mental state.-- 2.201.170.22 ( talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
His accusations of foreign involvement cant be taken seriously. He has blamed so many sources and is now blaming Al-Qaeda. Several of the supposed foreign influences would never co-oporate just to bring him down(USA and Al-Qaeda...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.217.172 ( talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
He said he was hated for having a beard and blamed El-Queada in the Hour Long Speach. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In an interview he had with the BBC he blamed drug crazed youth and people on hallucinogenic drugs supplied by El-Queada for the protests and denied there were any outside Bengazi.
currently al jazeera english tv.
collection of news
|
---|
italy evacuation in libya + |
Collected here are several recent threads on renaming the article from "2011 Libyan Uprising" to something stronger like "2011 Libyan Revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War".
At the time of start of the discussions above about the words "Uprising" to describe the conflict, that word ("Uprising") was appropriate. After another few days, it certainly looks to me like it is now very much a civil war or revolution, and the name of the article should be changed to reflect that. Sanpitch ( talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As of 27 February, the uprising has turned into a fully-fledged revolution. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
With four articles made for battles and the country divided does the title civil war fit more so now? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
support It should be renamed civil war because there is two sides that are fighting for control of the country. That is a civil war. How can it not be? Seriously. Matthurricane
Support. It's a civil war now. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, but just Libyan Civil War, no need for the year-- 78.3.220.211 ( talk) 10:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose Not yet, what's the hurry? We lose nothing by retaining the current title until the majority of sources refer to it as a civil war. Sources are currently saying things like "...could push Libya into civil war", "As the propensity for civil war heightens in Libya...", "A near civil war in Libya", "The ...country is spiraling into civil war", "Libya, now on the brink of civil war", "close to the outbreak of a civil war". It's not our role to make history by contradicting these sources and renaming the article too soon. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - 2011 libyan uprising/s is better --fwiw. the journalist John Simpson travelling in the middle of Libya, just said on BBC that he would not describe what he has seen/is seeing as a civil war. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per 62.107.209.191 and Pontificalibus. The current title is by far the most appropriate of the discussed options at present. Adlerschloß ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons outlined above.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just wait two weeks. These naming discussions tend to overshadow more important business, and you can't have a proper civil war in under two weeks. Wnt ( talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Its been 14 days, at the moment, its just an uprising - an effective one, but just an uprising nonetheless. IF if drags out for a considerable time, where we actually see cities start to be retaken by Ghaddafi-loyal forces, we can call it a civil war. However, at the moment, Uprising is more appropriate, and I expect the next step will actually be to re-name it to "revolution". Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 ( talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Support with reservations Clearly, this uprising fits the criteria of a civil war, as it has escalated beyond just a mere uprising, and an opposition government has been formed while Qadaffi is still in power (thus meaning two governments fighting for control over the same country). However, it is probably a good idea to wait until sources start referring to it as a 'civil war' rather than a revolt, uprising, or revolution. ANd the only reason they probably arent calling it a civil war now, is because oil prices would probably go even more nuts if they called it that, instead of a 'revolt' or an 'uprising' which sound less serious and more contained.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Support What is going on in Libya right now fits every description of a civil war I've heard of.
Sixer Fixer (
talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I support a change from 'uprising' to 'revolt' or 'revolution'. Sanpitch ( talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Media dont call it civil war? They're just waiting for naming it in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.69.206 ( talk) 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - just check out the Wikipedia definitions themselves on the terms Revolution and Civil War. In a nutshell -
Revolution - "(1) Complete change from one constitution to another, or (2) Modification of an existing constitution." Neither of those has happened, so it's not necessarily a revolution, at least to stay consistent within the definitions of the term currently expressed here at this site.
Civil War - "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources." - Now that's a very close description of what's happening. If one of the two were to be used, Civil War would be closer as far accuracy, insofar as remaining consistent with the defintions of the two terms currently expressed here at Wikipedia.
And just to throw uprising in there - "Rebellion, or uprising, is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience and mass nonviolent resistance, to violent and organized attempts to destroy an established authority such as a government. Those who participate in rebellions are known as 'rebels'." - That, currently, is the closest consistent definition. Allstargeneral ( talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - I would say that revolution is a process involving elements of voilences or protests compare Russian Octoberrevolution. That is, Libya could be seen as a revolution in progress.
Also the use of heavy weapons including tanks and warplanes is something that resebles war. In the end the clashes migth have already passed 1.000 battle death (per year), which according to Baylis et al (Globalization of World Politics 2008 p.214) is one criteria for war. Compare this to "high-intensity".
Support - Some news channels have started calling it a "war" or "civil war", and it's clear now that this is going to drag on for a while. This is now full-scale military operations fighting each other in a splintered country. bob rulz ( talk) 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Many newsmedia have now started to call it a Civil War.
CNN: "The development comes as Libya enters its fourth week of bloody clashes Tuesday and there was little doubt that the situation had turned into all-out civil war.": http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/08/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1#
National Post: "Libya’s peaceful Day of Rage has lurched into civil war and the regional ramifications are immense": http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/08/goodspeed-analysis-libyas-civil-war-could-destabilize-africa/
The Telegraph: Libya: civil war breaks out as Gaddafi mounts rearguard fight - Forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi made good on threats to trigger a civil war in Libya on Wednesday night ...": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 ( talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for a move, at this time. Note however that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for the page to remain at it's current title, either. This is probably one of those pages where the title will be in flux for a while, pending what actually occurs in Libya. Please keep in mind that the page can still be moved. If anyone feels strongly enough that a page move is required now, feel free to start another RM (if I might be bold enough to offer a suggestion, what about
2011 Libyan conflict?)
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 04:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 Libyan uprising →
Libyan Civil War — Libya is currently divided between government and opposition-run areas. Thousands of civilians equipped with firearms and defecting military and police forces are engaged in open battles with forces loyal to Gaddafi, including mercenaries. There are real battles taking place across the country, as seen in the infobox. These have been hundreds of deaths on both sides. I think that this is no longer simply an uprising, but a real war. The time has come to at least discuss whether it should be named "Libyan Civil War".--
RM (
Be my friend) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
EDITORS: Rather than just adding an entry in the support or oppose lists above, please be aware this is NOT a VOTE, and make your reasoned comments and contribution to the CONSENSUS below. Lynbarn ( talk)
Comment: I believe the previous polls suggested that we should wait a bit longer until more WP:RS calls it a civil war. Maybe we can wait a few more days and see. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
ultimately, the term "civil-war" may not necessarily be that widely used depending on how quickly the conflict is resolved. In this case, I think the situation can still drag on for a few more weeks at least, given the relative strength of Gadaffi's forces (at least according to Western media). Bobthefish2 ( talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment We don't have enough information to call it a civil war. The only time I recall the term being used was by the Gaddafis themselves who threatened Libya could enter into one and by Hilary Clinton who said she feared the situation could turn into a civil war if Gaddafi didn't leave. Therefore civil war is only a possibility. The people of Tripoli are not going to war against the people of Benghazi. According to the reports of many reliable news sources, the people of Tripoli actually support the rebellion and I think we might be jumping the gun to go ahead and rename the article. I echo the above comments: the best solution is to wait and see how the sources dub it. --
Al Ameer son (
talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support It is not an uprising. That uprising happened and failed, and now it is settled into
civil war. Uprising = protests tending to get out of hand [ie. what we had]. Civil war = two teams with guns attempting to solely rule the terrain of the same named country [ie. what we HAVE]. There's more google hits for 'Libyan civil war' (19.3 million) than for '2011 Libyan uprising' (18 million). It's very much an insult to Libyan people suffering from this
war to belittle their suffering as the result of only an 'uprising' and not a war. Would you look the bereaved in the eye, and belittle the circumstances in such a way?
114.31.207.18 (
talk)
Comment Once again all, let's reiterate that it is not our job to reach such conclusions like what this thing in Libya is ourselves but that of the sources. I think everyone should look at WP:synth, if the sources ain't saying it, then we should not be saying it in the article. We only go by what the sources are saying, we do not reach our own conclusions etc. See WP:Source. Can everyone please read these and then see if they still want to support the idea when most of the sources (except one or two in India last I checked) are not saying it? These are two of the three core principles of this Wiki and should be respected as such. Re: Nightstallion, we can indeed help it if the MSM is "reluctant to call it a civil war", we do the same because without sources it is just us reaching our own conclusions about what is going on rather than the sources and presenting it to the world as fact. WP:Common, we use the name it is commonly being called. Even if everyone is thinking oh it's a civil war (which I am), it's what they're saying that matters. Regardless of what WP:Duck says, we should respect the common name being used and wp:source and wp:synth. When the sources finally start calling it a civil war then we should do this. Until then, what we think and want to call it does not matter. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support...A civil war is when two sides fight for control of a country, right. Appears to be what is occurring.--
Matthurricane (
talk) 04:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state". Although the rebels have (especially in Benghazi) been organising themselves, I don't think they are really organised enough to call this a civil war. There doesn't seem to be any structural connection or even communication between the rebels at Benghazi and Zawiya. Right now I think it's still mostly relatively minor skirmishes between spontaneously formed groups of gunmen (perhaps formed on the spot during an attack) and organised government forces. Therefore calling this a civil war is still premature. A strong argument is also that most news organisations also keep calling just an uprising. Nanobear ( talk) 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
Weak Support The death toll is at least 1000 on each side, the rebels have taken control of most of the country and have gathered many weapons and explosives. I really don't think that Gaddafi is going to step down any time soon, so the fighting will probably continue. Still though, it does seem a bit early to call it a civil war, lets wait a week or two and see what happens. Gabe896 ( talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm inclined to support a change in article title to civil war on the grounds that the pro-Ghadafi forces have been successful enough to withstand the initial wave of revolution. Look to historical examples to find the October Revolution took less than a week to complete, as did the July Revolution and the February Revolutions in France. The fact there there are two organized camps, pro and anti governmen who are in armed conflict against each other should be basis enough to change the article title. Sixer Fixer ( talk) 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The military's split, militias formed, an opposition government is being created, there have been several battles. If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is. Joe routt ( talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The country is now both geographically and politically divided. Large numbers of both civilians and army-defectors have joined rebel forces. There have been pitched battles involving heavy weaponry by both sides. I think it is now safe to call this a Civil War MCQknight ( talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (MWT)
Support BBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12660095), CBC ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/06/libya.html) and the guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/05/libya-civil-war-gaddafi-zawiyah) are now referring to it as a civil war. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support: It very clearly fits with the most common definitions of the term "Civil War". Gaddafi still have his loyalists and supporters, including a significant proportion of the army. It doesnt make sense to reject the term "civil war" purely due to the fact that the regime is viewed as unpopular. I can see no reason to fence-sit on the issue any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.T kire ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, if tentatively. The head of the ICRC has called it a civil war; Arab media outlets (in Arabic, which I speak) prefer "revolution," but that is arguably because that term plays better in the Arab street. As to the point that it's more a rebellion than a civil war, the two are not mutually exclusive; even though actual support for Qaddafi is rather low, he still has enough in the way of military strength to render his lack of support a moot point. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, as noted the Red Cross is calling it a civil war, it fits the definition of a civil war as there are two organised factions within one country. The Libyan National Council has been fully recognised by France, and other countries are likely to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.20.124 ( talk) on 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment, though I wouldn't be surprised if we moved this way tomorrow or even today. Actually, if you use quotation marks as we well should ("Libyan Civil War" and "Libyan Uprising" as search terms), uprising edges out civil war 589K to 346K, and revolution edges out both with 671K (although we should keep in mind that also includes the revolution in which Gaddafi took control). In news, using quotes and a week setting, revolution overshadows the other two, but I don't see how we can call it a revolution when a revolution is such only when it succeeds. Al Jazeera, contrary to what JoeC 3rd says, is still using the term uprising for Libya and revolution only for Tunisia and Egypt. 140.247.239.247 ( talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I think at the moment it is not in 'full scale' civil war yet and the uprising may well be crushed as Gadaffi's forces gain momentum. However if the same state continues then it's only a matter of time before every news station etc. is calling it a civil war. I say just keep the current title for the time being and see if the uprising escalates even further. On a side note the BBC is still calling it an 'Uprising'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.33.149 ( talk) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Its clear that we have wo different sides with flag, weapons and leadership fighting in the battlefield with certain cities controled by them. Its definitely a civil war as the events of the last few days saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsakiropoulos Dimitris ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment The Arab League is now recognizing the rebels as the only legitimate gov't of Libya and says it wants to hold talks with them, and for all those people who care about google hits, "Libyan Civil War" now has 21.6 million to "Libyan Uprising" having 18.3 million. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Any way that this could be linked as an example of how consensus things should not be done? I mean we've had voting ( WP:VOTE), original research ( WP:OR, synthesis WP:SYNTH, ignoring of WP:COMMONNAME and many other wikirules after being posted innumerable times. As noted by the Knowledgekid87, it's been for a while. I find it kind of funny (as in amusing) and it's no one's fault this is so messy, but I think it could make a good example for people to learn from. Hopefully by the time it is settled (apparently in favour of Civil War), that's going to be the common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously a voting system is not going to work here - the situation changes day by day, so we need to reassess regularly or come up with a stance. In Medicine articles we generally use the scientific name, having common names or the popular names redirecting to this. This makes the Wikipedia article more neutral, leaving arguments about the name for other arenas ( usually discussed in article as 'commonly known as' in lead). To this end I checked out WPs article on Civil War. Summarizing definition of civil war from the article -
As you can seee this uprising satisfies the criteria for civil war, although it is interesting that the geneva convention does not use the term, probably because it is so evocative. If we are to accept using civil war as an article title, surely we must use the above criteria. If we take the line of the geneva convention, then we need to come up with another term. Whatever happens we should have a guideline for future uprisings/ revolts etc to aoid this protracted process of voting. Some clear definitions of when an article should be renamed ... or maybe a single title that covers all stages, using redirects to allow for changes in popular perception? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:DUCK has now been modified to show that it refers to internal stuff only, not content. (felt this needed a baby section as it has been so central to the debate) As well, and in reply to the subsection stuff, going by WP's article for what constitutes a civil war is in violation of WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. Thanks! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the comments made above about archiving the entire conversation and starting over for a consensus, so many people have chimed in over the last few days its impossible to know whats really going on. The situation has changed a lot in that time as well, and continues to. That said, I seriously doubt we will actually find any consensus on this which is somewhat unfair as I get the sense that the majority of people favour changing the name. Oh well, what can ya do. People have cited a lot about common name and the like, but the reality is that this incident does not have any sort of common name, and any common name we would ascribe to it would be very biased in terms of western media sources. Thus my food for thought is this: the current name isn't the common name, any future name won't be the common name. We need to use some other criteria to decide the name of this article. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Under move requests this is listed as 2011 Libyan uprising → page = Talk:2011 Libyan uprising is this right? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Today the National Transitional Council has declared their selves to be "sole representative all over Libya" [2], for all purposes this now qualifies as a Civil War according to the definition of the Wikipedia article, that is A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state, [...]. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, further more, The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict., this has been exceeded six fold
Therefore it should be accepted that this is now definitively a civil war, and the title of the article changed to Libyan Civil War to accurately reflect this, ignoring the use of the year in parentheses as to my knowledge, this is Libya's first and currently only civil war, with the year in the title being redundant -- 98.194.17.255 ( talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. It had been said at least a hundred times that the editor must go based on the conclusions of the sources for article content, not their own conclusions. It is your job to decide what from the sources should be included and in what manner, and how good the source itself is. It is not your responsibility to come to your own conclusions about what is going on unless the source clearly says it, or to take 2+2 (material from different sources) and make it equal 4 (a conclusion based on that material from the different sources). That is the responsibility of the source and the source alone. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we make a faq about this? Otherwise we'll just be explaining the same thing over and over again. Our article titles are decided by plain English common usage, not by any official definition, be it the National Transitional Council or any other.
If you google 'civil war in Libya', you will find lots of phrases such as "nascent civil war in Libya", "threat of civil war in Libya", all written by journalists during the past two days. What is a "civil war" in plain English? It is a conflict such as the one we see in Libya today that goes on for a substantial period of time. What is a "substantial period of time"? That's a subjective judgement, of course, but usually more than a year, or at least more than a couple of months. Kindly compare our articles on the Satsuma Rebellion (January to September 1879) with Chilean Civil War (January to September 1891). It seems that a conflict shorter than a couple of months is not usually termed a "civil war". Since this conflict is barely a month old, naming the article "civil war" will seem to imply the prediction that it is going to continue for at least another couple of months. This is why journalists are reluctant to call it a "civil war" without qualification. Wikipedia simply follows common usage, and as long as people are reluctant to call it a civil war, so should we be. -- dab (𒁳) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article needs to be renamed to Libyan Civil War (2011), major news sources are now calling this a civil war (which it has been for some time) see [ [84]] for an example. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Why have we opened this discussion again? It is currently being discussed in an above thread which has yet to be closed? -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
CommentI'm 174.114.87.236 ( talk) from above, apparently the page has been protected for some reason. Anyways, google hits don't determine Wikipedia page titles, and neither does consensus in the media. When is there ever any consensus on contentious topics in the media? The question is if there is an authoritive, verifiable source that we can all agree would back up the change on here. Clearly that consensus doens't exist yet, but it is worth noting that there is no common name being given to this "occurance" shall we call it within the media, for some its an uprising, for some its a civil war, for some its a just rebels and pro-gaddafi forces. But the article does have to be named something, and clearly the Libyan case is quite different from the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt (which wikipedia is now calling revolutions, but which began as uprisings in name here). If a successful uprising is named a revolution, then what shall we call an uprising which cannot be decisively defeated or won by either side? I believe that is the textbook definition of a civl war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietminh ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The title for this article should be civil war or revolution. Why? There is a war going on. You have two opposing armies. One army is under the control of the current government of Moammar Gadhafi and the other army is controlled by the rebels. The armies are battling over territory (cities, army installations, etc...) and soldiers are being killed in battle. The people of Libya are being killed.
The rebel council has declared their independence. They have stated they are the legitimate government of Libya. They have asked the nations of the world to recognize them as the legitimate government of Libya. They are coordinating the movements of the army. Aljazeera English is calling it a civil war. These events are the definition of civil war or revolution.
The American war for independence was a revolutionary war not when they were given independence by England after the battle of Yorktown but after the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Americans declared their independence. The American Civil War was a civil war not when Lee surrendered to Grant or when Jefferson Davis was captured by Union troops but when the southern states declared their independence and shooting started at Fort Sumter.
This article should have been called Libyan civil war or revolutionary war at least two weeks ago. It is no longer an uprising and the description should be changed. Remember there is a war going on for control of Libya. JoeC 3rd ( talk) 21:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. On CNN they are now calling it a civil war on TV. I think it is now safe to say this is an all out civil war. The time to wait to change the article's title is over. Two organized forces are fighting each other. When you have airstrikes, heavy machine gun fire, and tanks it is generally a war. Also, when someone is attacking a city and someone else is defending it, it is clearly a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.225.132 ( talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - I opposed this two weeks ago, because it was not clear how long it would take to overthrow Ghadaffi. However, now that it is very clear that this will drag out at least until foreign nations get involved, I agree we should title it 2011 Libyan Revolution. I also believe we need to create a new page for the Libyan Republic. Ghaddafi has not shown the power to take back any parts of East Libya, which means, at very least, Eastern Libya will become a new country if Ghaddafi cannot be toppled. I will create the page, but I want support first for Libyan Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 ( talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The main map at the top of this page is naturally subject to constant change as the situation is in such an unpredictable state of flux. I suggest the last time it is edited, somebody writes the date they made the edit under the map as it can go out of date quite quickly and lead to confustion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArinArshavin ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wrote under the explanation what the symbols on the map mean (that can be described in one word... but I forgot which word...) the date and hour of the last update of the map on Wikipedia Commons. — Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Its called a key and thanks. ArinArshavin ( talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
so far, the map has been updated at least daily, and there hasn't to my knowledge been any problem with the map being out of date. So this is rather like a solution looking for a problem. In fact, if you are proposing to manually keep track of map updates here in the article, you are creating the problem of these updates on the map updates being out of date. Thus, the article now says "Last map update: 8 March 2011 at 15:36", while the current map was in fact updated 9 March 2011 at 11:51. I hope you see the problem. This is quite apart from the complete irrelevancy of the hour and minute of the actual upload, if anything, the date given should be that of the last report taken into account in the current map. -- dab (𒁳) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ajdabiya is under Gaddafi's control. :) Change the map immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)