Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Stalemate section

The stalemate section should be removed. The rebels have rejected the possibility of a retired Gaddafi remaining in Libya, and they gained four towns yesterday which shows they are winning. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC))

Rebel proposition is not relevant with the notion of stalemate. Rebels appear to have made some gain in the Nafusa mountain according to their announcement but it is the least important of the three main frontline and nothing major happenned there.

The stalemate title is there to indicate that the major offensives on the big frontline on Brega and Zliten failed and that the situation is close to frozen.--FreemanSA (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebels have pretty much taken Brega and they now have $149 million from the UK with another huge loan. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC))

Last news are rebels failed to take Brega. They claimed victory almost two weeks ago but have still not entered Brega who is still under loyalist control, they are 20 km away and no clashes are happening since one week. The page of the battle has been finished. --FreemanSA (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi only holds part of Brega. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC))

And the Sun is blue. Like we didn't know.89.102.1.194 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information 92.7..., but the rebels have themselves confirmed they are a full 20 kilometers from the town while the loyalists are still in full control of Brega. Their earlier claims of taking Brega is nothing new, they do that every time just a few hours after they attack Brega for the last four months. If what the rebels say is true than they have captured Brega 20 times by now. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It says 5 km. Anyway they control part of the town. (92.7.5.54 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

Actualy they don't per their own commanders, and source you are looking at that says 5km is out-of-date (around the time the battle was still ongoing), the updated source (one day after the battle ended) says 20km [1]. Please stop pov-pushing for the rebel cause. We need to keep a neutra point of view. EkoGraf (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BREGA BEING TAKEN TODAY BY THE REBELS. Ghaddafi's men are just in few suburbs. You can change color at last. Hopefully forever.MaXiMiLiAnO 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Zliten is also under attack as we speak. (92.10.137.9 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

While I also hope Brega and Zliten are taken, the information on this page and others has to be neutrally presented and it has to be verifiable. It's jumping the gun to say it's time to change Brega to dark red on the map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What kind sources do you need ? Al Araybia had already reported along most of press agencies , Brega had fallen to rebels hands several days ago, when the reality, the rebels were just entering the eastern parts of the town.The piece of news was not full exact, but not totally wrong either, just not precise due to the difficulty in the front line and the continuos advances-retreats during battles. The rebels "twits" according to you are unreliable, so only Ghaddafi's propaganda and Libyan State TV is left, is this the reliable source you need ? If this is the reliable source, so that you should change to the color to Adjabiya too, since according to Libya press agency rebels have all retreated to Benghazi. I think the only solution is to keep the blue point (as you had before)in the town where combats are still ongoing, so Brega and also Zliten (rebels are in the eastern outskirts). Green and reed points are not enough and always matter of ambiguisness. Right now Brega is partly controlled by the rebels (2/3 or 3/4 ? hard to say) and small parts of Zliten (maybe 10-20%), so these places must have a blue point until the situation will be clear. Just a thoughMaXiMiLiAnO 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

The rebels have themselves said today they still haven't taken control of the town or are even in the town itself. Read today's source [2]. Quoting the rebels A spokesman for the rebels in Ajdabiya said they had pushed Gaddafi's heavy weapons out of reach of their forces around Brega but the rebels were not in control of the oil town. All earlier reports (by rebel commanders at the frontline themselves) put them at around 20 kilometers east of Brega [3]. So please enough with the claims they took the town or even a part of the town. They have claimed 50 times by now to have taken Brega. And Al Arabiya is not reliable because it is highly pro-rebel. Until a BBC or Reuters reporter says he is standing in Brega everything that the rebels say should be considered unreliable as well as what the loyalists say. It's a propaganda war people. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough what ? You must stop with you biased news, not me, if Al Arabya not reliable, Al Jazeera not reliable , AFP not reliable, what is reliable than ? Libya TV channel ? Before slandering myself you should get informed too.I have never seen another wikipage so biased in this way, refusing to take into account main international sources and relying only to Ghaddafi's propaganda. AFP has also confirmed rebels have taken Zliten, besides Brega. Journalists cannot be inside a town where fights are still ongoing. .The towns where fights are ongoing,situation unclear and are occupied in parts by both sides, should be coloured in blue, as they were before. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a war and war has continuos changes of frontlines, when i edited correctly about Al Jouf , i have been accused of being a liar, when i edited about Al Qatrun the same thing, It is obvious some towns switches hands several times, early today rebels retreat from Brega residential area again to organize for a new push. It has been like this for awhile. It doesn't mean everybody else except you is a liar. Front changes quickly and news are foggy. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Biased? I was highly offended with that remark. I never talked to you specificly. When I said enough I ment enough edits based on rebel claims. I never said that AFP or Al Jazeera are not reliable, if anything I said BBC or Reuters should be trusted firstly. I sad Al Arabiya is the only foreign media that shouldn't be trusted because it is highly biased and pro-rebel. I never said to trust Libya TV, again, I also said that the loyalist TV is unreliable. I pride myself that I am highly neutral and maintain that the only sources that should be used are eyewitness accounts of BBC, Reuters, AFP or any other journalists. And not what they report the rebels or the loyalists claim. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Even rebels at this moment don't say that they have taken Brega or Zliten. It would be outrageous to change it in the article. --FreemanSA (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels are saying they have taken Zliten, and that they defeated an attempt by Gaddafi's forces to retake the town today. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

You are again not reading the sources correctly. I get it you want the rebels to win, but you have to read the reports more carefully. The source you read [4] says the rebels (and this is only per their claim, no independent confirmation) defeated the counter-attack on the eastern outskirts of the town where they took up positions yesterday. This even contradicts their earlier claim they are in the center of the town. All reports now state that the rebels are on the eastern outskirts, loyalists on the western outskirts, and nobody sure who holds the city center. EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have invaded Libya in 1972. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

Gaddafi took over in 1969. :P Please refrain from your personal points of view and try to remain neutral here on Wikipedia. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, I would have invaded Libya as soon as he began arming the IRA in 1972. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

My friend, ok we must be careful with the sources, but at least try to follow them at 360 degrees, there are not only Reuters and AP in this planet and they cannot be everywhere. FF are still fighting in Brega, some of them managed to skip it forward to the village of Bishr today. Also the situation in Qatrun is unclear, it appears many rebels are inside the town which is encicled by Ghaddafi's forces. I just suggest to put a blue point (unclear situation, ongoing fighting) not just at Zliten but also at Brega and Qatrun. I think it would be fair and balanced. And you know how war is, going forward, retreat, waiting for reinforcement, moving forward, retreat, etc...well, it is complicated, so please consider put the blue point in these important fronts. Cheers. MaXiMiLiAnO 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

At the moment the situation is realy clear. The rebels themselves have stated they have retreated from Al Qatrun and the loyalists have re-taken the town. A large number of foreign journalists from a number of leading media outlets (BBC, CNN, etc) were taken to Zlitan and they confirmed no presence of the rebels in the city except the sound of artillery fire a few kilometers east of the city, no sign of fighting inside the city. And as far as Brega goes, all reports indicate skirmishes on the road 20 kilometers east of the town and a few raids by rebel groups into the eastern part of Brega (which the rebels previously claimed to had taken) and than those groups retreating quickly over back over the frontline to Ajdabiya. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So far, it looks as if the stalemate has continued- despite brief rebel claims to the contrary, the rebels have failed to take and hold both Zliten and Brega. The situation in the southwest is fuzzy at best (though apparently Alain Juppe lent credence to the idea that rebels are making gains there, I have yet to see any RSes confirming this). Until there is a major victory that lasts on one side, it can at least be regarded as a quasi-stalemate. --Yalens (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (EDIT:On the other hand it looks like Bir al-Ghanam has just fallen to the rebels...)

There is no longer any stalemate now the rebels have taken Bir Ghanam. (92.7.16.72 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

I agree, the stalemate is over. The rebels have launched massive offensives on all fronts and appear to be having significant success. The stalemate section should be added to the main narrative.

EkoGraf, you keep missing the point that a war like this has continous changes of front, the fact Brega and Zliten centers were free of rebels few days ago, it doesn't mean few days before the rebels hadn't briefly reached them.The fronts change lots of time and Ghaddafi uses the brief favorable spells when his mercenaries manage to repel the rebels, to take journalists there to say "everything is under control" when it IS NOT. The war is fluid, fronts change continously, don t get trapped into the Ghaddafi's tricks. Moreover, the situation is further complicated by loyalists disguised as rebels to avoid NATO strikes and also rebels disguised as loyalists in some small villages. It's not easy to report amongst this kind of situation: journalists are used by Ghaddafi to show only what he wants to show.Anyway, as today speaking, the situation is changing fast and the wave is turning in favour of the rebels. Next days battles for Gharyan and Zawya will be decisive. Also Sebha is shaking and might fall. If rebels will also take Ghadames, Ghaddafi can count his days . On Tuesday he will celebrate his 42th and last anniversary in power, of course he will say everything is under control.MaXiMiLiAnO 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

--Korona (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels have finished liberating Tawarga. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

From all of its people it seems. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiji was liberated without a fight. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Same here. The word "liberation" is so flexible it seems))) 95.32.167.148 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebels say that they controlled Al Zawiyah

This arab site say that rebels said to Al Arabia TV that "Liberated" Al Zawiyah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.23.112 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebelish:We control Al-Zawiyah, hooray!
Translation: We are attacking Al-Zawiyah and hope to control it soon. --Yalens (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yalens is a good translator, the most likely event is that the rebels hold the southern bit of the town and are attacking the rest, but the town is not fully liberated.MonteMiz (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Might need new articles for battles for Gharyan, Aziziyah and Az Zawiyah

Apparently the rebels are already engaged in fighting the Gaddafites in Gharyan and Az Zawiyah, and they plan to take aim at Aziziyah as well according to Al Jazeera's field reporters. We should probably at least make new articles for Gharyan and Az Zawiyah, I think, as they are due to be major battles due to the importance of those two cities. Separate articles from the Nafusa campaign, I mean. --Yalens (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels have made huge advances on all three fronts so I think the "Stalemate" section should be removed. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

Their only undisputable advance was in Nafusa Mountains. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate section should not be removed but a new section should be started under it. I say wait and see if the rebels capture some or all of the towns they are attacking then update accordingly MonteMiz (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reporters in Zawiyah have confirmed the rebels have taken the city. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

News that the rebels are assaulting all coastal towns west of Tripoli. Those might all go under one article. Wait and see. 93.232.152.76 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

They've libertaed Surman now. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

A new section on this should be written yes, but the stalemate section stays no matter what. Because the stalemate was an undisputable part of the conflict for five months. Create a new section after the stalemate one. EkoGraf (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never any stalemate at all. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Sabratha has been liberated so it should be changed to brown on the map. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

All of Zawiya has been liberated now. (92.7.26.244 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Libya conflict: Rebels capture key Zawiya oil refinery found this on BBC--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now,fighting also going on at Ghadames, Qatrun and Ghat. Maybe we should add a third map showing better the situation in the south.Ghaddafi's has three main bases or strongholds :Tripoli,Sirt and Sebha and rebels are advancing towards them. Murzuk is under rebels' hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Something's apparently happening in Tripoli

Note: Sources are obviously VERY sparse at the moment, and so I'll try to keep things posted as more information becomes available. However... [5] [6] --FineHourglass (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli is close to collapse. There are tens of thousands of anti-Gaddafi demonstrators on the streets, and most of them are armed. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

Yeah I heard about the news as well. Lots of intense gunfire and protesters have started marching. Here is the source. [7] Noneofyour (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC, Sky News and Reuters are reporting it as well. The rebels are attacking Tripoli in force, while a huge uprising has begun inside the city. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

With the main rebel army 27k from Tripoli, this may very well be the end. Noneofyour (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Page desperately needs updating, especially the introductory section. It seems to end in March, yet a lot has happened since.--Halma10 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As rebels are closing on Tripoli, a detailed map of Tripoli would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.15.156.162 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi Security Surrenders

GADDAFI'S SECURITY FORCES SURRENDER, SAIF AL-ISLAM CAPTURED!!!!! [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That isnt Gaddafi the reference talks about, it was his guards that surrendered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some sources claim he died, others claim he surrendered, or that he is still on air ranting against the invaders and "small rebel groups". It's all very vague and unclear as of now. Polozooza (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

References

I have added a reference list with <references />, as the reference template was not working. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Show Tripoli As a Rebel Stronghold

Its time has there have been live tv scenes from Green Square that Rebels are in the centre of the city so its time on the maps for Tripoli as a rebel stronghold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.223.201 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are asking in the worng place, try asking over at the commons [9], im against it though as the status is still unclear in Tripoli. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many citations

There are too many citations in this article, that especially when accessed on the secure servers [10], the page is not loading. (502 proxy error) and when it does load on nonsecure server, it's crazy slow.

I think things either need 1) splitting out more into subarticles and/or 2) converting the citations to just plain text, not using templates. Thoughts?

Any objections to us doing something to make the page more manageable, both for editors and readers. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting database errors and imagine it's almost impossible to edit at this time. I think this calls for emergency action to split parts of the article out into subpages or even a sandbox and we can reorganize things to make the article more manageable. (any objections to me trying this? editorial-wise, i'm pretty open to how things are done but just want the page viewable and editable) --Aude (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No objections here, this article has been a time bomb waiting to go off, it needs structure badly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily moved contents of the international reactions to a sandbox:

User:Aude/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

Feel free to edit if you want. I couldn't move it to the subarticle, as I see that already has almost 500 references! --Aude (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone commented out the references, nominally as a performance measure. Now users must "view source" to get them, and the performance hit that imposes. May I suggest reforming cases like "[123][124][125][126][127]" for a single sentence instead? Int21h (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Course of the war

I think the course of the war section needs to be split out. Yes, I see there already are timelines. This part of the main article summarized more and have more details in the subarticle timelines? maybe the timelines even could be split into shorter time segments so everything stays manageable. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article size

Just some ideas:

• Move alot of the content in Gaddafi's response to Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan civil war
• Have Course of the war be made up of more than one main article (the timeline)

thoughts?

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm being impartial, I guess as an admin, right now... but both those ideas sound good to me. (I'm happy to help with summarizing and stuff, if people want) --Aude (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Best way to handle citations.

I believe it would be best to boil down the citations and just provide a link to the website that offers a citation to the many articles. So the people viewing can search at their own will and we won't need 500 citations.

If I remember correctly, we did that with the 2011 Egyptian Revolution article back in Feb, though only ~300 references. (looks like they've been changed back now). I think that helped and think it would help here. --Aude (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove Saif al-Arab from Commanders list

Youngest son whose death was announced by the regime was not a military commander and was virtually never seen in public. Scottbp (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've taken off full protection, making it semi-protected for now.

I suggest two things:

1. convert references to be just plain text, no templates
2. work to summarize things and put details in subarticles, so the split sections can be put back in summarized form.

(I'll help however you want me to , or if help's not needed/wanted, that's fine)

Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

NATO and NTC are committing genocide

Translated excerpt from an interview of the German magazine "Der Spiegel" with the secretary general of the National Transitional Council:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it true that a list was published with the names of all Ligan Thauria, a kill list with 7200 people? Basama: There are many lists, you know."

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752447,00.html

They have turned Libya into a slaughterhouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO_o-0NRhwg

http://www.obamaslibya.com/

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

One of thier leaders is a CIA asset who spent nearly 20 years in Virginia. NATO has established a no-life-zone by poisoning and irradiating Libya with uranium. This war against Libya was planned by NATO long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.215.103.107 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you happy to have gotten youre little rant of youre chest.

I laughed at him and his sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.41.154 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

list od comanders

Is it really necessary to list Charles Bouchard twice? (once as nato once as canada) MonteMiz (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The Canadian Charles Bouchard is useless as he is a Nato commander not a Canadian diplomat or something. BenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Course of the war

Whoever changed that obviously did it without community consensus. Someone should change it back.--RM (Be my friend) 01:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many references (615!) was causing technical problems for the servers, errors when viewing and editing the page! Please summarize the section and re-add something back but please do not put it back, as it was. That would be most helpful! Thank you. --Aude (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were a lot of LibyaFeb17.com references later shown to be unreliable. We can put that section back in, and remove all those.--RM (Be my friend) 02:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing the unreliably sourced material certainly is very helpful. Here is the subarticle with the entire text that was in the "Course of the war" section: Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war.

This timeline article has 239 references itself and adding them all back to this article would bring it up to almost 500 again. Maybe there still is room to summarize things a bit more or at least pulling out some of the most detailed information and putting it in the timelines. (below)

The timeline has three subarticles of its own, where I think the super detailed information should go:

• Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war before military intervention
• Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (19 March-May)
• Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (from June)

I'd also like to change how the references are done, to do them in a way without using the {{citation}} templates. I think that would help quite a lot.

I'm sure there are other ways to do things to help make the article size more manageable and I'm fine with pretty much anything that helps. --Aude (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction of red links in above post:

• Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war before military intervention
• Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (19 March-May)
• Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (from June)

Before material was moved to other pages today, the article was in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded because it broke Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. The number of citation templates certainly contributed to that but I don't recommend to worsen the citation formatting by dropping citation templates. The article also simply seemed too long before when it reached 332,388 bytes of wiki source. The html source of the rendered article currently says "Post-expand include size: 1016723/2048000 bytes". This shows that it currently only uses around half of the limit it previously broke. So some of the removed material could be readded or summarized without breaking the limit. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the template limit. Sounds like we're okay with keeping the references formatted, as-is, but should summarize more and split things into subarticles. Cheers (and links fixed!) --Aude (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

'Status' is conflict infobox

With so few of the good guys left fighting, at what point does it become incumbent to vary the status from "ongoing" to recording it as decisively victory for the NATO proxies?LowPointForLibya (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Because there are still pro-Gaddafi areas - 'ongoing' is the correct word - western prosperous neighbourhoods for example are more pro-Gaddafi than the eastern poorer areas of Tripoli apparently, those who have done well out of the regime and could care less about repression and shooting unarmed demonstrators kind of thing, - 'ongoing' is the correct word - if a word is used straightforwardly, does that blow the mind of a pro-gaddafi person, used only to twisted words and thoughts 92.4.115.63 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

zwara

Zwara has been taken by rebels forces, but it 's under attack from 3 fronts by Ghaddafi's forces who are trying to retake it. Situation in the South is very blurred, since everything is concentrating in Tripoli,but there are many news of uprising from almost every town, including Sebha. Eastern front of Ghaddafi's forces stationed between Sirt and Brega are negotiating a surrender with rebels.MaXiMiLiAnO 12:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Apparently Mutassim went back to Bab el Azizia and Khamis is leading his brigade in Tripoli, although some rumors say he might be dead.MaXiMiLiAnO 12:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

al khums

Reports rebels forces have just entering Al Khums. In the east, Brega at last under rebels control after Ghaddafi's troops retreat towards the west. Ghaddafi's forces still hold the territory from Ras Lanuf to Sirt,Beni Walid and most of the South-west despite clashes being reported there. MaXiMiLiAnO 19:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Real map of war

Due to misinformation and NATO NATO-controlled media, you must add an additional section with an alternative point of view, or modify existing information. For example, the real map of hostilities. http://vusso.ucoz.ru/_nw/1/s02421829.jpg Green - free from the scourge of the city Red - the battle continues Brown - the city under the control of bandits and mercenaries (the rebels) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.157.71 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

that 'real map' shows Misrata as pro-Gaddafi controlled, is that right Moscow ip - 'you must this, you must that, you must - modify existing information' - Stalinist authoritarian drivel. anyone can add anything - then if it has good RS and survives the scrutiny of reality it stays in I guess, - stop telling people what to do Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

All your information is based on a NATO-controlled, biased sources. And do not become personal. Here everyone has a right to the point of view. Do not need to turn Wikipedia into a source of misinformation. I do not need to put my point of view as the only true, I want to give both versions of what is happening!89.250.157.71 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are images of rebels celebrating in Tripoli and Misrata on TV right now... on multiple channels. Unless nearly all major media outlets throughout the world are a part of some vast NATO conspiracy, I'd have to say that map has no bearing on the reality of the situation. 68.7.4.181 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

/*TV Moovies is Fake from Quatar...*/ example89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rafy, What right have you to delete someone else's, unwanted messages to you in the discussions? If you do so again, I'll have to complain about.89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're sources don't come remotely close to meeting our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. There's no point in discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is discussion, not article! And photos, this is not what you need to choose from which sources.89.250.157.71 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian

The link to the daily blog in EL is out of date again. Why not include the main link with the ME live blog underneath it for now? 99.50.188.177 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Libya collected news and commentary at The Guardian
  • Live coverage

Aug 22 article on reasons for sudden rebel success

How Did Tripoli's Stubborn Stalemate Suddenly Become a Rout? It includes links to its sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi NOT in Rebel custody

According to Fox News, Saif-al-Islam was spotted by one of their producers at a hotel in Tripoli, and is not in Rebel custody. Just saw on TV, I'll keep an eye out for a web link. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Fox and CNN have banners on their websites now regarding it, but no actual published reports yet.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

On CNN.com: Live blog: Saif a-Islam Gadhafi appears outside hotel --L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

.gif map

Could someone create a better war map, as a .gif image? It should:

1. Work as a slideshow of updated maps, showing each week.
2. Have a date in one corner.

A map like that would be very helpful.

90.191.78.48 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Weapons Platforms

I've noticed a lot of strangely rigged weapons platforms over the course of this conflict. After the dust settles (and to the limitations of what the rebels will allow), perhaps a section dedicated to this should be developed. A REDDSON

See Technical (vehicle). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the “technicals” page (though it appears the page has changed quite a bit since I last saw it), I am proposing that a blurb and link be included, and some photos of such vehicles verifiably involved to this event be included (without comment as to abilities), and specifically after the conflict is verifiably over (irregardless who the ‘victor’ is). Moreover, the use of a helicopter rocket launcher is, to my knowledge (admittedly I do not know everything) unique to this particular conflict. A REDDSON

Please review and see if this would be within acceptable limits:
“Extensive use of technicals (civilian or military non-combat vehicle modified to provide an offensive capability) by loyalist and anti-Gaddafi forces was seen to move to and from on the desert terrain. They quickly become the vehicle of choice for both sides. Medium flatbed trucks carrying the Soviet-made ZPU and ZU-23-2 towed anti-aircraft twin or quad barreled guns, recoilless rifles, and S-5 rocket helicopter rocket launcher pods were the most common seen; In the case of rocket launcher, low-tech devices were improvised to activate the weapons (such as the use of doorbells).” A. J. REDDSON

A revolutionary war?

Lets atleast consider changing the name of the 2011 Libyan civil war to the Libyan revolutionary war, as the victors (the rebels, as well as civilian supporters) refer to it as a revolution. The american revolutionionary war was a complete war, yet we still call it the american revolution/revolutionary war. Any thoughts. Zenithfel (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The war is still ongoing and unfortunately it could be go on and transform into fighting within tribes and different rivalries. So we have to wait until the conclusion.

Eastern Costal Advance

The BBC and Reuters are reporting an a significant advance in the east of the country with pro-government forces retreating from Ras Lanuf and Brega towards Sirte. Perhaps worth a mention/new section? We are getting a lot of coverage of Tripoli and the ongoing fighting in the west, but significant gains in the east deserve a mention also? Sorry if this is being dealt with on another page/should be dealt with on another page. -- JamieHughes (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The infobox displays File:Libyan Uprising.svg which changed Ras Lanuf to anti-Gaddafi forces earlier today. Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (from June)#23 August says: "Rebels took control of Ras Lanuf and advanced towards Bin Jawad and Sirte." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Camilo is a Ghaddafi supporter, it is clear, anybody who is against that genocidal monster is pariah for him and his followers. Some Chavez sympathizer.

---

SOUTH

Many southern towns are either at rebel's hands or with unclear situation, including Sebha, where according to Al Jazeera this afternoon 25 August, rebels are controlling most of the town. Qatrun and Ghat seem to be under rebel's control too. No news about Adiri. Ghadames was invaded by Algerian army. Ben Jawad with fights. Beni Walid and Sirte still under Ghaddafi's control.MaXiMiLiAnO 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign boots on the ground

Assault on the Azizia compound was led by special forces of Qatar and UAE [11]. Thats definitely not instructors or advisors this time. So long for the proclaimed "USNC Resolution 1973 enforcement" 95.32.6.41 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. As for adding these as combatants, if that is what you are suggesting, CNN has a different take, reporting they're acting in an advisory/supply role only: [12] -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when giving a reference falls under WP:NOTAFORUM?! And what's so special about the CNNs "different take"? Is it the Voice of God or the Ultimate Truth? 95.32.160.148 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ghat

Several Ghaddafi's drivers were spotted today at Ghat, which is very close to Algeria border, it is also close to Niger and Chad. These countries refuse to recognize the rebels as legitimate leaders. It's not a coincidence. I think we must focus on this, because Ghaddafi's whereabouts is very important for the conflict.MaXiMiLiAnO 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tribal aspect of the war is real

I am growing tired with some editors probably thinking it is a funny thing to remove important information about belligerents in the war. Tribes are a very important aspect of this civil war.

Among the most important tribes involved there are of course the Gaddafa and the Magariha tribes supporting Gaddafi and others opposing him.

But the tribal dimension is present everywhere:

Tawerghans vs Misratans http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

Zintan tribe vs Mashashya http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,776695,00.html

In the east of course, all the tribes are against Gaddafi. In the south also there are mention of anti Gaddafi tribes (toubou) and we know the tuaregs are pro Gaddafi.

So you can continue with vandalism by removing the mentions in the infobox but I will keep writing the truth back. --Geromasis (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you, please assume good faith and refrain from characterizing others' edits as "vandalism" unless they are a clear example of such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Toubou are pro-Gaddafi [13] (or more likely anti-french and against racist Benghazi clique) 77.45.161.168 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite the claims of one blogger who claims to be a Toubou, the Toubou, like other notable ethnic minorities (notably the Berbers of the Nafusa mountains, who form one of the strongest hotbeds of pro-NTC sentiment and the bulk of the fighters there), have fought on the rebel side. --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, because the Toubou are/were one of the main rebel fighting groups in the Southern Libyan Desert campaign: 1. Seems like you may be wrong. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

According to whom they were? Because the article you find so funny clearly shows anti-rebel sentiment of the Toubou National Council and its supreme chiftain. And its much more believable giving the Toubou history with the French and the recent Benghazi racist massacres. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a great example of WP:SYNTH. We have to go by what secondary sources report. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the link: "We have been attacked twice in the past week by Gadhafi's army," said Mohammed Sidi, a Toubou tribal leader". News source > blog. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And here is another source that says that Gaddafi had to send in helicopter gunships to quell a rebellion by the Toubou in Kufra back in 2009. Your position is getting less and less credible, anon... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And here is a UN document describing systematic discrimination against the Toubou (among other minorities) by Gaddafi. Allow me to quote some passages for you:

• "STP recalled that massive discrimination of the Toubou minority had been reported from the south eastern part of the country. Some 4,000 Toubou people are living in the town of Kufra, an oasis city of 44,000 inhabitants some 2,000 kilometres from Tripoli. In the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, they were treated as foreigners by the authorities. In December 2007, the Libyan Government withdrew citizenship from members of the Toubou group, stating that they were not Libyans but Chadians. Furthermore the local authorities issued decrees barring Toubou from access to education and health care services. The armed movement “Front for the Salvation of the Toubou Libyans” has opposed these measures and up to 33 people died in Kufra, during five days of fighting between the official security forces and the Toubou in November 2008."
• "Despite public criticism, the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to expel Toubou people from their residential areas in Kufra according to STP. Since November 2009 dozens of families lost their homes due to forced destruction by bulldozers supervised by state security forces. Several dozens of Toubou were arrested because of their opposition against the forced evictions. They only were released after publicly confirming that they would not block any destruction of houses. People who refused to move from their houses were beaten by security officials. Some were notified by the authorities to leave the houses only minutes before bulldozers destroyed their homes. No alternative housing was proposed to the victims of the forced evictions. Furthermore, Libyan authorities refused to renew or extend passports to members of this minority. Several times parents were prevented from registering births of their children and denied birth certificates. According to STP, the Libyan Government is responsible for a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing in Kufra which violates both Libyan and international law."

Your claims continue to disintegrate when exposed to real research... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation

Everyone here at Wikipedia better starts holding on the editing of all this Libya related articles. Those rebels are not reliable and they have been lying about the sons and their captures, they are not true. The story has been the same for over six months, they keep saying they are doing something when they haven't. Even if the media reports something as editors we should follow a more scientific approach and wait until reports are factual and provable. Please. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are using propaganda and manipulating the news media to their own advantagen/ no info should be included unless it has reliable confirmation. citing a media outlet or blog or tweet is not sufficient, especially when the those sources themselves do not include verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.183.117 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, but as you imply yourself the criteria is verifiability. Did a reliable source say that Saif had been reported captured? If so, then it can be used. Whether it should have been, i.e. every little turn and twist reported in a complicated and rapidly evoving (and devolving) story, is another matter. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that the article said, "rebels said/claimed/confirmed/etc." No-one added it as a fact. If Muhammad didn't speak in-public on TV, then they would-of said it's lies too. Things aren't clear, so we just use what reliable sources say and keep them as claims (even the ICC believed that Saif was captured). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

lol, "Those rebels are not reliable". As opposed to the Gaddafi regime? That keeps making pie-in-the-sky claims about how everything is under control and the "masses" would march to solve this little problem of armed gangs, like, any moment now? The TNC is doing their best to provide decent information, in their own interest, as they have every motivation to want to be seen as reliable partners once this is over. Of course there is still going to be misinformation, this is a civil war not a football match. Which is why we always say "according to", "rebels said", etc. As for "they keep saying they are doing something when they haven't", in my book, they have been saying for six months that they are fighting the Gaddafi regime and that they would try and march on Tripoli, which it turns out is exactly what they have done. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Everybody please chill and assume good faith. The general rule of thumb, I think, is to be meticulous about attribution, as User:Dbachmann says. Neither governments' claims can be assumed to be factual because neither has proven themselves to be a reliable source; but even reliable sources' claims should be attributed, e.g. "Reuters reported that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said he enjoys chocolate-dipped strawberries and bubble baths" (obviously Saif al-Islam isn't a reliable source in general, but as to his own dietary and hygienic preferences, he can be considered more credible but still should have his own statements about himself attributed to him). There's no need to put a blanket freeze on editing Libya content just because the NTC claimed to have captured a couple of Gaddafi's sons and then they were confirmed to be at large several hours later. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's try not to edit anything yet. Unless they have confirmed that the operation has been proven successful then it is ok to add it on Wikipedia, the rebels have been know to give unreliable information. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should stop editing Libya articles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I heard a spokesman say there was some confusion because 'the eldest son' was captured and Saif is the eldest son of Gaddafi and his second wife - - so there was a bit of confusion - whatever, the rebels have been absolute models of reliability and truthfulness compared to Gaddafi and your way of speaking about, and denigrating, the rebels is disgusting imo. Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of the rebels reliability besides your mantras? Eg pls remind how many times Khamis Gaddafi was "killed" or Brega "taken"? 95.32.162.39 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

look, Camilo Sanchez and assorted IPs, this is not an issue. What is "Let's try not to edit anything yet" supposed to mean? This entire article is about an ongoing conflict, based on preliminary reports. If mainstream news media can report it, we can report that these media have reported it. Wikipedia is doing nothing less and nothing more than summarize what other, secondary sources have been saying.

It is safe to say that Tripoli has fallen to the rebels. It is also safe to say that it is completely unknown where Gaddafi is hiding. So the article is going to state as much. Any speculation beyond that will just need to be marked as speculation. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Camilo Sanchez. The rebels have been spreading deliberate lies and misinformation from the beginning. Claiming to have taken cities while they were in fact firmly in government hands; claiming, without any proof, that Gaddafi employs foreign mercenaries; claiming that Gaddafi ordered mass rape while Amnesty International found not a single rape victim; claiming to have the sons of Gaddafi in custody only for them to appear on television as free men, etc. etc. The rebels are unreliable and their statements should not be trusted unless there is independent evidence for their validity. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I find it quite appalling that a handful of editors here have been accusing the rebels for spreading misinformation without ever mentioning a word about the untruthfulness of the Gaddafi regime. I mean, sure, the rebels' sincerity have been indeed questionable at times (The capture of Gaddafi's sons, for instance), but shouldn't we all be raising eyebrows from all the claims and statements the Gaddafi government has been spewing out as well (especially in recent weeks)? --FineHourglass (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for me to mention the propaganda that the Gaddafi government has been spreading: the rest of the editing community is already doing that. The Wikipedia articles about the 2011 Libyan civil war are severely biased in favour of the rebels. All atrocities that the Gaddafi side has purportedly committed are mentioned in the articles, often without citing any proof that the described events actually happened. For instance, in June I added this information, but when I checked this month it had miraculously disappeared. In another example, this information I added cannot be found in the current version of the article. I am not the one you should be accusing of bias. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

- they are systematic propagandists - a map of Misrata showing it is in Gaddafi hands? - reminds me of Orwell , the Stalinists called him a Fascist at the time of the Show Trials, the totalitarian minded use propaganda relentlessly -the people who spread lying totalitarian propaganda and call the rebels liars , they 'swallow the elephant and choke on the fly' - if thats the phrase I'm looking for - they are vraiment dégueulasse - Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow... talk about raising all sorts of suspicions. Blast, it looks like I haven't gone around enough to actually realize how familiar y'all are with the seemingly daily biased editing/misinformation on this article (and perhaps on other articles associated with it). Thanks for enlightening me; those are truly shocking... --FineHourglass (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, why talk about Gaddafi propaganda?? He's fighting, and he will be telling everything that will help him win. Same about rebels. But let's better talk about CNN and FOX news, and almost ALL other "reliable sources" who are misinforming us all, who base their reports on rebel info only and showing fake scenes. Are they fighting, too? What war are THEY at? ----66.182.195.115 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

'almost ALL base their reports on rebel info only' - there again, lying - I've watched BBC a lot for the last 6 months - I have seen Jeremy Bowen interview gaddafi, I have heard loads from Moussa 'I thought I knew the West' Ibrahim, - anyway 'reality is the master' - I think that's Lawrence Durrell. Sayerslle (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, Texas IP, but Gaddafi's not going to win. The war's still going, but it's not going to be for much longer. Those scenes on the TV aren't fake. The rebels may have lied and spread propaganda at points throughout the war, but it's not all a big conspiracy. The rebels are in Tripoli. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, guys, I forgot "independent" BBC;) Hey, I was watching Bloomberg TV on the wall in the office, and they have shown a "central Tripoli square" with a palm that doesn't grow there. I opened CNN and saw cool news that Gaddafi's sons were captured by rebels, and later that day I saw him being interviewed among Gaddafi's supporters. He "escaped", no doubt;) I don't care if Gaddafi's killed or not, I just care about giant media who's controlling way tooo much nowadays. At some point, they will be able to tell people to become fascist "because it is right" - and people will, without doubt. -- Anthony --66.182.195.115 (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

THat sounds a bit paranoid to me tbh. its true that journalists from the BBC seem to follow events more with the rebels - maybe the gaddafi side are not so open to let journalists follow them around - Kim Sengupta has a good piece in the independent [14]- from Abu Salim where it seems there is some real support for Gaddafis side - they resent soldiers from outside tripoli entering their area, - but then the area of abu salim is the site of the massacre of 12000 prisoners apparently, many of them political prisoners from the east. like Orwell said - in a war its not possible to choose between good and evil - you choose between two evils - maybe more journalists are unwilling to risk being killed while covering events from , ultimately, the more evil side, and that explains the bias you see everywhere. anyway, NOTAFORUM Sayerslle (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The current information war on Libya

Hi! I've added a new subsection to the article List of conspiracy theories, following all the talk about lies from all sides in Libya. I would very much like to hear what you think about it, if it's a fair assessment about the current information war. Or if it's not. Many TIA.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I read that piece you've added and it was useful and intersting - russia under Putin-medvedev seems pretty lousy really for honesty - Ive noticed a lot of the more hysterical things said come from Russia at the moment - i'd take issue with 'lent credibility to' - surely 'lent their credibility to' - also that there is anything 'left wing' about the sources of the conspiracy theories - more like corrupt elites in different countries unnerved by the sight of one of their corrupt elite number getting kicked out trying to spread confusion and lies. Why is there no water in tripoli btw, do you know? Sayerslle (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. user:Dmol has removed the section twice, based upon idea of WP:OR, so I've moved the text to the talk page, waiting for more input. Hopefully I can rephrase and resource it, to make it "acceptable", later on.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tarhuna

Rebel fonts insist Tarhuna is if not fully, at least mostly under rebels' control. I ask the people in charge of the map to check the validity of this piece of information as for 28 August. In the eastern front, Benghazi rebels have advance more near Sirte, they are at about 30-40 km. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Please read my note at the very top of the page. I put it there for a very good reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia

Just wondering if Tunisia should be added as a 3rd combatant here. They've been involved in three battles so far. I dunno, i'll open the floor to comments. 81.98.167.142 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

They dealt with a few spillover skirmishes at Wazzin, had a scuffle with people who might have been loyalists at Douz, and closed down their side of Ras Ajdir when clashes broke out on the other side. No. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All the rallies were staged anyway. (92.7.24.95 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC))

What rallies? 81.98.167.142 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV illustration

As well I can see there are only images of rebels and their protests. There is missing images of millions Gaddafi's supporters. Wikipedia must provide a whole situation (including by images) to a reader, as there are images of only one side, it's not such a case here. Alex ^{discussion ★} 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi doesn't have millions of supporters. That being said, there should be some pictures of pro-Gaddafi rallies (whether staged or spontaneous), if any of the images are fair use. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Days of ongoing conflict is wrong

There is an error... I think he counts February with 30 Days or so (360 days year?), because I think 185 is there since a while and today its the 183. Day since 17. February. So it can't be 185 since a week or so. Maybe this should be fixed or edited manually. Kilon22 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I gathered all of the bits about the breakout from Nafusa under the siege of Tripoli, but the dates are all over the place. Needs to be cleaned up; I don't know the actual dates. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kwami,

I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you wrote because my English is not so good. However, I think its quite okay now, maybe there are different opinions about the exact date when the revolution began. 196 days (actually) is a good Information. So nevermind, the war will be over soon anyway and at the latest than we will know the "official" dates, because I do not know enough about where the first uprising took place in Libya.

France and Italy were smart, I think they will get the best oil contracts, together with Qatar maybe if Qatar is interested. The other supporters too. Well, I'm born in Berlin, my family is polish. I got 2 citizenships (Germand and Polish). It is sad that actually we got idiots in the German goverment. I think the nazi complex time should be over. I don't know any reason why German fighters or the navy should not take part in that military operation! "Lucky", under that circumstances, that the UK used the Eurofighter in the conflict and showed that its a damn good Fighter. India wants to buy 160 new fighters, the deal is of course many billions worth and only 2 models left. Both from Europe. The French "Rafale" and the Eurofighter... but France already is the winner. If the French Rafale will lose, they will build Eurofighters, and the company EADS holds 33% of the Eurofighter GmbH and the French goverment holds 15 % of EADS. That is somehow strange, the French State as an big shareholder in EADS, they make their most profit with Airbus I think, but some with military too. Crazy World... "peaceful" countries are shareholders of military companies. It also really sucks that France didn't take part in the Eurofighter Project, with France it would have been much better, easier and cheaper. Kilon22 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Saying the Rebels are all NATO proxies is vandalism and should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.167 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Appears to have been the work of a User:LowPointForLibya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:LowPointForLibya = banned vandal user:SuperblySpiffingPerson, noclador (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Proper Abbreviation?

What does the Wikipedia Manual of Style require for abbreviations? Should "United Nations" be abbreviated "UN" or "U.N." If I remember back to my university days, MLA says abbreviations should be without periods. Whatever Wiki's MoS says, I'm sure it should be consistent throughout the article. --74.195.63.121 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

UN, but it's U.S. Gryffindor (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to cover fighting in Mizdah and Tarhuna

Right now, we don't have much up about either- we've been falling behind, and they were no doubt overshadowed by the conquest of Tripoli. We should probably have two new pages for the two, or something, I think. --Yalens (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Death toll?

According to EuroNews, it might have reached 50,000 http://fr.euronews.net/2011/08/30/les-insurges-posent-a-ultimatum-a-kadhafi-et-a-ses-partisans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.211.198 (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The real death toll will be known (aproximately) after long time when every family will report his missed ones. Yeah, I fear 50K is not too overestimated.

Libyan Revolution

If Gaddafi's regime loses power, should the title of this article be changed to "Libyan Revolution"? Macarion (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Thats what makes the most sense, but those "running" Wikipedia oppose to change the name of the article for reasons no one seems to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.77.195 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed article names are decided by all editors via consensus. If a requested move discussion is started then everybody can participate. It is usually considered important whether a name is common in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site. It is sometimes a factor whether a new name is likely to stick. They are still fighting and "Libyan revolution" may be a little premature for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we never change names. In February it was moved from "2011 Libyan protests" to "2011 Libyan uprising". In March it was moved to "2011 Libyan civil war". It's certainly possible it will soon become "2011 Libyan revolution". However, there are many African civil wars where the regime changed and the winner may have called it a revolution but the name didn't stick. Even if we move it to "2011 Libyan revolution", it might be moved back again later if another dictator soon emerges and the outside world consider him no better or worse than Gaddafi, and stop calling it a revolution.

PrimeHunter (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Revolution is what Gaddafi himself led 40 years ago. A better name would be New Libyan Revolution or 2011 Libyan Revolution (or just be patient and don't try to be newsy about this, the people there will come up with a name for it). -- Avanu (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves. When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Qaddafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Qaddafi’s support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.232.49 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an armed conflict that ensued a partially failed revolution, very similar to the Spanish and Russian civil war, it has all the hallmarks of a traditional civil war and it should be called so.--Rafy talk 09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's isn't any necessary to change into a 'Revolution' since it's already a civil war. Just highlight it as black colour and call it a revolution, but the 2011 Libyan Civil War should remain unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.139.225 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it is clearly a revolutionary movement, where Libyan citizens are revolting against the existing regime, aiming to overthrow it, you can't argue much about that. However, I have to admit, that since "at the moment" the campaign have not succeeded "yet" mainly because, part of their "own Libyan population" are resisting the revolt, by definition that defines it as a "Civil" war, where the warring factions are from the same country. Having said that, I do believe that, as soon as the opposition succeeds their mission in disposing Gaddafi, it has to be renamed as a Revelation or Uprise something to that extend.--96.56.3.62 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a revolution. All of Gaddafi's troops are mercenaries. (92.7.3.54 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

That's a blatant lie.

As for the name of the article, well...a war was fought, and it's still being fought. We could follow the example of the American Revolution and American Revolutionary War articles and move the stuff about protests and the NTC (and eventually, as will likely follow, the transitional process into a new elected government) to a 2011 Libyan revolution article while keeping the battles and intervention and whatnot in this civil war article. Considering the massive size of this article, I would support that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense, Kudzu1, because if you really think about it, the 2 terms "Civil War" and "Revolution" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it could be both, and that is exactly what the case here is. It is a revolt, no question about it, subjects of a long-time oppressive ruler are rising up and revolting against the regime aiming to overthrow it, that is in plain English a revolution. However, it could very well be that a Civil War played out during the campaign leading to the final revolution, where part of the population fought for the revolution and part resisted. So eventually, splitting up the article, would make sense, one focusing on the movement, and one on the battles.--96.56.3.62 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would change the article name to Revolution or Uprising today, it's just comical to see wikipedia the only place on the web or elsewhere to label it a Civil War. It just looks foolish. --75.99.39.162 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, especially as a Libyan, that this is not a civil war. As the user above has stated, Wikipedia is the only site that refers to it as a civil war, and it does indeed look ignorant. The name should be changed to Conflict/Revolution FizzBrine (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A search for "libyan civil war" excluding the term "wikipedia" returns 36.6 million results on Google. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what last entry is supposed to show. Checked out Google just before this writing, with the following results:

2011 Libyan civil war -wikipedia 36.8m

2011 Libyan revolution -wikipedia 55.5m

I'd be very much in favour of calling it a revolution, and soon. The aim, of the early protesters and before, was always to remove the dictator. With the possible exception of the Qadhadhfa tribe, it had great and probably majority support across all the social divisions in Libya - tribal, ethnic, religious and geographic. The comment of 89.100.232.49 (22 August above), is most cogent. This was almost entirely a conflict in which a trained and abundantly armed military, heedless of any social divisions, engaged and attacked civil targets. When a revolutionary army,armed mainly with captured weapons, emerged from defections and civilian volunteers, its sole stated objective was the removal of the tyrant. Its enemies were soldiers or well-armed militias, defending or establishing military positions, who used civilians as hostages. A major political objective, and the main reason for popular support on the revolutionary side of the conflict, is the creation or restoration of a civil society that is not divided along social lines. The Libyan people, with their friends and allies, have achieved the revolution they aspired to, however it turns out in the longer term. So far, and let's hope forever, the conflict has not seen the factionalism that characterises a civil war.

Can we submit this issue to resolution now? Concord113 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the desire of many editors to believe this conflict has simply pitted the entire population of Libya against a cadre of delusional, corrupted, and/or imported soldiers, the accounts from the front lines (past and present) simply don't bear that out. The thuwaar themselves have admitted that many civilians in places like Tiji, Sirte, Sabha, Bin Jawad, Zliten, Ghat, and southern Tripoli are pro-Gaddafi; in many of those places, pro-regime militias organized to fight them. So, my position is: the revolution has not yet taken place, but the civil war is ongoing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept that there is some popular support for Gaddafi, and that it may yet come to a civil war in which a fairly clearly described group - Gaddafi's tribe for instance - remains violently opposed to the revolution. It's most unfortunate that more people have to die before its remnants stop fighting; in the worst of cases, this may become a long drawn out process or even escalate to something that could be reasonably classified as a civil war. But I would argue that the revolution itself has already been achieved, in the sense that the regime has fallen definitively; the political upheaval has occurred, even though we do not know exactly what will replace it.

Kudzu1, what in your view would be decision point here? If large-scale military violence ends shortly, it should be clear enough as a tail-end of the conflict. If not, we will have to start a whole other - unfortunate - subject. Concord113 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see there is a poll going on below. Probably shouldn't add any more to this section. And for tidiness, maybe someone could move it to that section (I don't trust myself) Concord113 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM Article titles are decided on Wikipedia policy WP:TITLE which is based off analysis of the source material and not the perceptions, judgments, or opinions of editors about what 'makes sense'. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is now referring to this as the Libyan Revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcxqHqfE6Jk -Macarion (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are others? They are not the only news program in the world. EkoGraf (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if there is (or will be) an revolution, it is preceded by the civil war and both would have to have separate articles. --93.139.182.7 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Libya's deputy representative to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said: "It is not a civil war, it is not a conflict between two parties, it is the people who are defending themselves against the dictatorship." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14726292 SylviaStanley (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps

I think those maps with gradations of green and red don't adjust too much to reality and leave the user somewhat confused to what is going on. I think is better to stick to a description of cities and towns under rebel control and Gadhafi's control. Something more like this seems to me most appropriate and descriptive. What do you guys say? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, super easy to understand that map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

New map?

Well then, how do I propose a NEW map? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) moved from top by Lothar von Richthofen (talk) at 16:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a map showing the current situation in the Fezzan (i.e. around Sabha and Murzuq?) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See here for the closest equivalent. No dedicated map has been made for Fezzan as the information coming from there is very sketchy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.110.208.32, 29 August 2011

You should add SAS to the forces fighting Gadaffi. The british has had the sas on the ground , they were pivitol on the Zawiyah/tripoli invasion. 81.110.208.32 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23982281-sas-squad-hunt-killer-of-pc-yvonne-fletcher-amid-fighting-in-libya.do http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/08/28/sas-on-the-trail-of-fugitive-tyrant-colonel-gaddafi-86908-23378791/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8721929/Liam-Fox-coy-on-SAS-role-in-Libya.html http://www.metro.co.uk/news/873425-sas-soldiers-leading-hunt-for-col-gaddafi-in-libya http://en.rian.ru/world/20110829/166274046.html

Regards.

Can someone add them?

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The content you suggest could be controversial; I suggest you start a discussion here and establish a consensus first. ItsZippy (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ghadames

Rebels are fighting in Ghadames , that town have seen rebels, Ghaddafi's forces and even Algerian army switching control of the town. There is an uprising in Sebha, Hun, Adiri and Awbari definitely still under Ghaddafi's control, different news from Qatrun with rebels and Ghaddafi's forces giving different claims. MaXiMiLiAnO 09:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Please provide sources for your claims. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know the article Fisk wrote on the role of Algeria in the Fezzan , and giving Gaddafi new armour, isn't a source for the above , but Algerian army getting involved to help the crumbling dictator is in the article 'Mr Bouteflika, a facade for the military authorities in Algeria' - the 'Algerian role in the libyan conflict remains one of the untold stories of the war" [15] Sayerslle (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the link which states rebels have taken control of Ghadames http://presstv.com/detail/196776.html The claims Algeria army sneaked into Ghadames on 24 August and keep it for a couple of days were found on blogs and twitters of local residents, since there are no foreign journalists there, it's not possible to confirm it at the moment. Right now the most important thing, the rebels took it. MaXiMiLiAnO 20:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

is PressTV RS - isnt it just the absurd propaganda mouthpiece for the hierocratic/repressive regime in iran. i think it is not RS Sayerslle (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, PressTV isn't very reliable. However, Al Jazeera confirmed this particular report. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Check edit request from 81.110.208.32

Someone check Edit request from 81.110.208.32, 29 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Libyan Revolution

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

The result of the proposal was closed: Redundant given essentially same request above — kwami (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan Revolution – At this point most media is referring to the events as the "Libyan Revolution", of which the military action is a part of it. I also do not agree with the above request to move it to "2011 Libyan revolution", since there was no other revolution before that (Gaddafi led a coup d'etat against the monarchy as opposed to a genuine revolution by the people). Gryffindor (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You barely have to look up to see an identical section. I'm indifferent in this matter, but you really shouldn't duplicate topics. --Yalens (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The requests are not identical though, so it's not a duplicate. Gryffindor (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the same request started a couple days ago. They should be either merged or this one removed.--Rafy talk 16:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason as above. Most sources continue to refer to this as a civil war. A revolution is an overthrow of those in power, which has not strictly occurred; a civil war is an internal conflict between two factions within a state (sometimes with outside support or involvement, but never in a broader theatre for a sustained period), which has occurred. We can split off a page called Libyan Revolution or Libyan revolution or 2011 Libyan revolution, whatever, to deal with the political, social, economic, cultural, etc., aspects of the event, but only once Gaddafi is gone - not just from Bab al-Aziziya, not just from Tripoli, but from power altogether. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Gaddafi isn't dead yet. --Smart (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither is Mubarak. Was the Egyptian Revolution not a revolution, then? -Macarion (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ben Ali is still alive and kicking as well, last I checked... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, BUT only if the new government and the majority of reliable Arab media calls it so. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this was never a Civil War from the start! the French revolution began on July 14th 1789 and King Louis XVI was beheaded on 21 January 1793... so even if Gaddafi is not yet captured or dead - it is a revolution from Day 1 and accordingly this article should be finally moved. noclador (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The revolutionaries were not fighting for a specific ideology, the were fighting for democracy, justice, dignity and were supported by most of the libyans. So this is a revolution. SyHaBi (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "revolutionaries" are a mixed bunch of islamists, berber separatists, petty criminals, former Gaddafi officials and local eastern tribes, all of these with different agendas, and were NOT supported by most of the libyans (otherwise they would not need strong foreign military support to prevail). Therefore it's hardly a "revolution". 95.32.160.148 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Having a unified agenda is not a prerequisite for having a revolution. If they were not supported by most Libyans, they would've been completely crushed. They needed NATO intervention because Gadhafi still controlled the military. -Macarion (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support as I wrote above, in the other rename section, it is a civil war, but also clearly and primarily a revolution, so should be renamed according to that. Beleszólok (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Medias also call Gadaffi coup as revolution. So I can support Libyan revolution (2011) but I think that civil war is the best term.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment While perhaps the cause of the war was revolution, and the result of it may indeed be revolution, what this page deals with seems to be the military conflict which could be described as a civil war...--Yalens (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I will rescind my opposition if the majority support the name change. --Smart (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Juan Cole says it better than anyone (myth number five in this list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjr85 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Most media"? Care to quantify and give an indication of geographical breakdown of the sources using "civil war" vs "revolution"? This debate is being conducted with no reference to the sources. Fences&Windows 23:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, Proposing Alternative I propose creating a separate indipendant article called Libyan Revolution that is separate from the current civil war article. Using the example of the Russian Revolution and the concurrent Russian Civil War, having the Revolution article cover the broader social and political changes that are taking place within Libya, as well as creating a space allowing for developments in the reconstruction and re-implementation of government that's rather out of the purview of a "civil war". That way the current article would remain pertaining only to the armed conflict that seems to be winding down, while the Libyan Revolution article would look at the broader overview that the Civil War is (admittedly a large) part of. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - why do we have to have jerks come out of the woodwork trying to upend things every time the news shines a spotlight on an article? We are not a 24-hour instant news channel. We don't have to rename things at the drop of a hat because a couple of people on newscasts decide to use different names. Leave it be, go back and get your remote and if you are still willing to help improve the article in a month, ok, we'll talk, but otherwise focus on research instead of stupid name changes. (rant over) -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a stupid reason not to change it. Actually, it's not really a reason at all. You're just telling us that "name changes are stupid." -Macarion (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - where is revolution change? Is there some totaly different system? Capitalism to communism or something else? I dont see it. --Alexmilt (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Dictatorship to... not a dictatorship? Is that a big enough change? -Macarion (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support, also in reply to the comment above mine, its only been 3 days since gaddafi is gone... and ntc didn't even move to tripoli yet. There is a big change too, from dictatorship to transitional council. Its a WAY bigger change than TUnisia and Egypt. Zenithfel (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - This is already a civil war. When a civil war starts, the titled will be remained as 2011 Libyan Civil War. And even if Gaddafi steps down, it will still remain as a war. This can be compared with the Second Ivorian Civil War where the title remains even if the former Ivorian Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo has deposed. If you named it as 2011 Libyan Revolution, this title is more likely suitable when it comes to non-violent uprisings which resulted into overthrown of the leader and the government, such as Tunisia and Egypt. HOWEVER, since IF Gaddafi steps down, you can shade the color of Libya inside the Arab Spring article of the Arab world map and the Summary of Protests by Country as Black from Dark Red (Also name the shaded black table as 'revolution'), but this 2011 Libyan Civil War will remain unchanged. 115.132.143.220 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Then why was the American Revolution a revolution? -Macarion (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - if a civil war results in regime change, it is still a civil war. For example, the English Civil War resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, but we do not call it the "English Revolution". In addition, the term "Libyan Revolution" is already in use for another historic event, namely the Gaddafi-led Libyan Revolution of 1969. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So? We can still call it "2011 Libyan Revolution." -Macarion (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - I see brutal executions from two opposite sides. I see a city (Sirte) defending itself against rebel forces. I see Gaddafi forces bombarding a city (Tripoli), which is supposed to be controlled by his opponents. I see tribes, cities, groups of people with conflicting interests and goals. I've seen battles, where the same city changed hands two or even three times. After all that, deciding that this is a revolution because that is what we are told by (some) media or politicians is for me - at least for now - a simplistic approach. Avanu's question above expresses completely myself as well. This encyclopedia is not a news agency. We thus should act seriously and responsibly. We should not let impressions, first news about events and media reports determine our stance, but we should follow the events. And then we should take responsibly our decisions as encyclopedia, when these events are clearer and when we can safely draw conclusions. We are not CNN web site to change the heading when something new happens.Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have heard too many witnesses I trust say 'the vast majority of us are glad that gaddafi's time is up' - there is Sirte, there are his thugs and mercenaries, there is no evidence that there is any degree of popular support for gaddafi - revolution is widely used , and increasingly used - and Avanus 'why do we have jerks come out of the woodwork..' shows the gaddafi-ite vocabulary has infiltrated his approach in addressing people, too. I want to be on the other side to the editors opposing the name change at all cost! as for the other 'revolution', re-name it Gaddafi Coup.Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose international media still calling it mainly a civil war and except for the rebels themselves and Arab countries supporting them nobody is calling them revolutionaries. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is now calling it "The Libyan Revolution."

• Strong support This is the only revolution in Libya's history. To call this anything other than a revolution when the overwhelming majority of Libyans support the freedom fighters would be madness. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
• Strong oppose Is a revolution when and if Gadhafi is captured or openly admits he is no longer the leader of Libya (as he has been known). Just as with Mubarak in Egypt and in Tunisia --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

*Strong support Gaddafi has not been Libya's leader for months now. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

• • !Voting twice does not make your side win, 92.7.10.93. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There were two different governments with their own unique armies engaging in armed conflict in one country. It's a classic civil war. --Tocino 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment on above - there was I thought , at the beginning, in Benghazi in February - gaddafi and his thugs planned to shoot down unarmed demonstrators , but the demonstrators rose up, with nothing, used a bulldozer to ram the barracks walls - you are re-writing history - of course, now , to some extent, quoting Nietzsche, 'to kill a dragon, one has to become a dragon' - but you shouldn't re-write history - what there was - check out your history - Benghazi in february - Sayerslle (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are naive if you think Benghazi revolt was not planned. Anyway, it's a lot more a civil war than a revolution. You can even argue that it's more a military coup than a revolution with Jalil and Younes. Anyway it's perfect like that.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

'Anyway its perfect like that' - dont know what you're on about. You know all about what happened in february do you - it came very close to being destroyed until the U.N vote - you have your conspiracy theories, your fantasy maps, your love of dictators - mini mladic's Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose completely : Civil war is a much more correct description of the events. Rebels trained themselve into an army to conquer the country with the help of NATO. It is a full war.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support completely It is no different than the American Revolutionary War, where the North American colonists were armed and aided by France, Spain and the Netherlands from the very beginning. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

The Revolutionary War wasn't named until after the fighting had ended. If the British had somehow managed a turnaround at Yorktown and defeated the colonials, the American Revolutionary War article would instead probably be something like the American Colonial Rebellion (1770s). The Revolution title isn't appropriate until victory is complete. The news still says there's fighting in Tripoli, so calling it a revolution as of now is simply jumping the gun. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Struck out tripled vote - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It was always known as the Revolutionary War because the events of 1776 were described at the time as a revolution. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

User 92.7... there is a big difference between the American revolutionary war and this war, that was was between the Americans and a foreign (British) occupying force. This war is among Libyans. Learn the meaning of a civil war. Also, to those that will count the number of votes in the end, this is user 92.7's third support vote in this pool. User Lothar warned you that by adding multiple support votes in your own name that that doesn't change anything, it's still counted as just one vote. So please stop trying to disrupt the discussion to go your way. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, who were these "Americans"? Foreigners from Britain who had settled there and stolen the land from the Native Americans. Very much like the Boers in Africa. In fact the American Revolutionary War has often been called an English civil war. And who do you think is doing the fighting in Libya? NATO and the SAS. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Oppose:Not every regime change is revolution. Civil war is much better term, and most of the media calls the conflict "civil war".--В и к и в и н д T a L k 11:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is by all means civil war,, it stopped beeing revolution when thousands of armed memebers of military and para-military groups clashed with each other in basiclly every city in whole Libya. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong support No different than armed loyalists fighting armed gangs of rebels during the American Revolution. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose: This conflict is larger than a revolution, it's a war. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and close as no consensus There was no consensus it looks like in the discussion above and I do not see any here for a move. I think we as editors of wikipedia should wait for the fighting to stop and then move on from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. One of the news sources I read last night opined that Libya may be the one true revolution of the Arab Spring (they don't count Egypt and Tunisia, where protesters have not taken power). However, it may be, if things go right. We aren't there yet. When there's a full transition of power, and a change in governance, then we can speak, in the past tense, of revolution.

And the comments above are correct. It doesn't matter if oppose votes outnumber support votes, if the support is sensible and the opposition is not.

BTW, given our NC, shouldn't it be Libyan civil war (2011)? — kwami (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Al Jazeera is now referring to it as "The Libyan Revolution." A revolution can involve battles. Nearly every revolution has. A revolution can involve foreign involvement. See the American Revolution. The Libyan people have overthrown their government by rising up against it. The people they have fought have not been their fellow Libyan citizens. It's been the government and the military. And the revolutionaries have beaten down that regime and instituted a government of their own. This is a revolution. Period. -Macarion (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Al Jazeera is a neutral source. They are after all financed by the Qatari Government which is taking part in the war. Also Al-Jazeera is known for its biased coverage of news in general.--Rafy talk 13:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess then that we should start purging our articles on the war. AJE has been a massive source of information practically from Day 1. AFAIK, it is considered reliable. All news orgs have their bias; if we are to extend your argument, we could bar most western media from being used here for their involvement in the intervention. Al Jazeera is a perfectly valid source. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure they are considered a reliable source when it comes to providing information on the ground. However, they tend to follow the stance of the Qatari government, so if the Qataris call it a civil war they call would it so as well. BTW why did their coverage of the Bahraini protests came to an abrupt end once Qatar got involved when the shield force entered Bahrain? Also, if we decide to use their terms then we should start refering to Palestinian dead militants as martyrs.--Rafy talk 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera have been also calling the rebels "freedom fighters" see the description.--Rafy talk 11:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: per the comments which I made earlier above.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

*Strong Support, though I would rather it be named The Libyan Revolutionary war Zenithfel (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Struck out double vote EkoGraf (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of the vote Comment on the current situation, 11 support votes, 19 oppose votes, 1 support (if the rest of the world calls it a revolution). EkoGraf (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

it is not a vote - it is a discussion and not the amount of votes decides but the arguments. noclador (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So far the support people have not made any valid arguments. And one of the support people, user 92.7..., is disrupting the discussion by casting four support votes for himself. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

thats your opinion - the fact Revolution is increasingly used over 'civil war' in the media, not just by the rebels themselves,presumably is irrelevant to you - anyway, it's been well put by Lothar above I think, who was Neutral on it - I think 'revolution' will be 'the moniker of choice' more and more, but whatever - reality is the master. Sayerslle (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey what's up with this vote counting?!...that is not allowed on Wikipedia so refrain from using those techniques. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mearly summarizing the current situation so to point out that there seems to be no concencuss to re-name the article. EkoGraf (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

::anecdotal i know - but Jon leyne just reported from benghazi saying - "prisoners taken by regime forces in the months of the Uprising - the Revolution - 57-60000, 11,000 killed or released - leaves 50000 mising - where - it is feared in underground bunkers..' Sayerslle (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOTAFORUM 174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Support for "Libyan Revolution". Wikipedia does not invent names for events, but reflects those that are used in the media. "Libyan Revolution" seems to be the common term for these events now. --bender235 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose The main article (this article) is mainly dealing with the military events during the last six months. The political component has taken a back seat to this, and will continue to do so until after all of Libya is under control of the NTC (which has been clear on it's anti-Gaddhafi stance but less so on it's own agenda). I do, however, strongly acknowledge the reasoning for a _separate_ article on the political development, be it named "Libyan revolution (2011)" (to avoid mix-up with the green revolution of Gaddhafi) or something else. See below for general ideas on this.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Most of the arguments presented here are based on whether what is going on meets the definition or a revolution. That is inconsequential, articles titles are decided on policy not the perception of editors. The only question that matters is whether this event is currently being popularly referred to as a revolution in english language, reputable sources. The answer to that question is no (hypothetical's don't matter, we can't base the article title on what we think events will eventually come to be called, i.e. "trends" don't matter). Also as a sidebar: This is very premature for such an RM, Gaddafi isn't even defeated yet, the civil war as it were, isn't even over. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - as to the above 'is this event currently being popularly referred to as a revolution in english language, reputable sources. the answer to that question is no..' well that is where you are bloody well wrong. - it is constantly being referred to as a revolution in RS.Sayerslle (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't put proper emphasis when I said this, yes it is being popularly referred to as revolution by some sources, I don't dispute that. The question is whether the majority of sources are doing so, and the answer to that question is no (or not yet). On google news I searched "libyan conflict" and got 759 results, "libyan civil war" and got 408 results, and "libyan revolution" and got 582 results. The numbers are changing, I have checked them periodically over the last several weeks, but it is still too early for me to support a switch to revolution. Its better to wait until this thing is over, because once it is we will probably get a more definitive sense of what this thing is going to be called in the history books. We are close to the end, its better to just wait, this article has had enough RMs already. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Endorsing User:B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! proposal

User:B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! said in the discussion above this:

• I propose creating a separate indipendant article called Libyan Revolution that is separate from the current civil war article. Using the example of the Russian Revolution and the concurrent Russian Civil War, having the Revolution article cover the broader social and political changes that are taking place within Libya, as well as creating a space allowing for developments in the reconstruction and re-implementation of government that's rather out of the purview of a "civil war". That way the current article would remain pertaining only to the armed conflict that seems to be winding down, while the Libyan Revolution article would look at the broader overview that the Civil War is (admittedly a large) part of. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I thing it's a good way to:

1. Remain neutral about the conflict by separating the military aspect of the war as 2011 Lybian civil war and the social and political one as Lybian revolution
2. Split material and thus make two more centered and well-structured articles
3. As soon as military operations end, cover the change in constitution, governtment, army and LONG etc in the Lybian revolution article that soon will be very expanded.

It will be hard work as things are very insecure at the moment, but someone could begin a first draft of so we can judge it more easily. --Polmas (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any broad support for this dichotomy in WP:RS? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Russian Revolution (1917) and Russian Civil War were not "concurrent", as you believe. Just look at the articles: one took place in Feb/Mar and Oct/Nov 1917, the other from the 1917 to 1923 (1918 to 1921 by some historians). The civil war in that case was the sequel to the revolution. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

B-I-G and I have discussed the idea of creating sandbox articles for a de-conjoined civil war and revolution. I think the American Revolution and American Revolutionary War articles perhaps provide a better precedent; also, Chinese Civil War and Chinese Revolution (1949). I'd be happy to help out. Elements I think are essential to a Libyan revolution article would be: initial protests, economic situation, political leadership, international and domestic reactions to the fall of Tripoli (and eventually, to Gaddafi's arrest/death/exile), and the aftermath of the civil war (political transition, economic recovery, any social movements, etc.). Everything related to battles, armies, and the like should remain in the civil war article, and a section of each article would be devoted to summarizing the other and linking to it using the MAIN or SEEALSO templates. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea, Now that both Cyrenaica and Tripolitania (minus Sirte and some pockets) seem to move towards a more peaceful situation, civil life may soon (re)start in earnest. So a dedicated "revolution" article would be nice. _Beside_ the ones on the civil war.--Paracel63 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My first point was not addressed: are RS splitting this into both a civil war and a revolution? Or is this all just WP:SYNTH? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously a military aspect, but there's a social and a political aspect too that isn't part of the warfare. A lot of that has been stuffed into the civil war articles because there's no other place for it right now, but if there were a dedicated article for the political change, not the military conflict, it would be much better suited for there. I don't think it's WP:SYNTH at all. How is the use of rap music to mock Gaddafi part of a war? It's not. How is drafting a new constitution part of a war? It's not. How is awarding oil contracts to firms that were persona non grata in Gaddafi's Libya part of a war? It's not. If anything, the SYNTH aspect is including those in articles that are supposed to be about a military conflict. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Still not an answer. What RS are separating these aspects into "civil war" and "revolution"? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the time to discuss this, everyone needs to stop pre-facing these events and priming other editors for hypothetical outcomes. We follow the sources, the sources don't justify a move like this as Lother has pointed out this is at best a tenuous move when it comes to policy. Let the 'civil war' actually end before discussing this. Also, I don't see any compelling justification for a split here. Details of the political and social structure of Libya after Gaddafi can be discussed on the pages about Libya and Libyan history itself, no separate article is needed and we certainly can't create an article that is virtually without content on the grounds that content will exist in the future. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move (30 August)

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

The result of the proposal was closed without prejudice: Other discussions still open. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan Civil War – Propose to rename this article to "Libyan Civil War", similar to other civil wars, since there wasn't another one before this one. Gryffindor (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop making new RMs before other ones are closed. It's extraordinarily poor etiquette. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If the results were not clear, it would be. But I think the majority who voted is pretty clear at this point. Gryffindor (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, only one Libyan Civil War (unless you count the Libyan parts of the Western Desert Campaign as a "Libyan Civil War"). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Support per nom. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment There were other civil wars in Libya [16]. I had started a move request 3 months ago with reliable sources comming to light that other civil wars had taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Libya didn't exist until the mid-20th century. To call a civil war in Tripoli in the late 18th century a "Libyan civil war" is revisionist history at its worst. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there any widespread consensus in RS for the capitalised version? From what I've seen, a lot of sources just say "civil war in Libya" or "Libyan civil war", not "Libyan Civil War". There is a difference. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Move request Sep 02

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

The result of the proposal was rescinded by nominator: other requests still open — kwami (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war (2011) –As norm for WP articles on wars. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Follows our move to Battle of Tripoli (2011). — kwami (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldnt the other move discussion be closed first before this one takes off? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• • ^Yes please. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Please close discussion on all other discussions before rushing blindly into yet another. Sheesh... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 05:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The other move discussion is closed. That's why the article's been moved. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look through some of the sections on the talkpage now and re-evaluate your assessment: 1 2 3. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I thought Lothar's comment was about the other article's RfM. I'm closing this request. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Where can this be added into article? Tripolis Files Show CIA Worked With Gaddafi. Tortured Rebel LIFG leader. Rebels want revenge on USA now.

The Central Intelligence Agency and Libian intelligence services developed such a tight relationship during the George W. Bush administration that the U.S. shipped terror suspects to Libia for interrogation and suggested the questions they should be asked, according to documents found in Libia's External Security agency headquarters.

"The relationship was close enough that the CIA moved to establish "a permanent presence" in Libia in 2004, according to a note from Stephen Kappes, at the time the No. 2 in the CIA's clandestine service, to Libia's then-intelligence chief, Mussa Kussa. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576547101159155100.html

Libia rebel al-Qaida commander was tortured by CIA.

The top Libian rebel military commander in Tripolis, Abdul Hakim Belhadg, dropped something of a bombshell in an interview with the New York Times yesterday: In 2004, he said, two CIA agents tortured him in Thailand and then "rendered" him to Libia. From that point on, he maintains, he was held in solitary confinement for the next six years. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/libya-rebel-commander-contends-tortured-rendered-cia-153037850.html 188.120.234.45 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

theres this in the independent today too [17] - 'british officials actually helped write a draft spech for gaddafi' - not sure if it fits in this article though - immoral times Sayerslle (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

btw the links say nothing I could see about 'rebels want revenge on U.S now' - is that Russian ip Stalinist-y cynical falsification, or did I miss it? i did read ' we don't want revenge - we want to build a new libya' kind of thing. Stalinism/Gaddafi-ism - lousy Sayerslle (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (22 August)

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Its definitely time to rename this article "2011 Libyan revolution" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, this article must be renamed to ""2011 Libyan revolution" Brio-En (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

2011 Libyan civil war → 2011 Libyan revolution — Now that Muammar Gaddafi has been forced out of power, many major news outlets are referring to it as a revolution. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support

• Support: Pretty much every media outlet is calling it a revolution now. The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check Google insights on this one, Clearly civil war is more popular.--Rafy talk 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not really. Google insights. 206.188.79.137 (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The graph shows that the term "civil war" has become more popular as the war progressed.--Rafy talk 16:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I think the main article should be named The Libyan Revolution or similar, with a sub-article for the war-stage of this process. And I don't think civil war isn't fitting even for the sub-article as per reasons mentioned above in the "#Libyan Revolution" discussion. 194.16.30.114 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support conditionally: It isn't a revolution yet (the Gaddafis still have some power bases and their people are still fighting), so we should wait a day or however long it takes. However, calling this a civil war seems iffy. I'll put more in discussion. Hazydan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The people overthrew the government. That's a revolution. This isn't East vs West, Sunni vs Shia, etc. This is not a civil war. The "pro-Gaddafi forces" are just the Libyan military and mercenaries. Should the American Revolution be called a civil war? No. Macarion (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Per Merriam-Webster a civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." This revolution is a war between the citizens and the military. Also see Top Ten Myths about the Libya War. Vroo (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Skimming through other users' comments here, I'm torn in having this article renamed to the 2011 Libyan revolution or leaving the 'civil war' in the title (in this instance, the Libyan Civil War would be a much better alternative to the 2011 Libyan civil war). However, I Strongly Support in having this article being split off that would include both the revolutionary AND civil war aspects of the entire conflict, as Kudzu1 had suggested. --FineHourglass (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support: This was a revolution from day one, not a civil war. The revolutionaries, who are untrained civilians forced to carry weapons, fighting against the government's military trained forces and foreign mercenaries. NOT factions against each other. FizzBrine (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support: The loyalists and the rebels are fighting each other since February, so it is certainly a civil war. But a civil war fought against government forces and with mass support completely defines a revolution, I think. Since we saw mass support of the rebels in Tripolitania in August, for me it is clear that this was a revolution and a civil war as well. But primarily this was definitely a revolution. (Think about the Cuban Revolution, that also was a civil war as well.) Also, I don't understand that if the Wikipedia (I think correctly) lists Muammar Gaddafi's power seizure in 1969 a coup, than why we should call the events as the 2011 Libyan Revolution? Calling it simply the Libyan Revolution would be much better. Beleszólok (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support : More and more the journalists I watch on BBC say 'the Revolution that began in February appears to be moving to a conclusion..' kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The revolutionary objective, removal of the regime, has been achieved since Gaddafi lost control of his capital and main center of operations and was forced to flee. The path to this point forms a unified whole, and a fairly specific end-point, even if there are significant unresolved issues. There was a civil war aspect to the conflict - in the sense of coherent social groups fighting each other -and it is important to take this correctly into the overall historic analysis. In the worst case, in the event that the NTC cannot impose adequate political and military control, one could imagine the current situation sliding into a civil war proper, where demographic or social groups were pitted against each other. This is still for the future to reveal, but I believe the conflict up to this point cannot be usefully called a civil war, which would be to emphasis the internecine aspects above the main achievement: the sudden and complete destruction of the power structure. PS: the people probably agree: a Google search today for the terms is showing almost two to three (58.9%)in favour of revolution over civil war. Concord113 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Also, it should be the Libyan Revolution, the only one so far, so no need to specify the year. Concord113 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support, when we take history into account, the victors of the civil wars get to call them revolutions, particularly if it is civilians against a government. Besides in the end it was shown the average citizen did not support gaddafi or take up arms in defense of him. Zenithfel (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, Al Jazeera, the Tripoli Post, The Guardian, the Washington Post and the Toronto Star amongst many others are now calling it the Libyan Revolution and I agree with their analysis.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• You fail to point out that at times they call it a revolution, but also at other times they call it a civil war. They are not exclusivly limited to one name. EkoGraf (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: All the above reasons sum it up well quite well, especially now that the media is beginning to refer to it as a revolution. Fovezer (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: "history is written by the victors" well the victors call it a revolution. For example the Rusian Revolution (1917) was really a civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly not a civil war, and no different from other events which have been called "revolutions." -- Smurfy 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Gaddafi's regime has been ousted. That alone merits calling this a revolution. The American Revolution was a war, yet it's called a revolution, so I don't see any reason why this article shouldn't be called 2011 Libyan Revolution.50.129.89.173 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: Please refer to Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#Libyan Revolution section. I think material not related to the war should be split off and placed into a new page (although calling it 2011 Libyan revolution may be premature, as the likes of President Barack Obama and Chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil have pointed out that the real victory will be when Col. Gaddafi is captured), but a war took place. It's lasted for six months and counting; it's not done yet, and I strongly suspect there will be further actions at Sirte and parts of the Libyan South even once Tripoli is pacified. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are also sources such as CNN still calling this an "Uprising" I think we should let things atand as the majority of sources refer this as a "civil war". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, I aggre with Kudzu1, but at lest WAIT: the war hasn`t finished yet: there`s fighting in Tripoli, while Sirte and Sabha are in hands of Loyalists. --Ave César Filito (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I quote here from Princeton's WordNet:"(n) revolution (the overthrow of a government by those who are governed)". Compare this with " (n) civil war (a war between factions in the same country)". It's quite obvious that the conflict had turned from a revolution to a civil war when an opposing governing council was created in the eastern part of the country, thus creating two warring authorities in one country.--Rafy talk 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So your objection is that the rebels were too well-organized? Macarion (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Macarion That's what seems like it. @Rafy The National Transition Council was created to try and take care of the administrative issues in Libya. Its objectives were not solely "fight Gaddafi" but rather form a new government, hold elections, restore civil life, and most importantly conduct foreign policies in a state where the Gaddaffi was left practically powerless. Clealry, the NTC was not another "faction" but really a newer democratic faction that emerged perhaps a bit too prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.79.137 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that there are two authorities striving to gain control over the same country, sure loyalists always formed a minority (10-15% of Libyans) in my opinion, and rebels were often disorganised but that doesn't change much. I find the situation very similar to the Spanish civil war: republicans were disorganised but enjoyed popular support while the nationalists lacked that support but relied more on professionalism.--Rafy talk 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose, as it's not considered a revolution yet (no matter how weaken Gaddafi got). I don't believe, IMHO, that the current naming is accurate, but we still need to stick to sources. WHy the rush while things are moving fast... Just wait and see ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - if a civil war results in regime change, it is still a civil war. For example, the English Civil War resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, but we do not call it the "English Revolution". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - It should be renamed simply Libyan Civil War, c.f. English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Finnish Civil War, Cambodian Civil War, etc.
• Strongly oppose - Gadaafi isn't done yet. Not only that, but there have been civil wars in the past throughout Africa especially have ended up ousting dictators (the recent Second Ivorian Civil War comes to mind), but they are not dubbed revolutions because they reached the level of civil war. The events in Egypt and Tunisia are called revolutions, and did not end up in civil war. As stated below, this is futile. CuboneKing (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now; for the same reasons I oppose the other move below.Yannismarou (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per everyone above. EkoGraf (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There were two different governments with their own unique armies engaging in armed conflict in one country. It's a classic civil war. --Tocino 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Reasons are in section below. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose A revolution is a national political event, which is limited in time. If not quickly defeated nor quickly successful, it may develop into a prolonged military battle for the control of the country. We've seen it before, and it's usually called civil war (and history is littered with such developments). 2011 in Libya has included instants of political, revolutionary content. But for the most part, it has surely been a civil war. The comparison with Spain is very fitting.--Paracel63 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral. I think it is too early to call it either way. "Civil war" has been the moniker of choice for the past few months, but that is not to say that it is permanent. Already Al Jazeera is calling this the Libyan Revolution; see the banner on the spotlight page for Libya. It is quite possible that this will come to replace "civil war" in some time. However, the term does not have enough currency at the moment to merit changing this article's name. I suppose that makes this a weak oppose !vote, but hey... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Calling this a civil war is a misnomer. The implication of a civil war is that you have two (or more) large parties/groups of citizens battling each other. However, it is clear that, in general, this is a war between the citizens at large and their government/military. (Compare this "civil war" to the American civil war, the civil strife in Iraq a few years ago, etc.) Also, the involvement of external forces (ie NATO) in the war has been big and absolutely vital to the outcome, more than in the typical civil war. I think simply "2011 libyan war" (big in google insights) would be best until it's actually over, when "2011 libyan revolution" would be better. Hazydan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a textbook case of a civil war. It is from the term bellum civile as used in the Roman Republic, the Roman civil wars, especially Caesar's Civil War. The Optimates weren't "citizens at large" any more than the Gaddafi loyalists. The point of a "civil war" is that it takes place within a state as opposed to against a foreign nation. Especially when one side of the conflict is monarchist or aristocratic and the other is republican, as in the textbook case of the English Civil War (where "civil war" was first used in English).

Or, short answer: WP:UCN. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By that definition, the British might have called the American Revolution a civil war. There are plenty of conflicts that take place within a state that are not called civil wars (see separatist movements). Besides, Gaddafi is absolutely fighting foreign nations as major belligerents. NATO is virtually the air force for one side. The origin of a term can have little bearing on its current meaning. The popularly understood meaning of "civil war" is that the two (or more) primary belligerents are large parties or groups of citizens within a state. This is a war of citizens, with international backing, against the current power structure, not a large group of other citizens. I think WP:UCN supports my argument.Hazydan (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Libyan Revolutionary War, similar to the American Revolutionary War? 115.132.139.225 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is futile. The American revolution was a "revolution" because the USA seceded from the UK. The rebels in Libya did nothing of the kind, they never tried to secede from Tripoli, they just tried to (and did) oust the dictator. Hence it is a civil war, while the American revolution was not a civil war. But see Russian Revolution (1917) and Russian Civil War for an example how a revolution may involve a civil war and vice versa. The French Revolution was also a revolution, but the French Revolutionary Wars were not a civil war because they affected most of Europe, not just France. I am not sure why we should need to discuss basic terminology here in this section. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"The rebels in Libya did nothing of the kind, they never tried to secede from Tripoli, they just tried to (and did) oust the dictator. Hence it is a civil war."

So were the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions not revolutions? Macarion (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the Survey section, I don't understand that if the Wikipedia (I think correctly) lists Muammar Gaddafi's power seizure in 1969 a coup, than why we should call the events as the 2011 Libyan Revolution? Calling it simply the Libyan Revolution would be much better if we choose the "revolution" option. Beleszólok (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM Article titles are decided on Wikipedia policy WP:TITLE which is based off analysis of the source material and not the perceptions, judgments, or opinions of editors about what 'makes sense'. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose creating a separate indipendant article called 2011 Libyan Revolution that is separate from the current civil war article. Using the example of the Russian Revolution and the concurrent Russian Civil War, having the Revolution article cover the broader social and political changes that are taking place within Libya, as well as creating a space allowing for developments in the reconstruction and re-implementation of government that's rather out of the purview of a "civil war". That way the current article would remain pertaining only to the armed conflict that seems to be winding down, while the Libyan Revolution article would look at the broader overview that the Civil War is (admittedly a large) part of. 66.57.88.38 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of RS since using revolution

• BBC: revolt and calling it revolution on its main site Revolution retrospective - Memorable moments from Libya's six-month uprising
• Al Jazeera The Libyan Revolution
• Bloomberg Revolution, noclador (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

What about France?

In the list of the multinational coalition, we are given NATO; and more precisely Britain, the US, even Jordan or some others.. But where is the French flag? This is quite odd that the first allied power involved in the military coalition is not even shown in the list, isn't it? I tried loading it but the text is semi-protected, I can't touch it. Can someone in charge do it please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.77.215 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I should add that France had one casualties. A sailor died from a syncope. He fainted and his comrades didn't manage to save him. He was serving on the French frigate Georges Leygues. Here is the link.

http://www.opex360.com/2011/07/06/libye-un-marin-decede-a-bord-de-la-fregate-georges-leygues/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.77.215 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added France to the full list. France was removed from a position before the full list in [18] with edit summary "The NATO flag covers France and the UK." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the UK flag was still there. And the US, Norway, Turkey and others are NATO-members too. Why was this rule applied only for France? Anyway, thanks for the change. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.79 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit I linked made an error. The editor didn't mean to omit France completely but failed to notice that France was not mentioned in the full list and should be added there when they were removed from before the list. By the way, the editor also removed the UK and failed to add them to the full list. Somebody else must have done that before my edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jufra on the map

Suggestion:Ghaddafi's forces have still few strongholds under control: one of the places where his forces are still ammassed is the Jufra Air Base , could you please add it to the map, so we can follow the last leg of the rebels advance towards the last Ghaddafi's strongholds ? . MaXiMiLiAnO 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Jufra Air Base is less than 8 km NE of the town of Hun. I think this is a case similar to Kufra/Al Jawf, where both places are very near to one another. Thus, for practical reasons, I think it's best we only name one of them on an overview map.--Paracel63 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if you want your suggestion to reach the map editors, it's better you mention it to them on the map's discussion page, which is here. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I´m not doing anything and I doubt Rafy would as well, Jufra is name of area right net to Hun, no need to add it on the map since Hun is already there. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Jufra gets mentioned more - Jon Leyne suggested it may be the place for a last stand by gaddafi as it has military strengths - if it gets mentioned a lot in the near future , it will be a name for the map Sayerslle (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand. So maybe you would consider writing on the map Hun/Jufra if they are so closed. It seems Ghaddafi is ammassing troops, weapons and ammunitions there so this name can come out soon for one of the next battles after Bani Walid and Sirte, when FF will start moving south.151.83.121.232 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Add SAS to the parties involved?

Guys we should Add the British SAS to the parties fightening Gadaffi. The SAS have guys on the ground multiple news companies are reporting it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Completing the infobox

I edited the Battle of the Misrata frontline to include the capture of Al Khums and the coastline by rebels. The aim would be to show how the cities in brown were captured to someone who reads about this conflict first. If I look at the infobox, only Tarhuna, Ghadames and Mizda remains, so we should make an article called the Battle of Tarhuna, the Battle of Ghadames and the Battle of Mizda. Also, we should deal with the city of Bani Walid, as I saw today, negotiations are ongoing. Besides these cities, the two remaining conflict zones are near Sirte, which has a well-documented article, and Fezzan, which also has, but it should be called as the Fezzan campaign as I wrote it in its talk section. Beleszólok (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We have virtually no information to justify battle-pages for Tarhuna, Ghadames, and Mizda. ~~ 15:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for articles on Tarhuna, Ghadames and Mizda. EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No need, but it certainly would be nice to have them, especially if they can be turned into good pages.--Yalens (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

But more importantly, no information. The captures of Mizdah, Ghadames, and Tarhuna barely made any news at all, AFAIK. Certainly not enough for an article. I don't think there was even much of a "battle" for any of the towns, at any rate. We don't have articles for every town that was captured in WWII or the American Civil War or [insert major conflict here]. Sometimes, things just are too minor to warrant their own article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Map, Murzuq and Al Wigh

• Question Why are the towns of Murzuq and Al Wigh marked as held by the rebels? There has been no reliable sources provided for this. As such, they should be changed to green. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right place to post your comment, please use the discussion page for the map (also there are reports of murzuq rebeling and al wigh falling to the southern desert campaign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteMiz (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Reuters story

This is a very interesting article, I think. To flesh out the battle of Tripoli, detail on possible outside involvement in the civil war and put the timeline events into context.--Paracel63 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New casualty estimate

http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6862

Gives some details on how the total figure already used in the infobox (which does not add up from the faction's figures) is arrived at. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Beni Walid

Rebels have entered Bani Walid http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94c8a732-db0b-11e0-bbf4-00144feabdc0.html Reuters also reported so. Sebha under fighting. Still under Ghaddafi's control: Sirte, Hun/Jufra/Waddan , Sebha, Obari, Adiri, Al Qatrun, Ghat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.203.89 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of NATO in abstract/summary in top paragraphs of article

It's bizarre that there's no mention of NATO in the abstract/summary at the top of the article.

In any credible interpretation of events, even one most favorable to the rebels, one would have to say that the conflict involves at least 3 belligerents: loyalists to Gadaffi, rebels, and NATO.

(A neutral exposition would go well beyond this, of course; this could, in absolute neutrality, be painted as a war of NATO against Gadaffi, with mop-up style ground support from rebelling tribes. I'm not saying it would have to be presented this way, but the current abstract leaves out the strongest and most active force in the war.)

Additionally, the article would do well to mention the African Union and how its reaction has evolved, since there is a section on international reaction. Libya is in Africa, after all, not Europe or North America.

There are lots of other ways it could be made more credible, such as dumping the Viagra stuff. No credible source maintains that anymore.

69.228.171.250 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Meant to login to sign the comment above. I think the history of this article may prove interesting. Son of eugene (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

with Rs you can add what you like - NATO responded to the U.N - so it could be painted as the response of the U>N to a dictator 'stinking with madness and corruption' (Christopher Hitchens description of gadafi) - after it was Al Q versus gaddafi, then it was crusaders- like stalin who went from popular front, to 'social fascists' to signing a pact with hitler and helping him conquer France - dictators will say anything to retain their hold, their descriptions of events veer wildly - the roles of Algeria and QAtar will be interesting too . Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

what is your point? It is undisputed that the rebels could not have ousted Gaddafi without the NATO intervention. And the NATO intervention was based on a clear mandate by the UN Security Council. This is well covered in the article. If you have a specific suggestion for a rephrasing of the lead, let's hear it.

the rest of your comment doesn't really show an understanding of either the situation, or of Wikipedia. Libya is a Mediterranean country. Of course it is "in Africa", but it is much more within the strategic sphere of interest of Western Europe than of most African countries. The African Union so far hasn't really done or said anything of relevance to this conflict. It isn't the fault of the NATO or the UN that the AU has failed completely to live up to its responsibility to take care of African issues. Your claim that NATO was the "most active force" is nonsense. NATO could have obliterated Gaddafi in a few days if it had really participated in the war. Instead, it limited itself to attacking pinpointed military targets, taking extreme care to avoid the remotest possibility of civilian casualties. Gaddafi's troops have been rather more "active" in this sense, just shelling the hell out of cities without even bothering to take aim. Finally, your claim that the accusation that Gaddafi has provided his troops with viagra to enable systematic rape has been debunked stands completely without basis. On 6 September, this accusation was still repeated as credible, even though it is impossible to verify it independently at this point. If you want to claim that it has been debunk, do it, but make sure you cite your sources. If you don't have any sources, don't bother making oblique insinuations. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.38.143.81, 2 September 2011

Can someone update the page, mentioning that Gaddafi still has not been caught and now calls Sirte capital.

68.38.143.81 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Source for the capital change? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Hallows AG^(talk) 17:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Niger and Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi

How should we handle, for the purposes of the infobox, apparent Nigerien cooperation with the NTC in detaining Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi after he fled to Niger? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

He wasnt arrested, he is under surveilance just like the 31 other defectors from Libya, source aljazeera live blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest from Al Jazeera quotes a U.S. State Department official as saying he's been placed under house arrest. May not qualify for the {{POW}} tag, but I can't think of a better one... -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In theory, this conflict is between GADAFFI and his people, with NATO supporting the rebels- It’s the people picking up guns and killing his supporters, NATO is only providing air and training support. (I know theories are meant to be broken, but that’s really not the point; in the interests of allegedly sacrosanct neutrality, it needs to be kept that way until the situation on the ground changes.) As to silly allegations one side or the other have made, they should remain, but in context- “At one point, GADAFII alleged al Qaeda operatives were supporting the rebels with drugs.” or whatever.

SIRTE

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

---

Rebels forces have entered Sirte http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8766599/Libya-rebels-enter-gates-of-Sirte.html

Fighting ongoing. Plz change the point to blue color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.81.158.118 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move

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

---

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan Civil War – Right, giving this another try. Request this be moved to "Libyan Civil War" based on the discussion above. Seems to be least contentious name, since there was no other civil war to speak of before. Gryffindor (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What consensus? A past discussion Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Archive 10#Requested move: 2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war has proven that there were other civil wars in Libya according to historians. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose In the interim, at least. I’d be more comfortable waiting until this thing plays out, THEN decide how to proceed. However, I am a bit wishy-washy on the matter.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Libyan Uprising.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Libyan Uprising.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Is Murzuq Still Regarded As A Disputed City?

There have been no news reports I have seen in recent time that suggest it is still a disputed city.75.72.35.253 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Killing of black people and sub-saharan Africans by the Libyan rebels

I may have missed it, but the article does not appear to mention the reported murder, killing and ethnic cleansing of Black people and people from Sub-Saharan Africa.

I do realise that Fox News, Sky News etc do not cover this but CNN and other credible news sources have covered this. I was going to edit the article to include this information but thought best to raise it here.

See article from Independent Newspaper (based in UK):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebels-settle-scores-in-libyan-capital-2344671.html

Extract: "Around 30 men lay decomposing in the heat. Many of them had their hands tied behind their back, either with plastic handcuffs or ropes. One had a scarf stuffed into his mouth. Almost all of the victims were black men. Their bodies had been dumped near the scene of two of the fierce battles between rebel and regime forces in Tripoli"

CNN reports on the killings as well:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/08/30/prism.libya.africans.cnn

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/08/31/robertson.libya.african.jails.cnn?&hpt=hp_c2 Akinsope (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

UNHCR also reports on the killing:

http://www.unhcr.org/4e57d1cb9.html

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres has issued a strong call for sub-Saharan Africans to be protected in Libya as reports emerge from Tripoli of people being targeted because of their colour as the city fell to rebel forces.

Is there a reason why the Article appears to ignore the ethnic cleansing of black people in Libya by the rebels.

Akinsope (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the Kim Sengupta article - didn't see the words 'ethnic cleansing' - is there a reason you use that provocative phrase? - I think , with RS, you should add something - I've heard of fears of this, and the article in the Independent says he saw people having been killed that can't have been killed in action since they were handcuffed, one had a drip in his arm, terrible, - candidly, I'd say that if I see mercenaries i feel an especial sort of revulsion, because the fighters are there for money alone, because gaddafi offered them a lifestyle they couldn't get at home , but they didn't care about the repressive side of the regime, were they all migrant workers, no fighters at all?- (I think I heard even Mandela loved gaddafi, its a strange sort of blindness imo, that is grateful for 'support', but can't see that it is cynical, as hollow as the various policy stands of a Stalin,) - half of me feels 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind' - the other half realises two wrongs don't make a right - but , with RS , I think you should add to the article. But 'ethnic cleansing' isn't there in the Independent article, don't let hatred of the rebels distort what you add - Gaddafi wasn't, isn't, perfect you know.Sayerslle (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The UNHCR Report mentions that black people are being systematically targeted. The other reports say the same.

Ethnic cleansing is defined by Cambridge English Dictionary as: " the organized attempt by one racial or political group to completely remove from a country or area anyone who belongs to another particular racial group, using violence and often murder to achieve this" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ethnic-cleansing?q=ethnic+cleansing

I do not have a hatred of the rebels, please do not infer such. I am just disappointed that the systematic targeting of black people is being ignored. I just hope that the Wikipedia elite are not using a different yardstick to make edits when it comes to black people being "ethnically cleansed". Akinsope (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a serious issue that should be at least mentioned in the article. I've seen consistent news reports for months now, of some rebels targeting and/or arresting any Black Africans they encounter. About 2 days ago Alex Thomson (journalist) (on Channel 4 News) had an interview with a group of terrified Black immigrants who were arrested by rebels in Tripoli who feared they would be killed. Thomson managed to convince the rebels to release them since he had shown that they had wives and families in the city and were not mercenaries, but the fact remains that they were arrested simply because they were black. I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing", but there definitely seems to be a kind of lynch-mod mentality amongst some of the rebel fighters. --Hibernian (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think Ethnic Cleansing is happening in Libya, I am currently researching some sources in order to verify them. But I understand that a town called Tawergha may have been wiped off the map. Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata. Tawergha a town near Misrata in Libya has been reported to be wiped out. I am not up to speed on Wikipedia's rules etc on so I am slightly reluctant to edit the article without being certain of the verifiability of the reports. But if you are interested please see this link: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/08/13/tawergha-no-longer-exists-only-misrata/ Akinsope (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a better source than a rebel commander, who may have been speaking hyperbolically (or out of hand; Halbus wasn't the only rebel commander involved in the push toward Taworgha), and was speaking before the town's fall, to say Taworgha has been "wiped off the map". And I think Hibernian's description of the apparent crimes targeting black people in Libya as being born of a "lynch mob mentality" is more accurate than calling it systemic ethnic cleansing. Of course, that depends on what reliable sources say; it's not our job to come to our own independent conclusions in assessing a situation hundreds or thousands of miles away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HERE IS YOUR BETTER SOURCE: [19] 95.32.6.194 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the more POV-dripping sources I've seen in a while. Please don't try to use it as a source. All reports that I have seen indicate that Tawargha was like Brega, Ayn Ghezaya, Bir al-Ghanam, and Zliten: a town pretty much taken over by loyalists to form an "immovable" obstacle to rebel advances.

For what it's worth, the Toubou people, a black group in the southeast of Libya, have been among the main rebel fighters in the fighting in the southern desert. They aligned with the rebels because Gaddafi had committed acts which have been described as ethnic cleansing against them in the last decade, including forced evictions and razing of homes. Clearly there are issues with racism amongst certain rebel elements, but it can't be considered systematic. Nor should Gaddafi's treatment of minorities like the Toubou and Berbers be ignored. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out that "Human Rights Investigation" is NOT a reliable source. It uses a name similar to Human Rights Watch to try and gain some fake credibility. It is an anti-NATO, anti-rebel, pro-Gaddafi blog. For example, it was already busted for lying about who was using cluster munitions used in Misrata. [20] Fovezer (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Lothar and all.. I agree. My yardstick for "ethnic cleansing" is different to general yardsticks as these tend to be retrospective. So I shall agree with the above consensus until better sourced material on ethnic cleansing develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Thus why my edit on the article omitted the term. ThanksAkinsope (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We definitely need to cover reports that blacks are being targeted. But assuming someone is a mercenary because they're black isn't the same as ethnic cleansing, which is a much more vicious thing. Also, though this is OR, I'm not sure 'black' is the right term. As noted, the Tubu are black, but they aren't being targeted. Language, age, and gender are likely contributing factors: if you're black, male, not a child or elderly, and can't speak Arabic well, you'll be suspected of being a mercenary and risk summary execution. But if you're black and don't otherwise fit you won't, though there have been repeated reports of rape in the refugee camps (we don't know by which side). That is, AFAIK it's black immigrant men of military age who are being killed. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to protest at the idea that its "blacks" that are being killed (implication being because they are "black"). It is not because of them being black that makes them suspicious, but rather that they are foreign (hence why the Toubou, a black people native to Southern Libya, who in fact have good relations with the rebels, many of which joining the rebels in fighting). Also, I may note that foreign-origin ethnic Tuaregs from Mali and Niger are also under the "potential mercenary" category as many mercenaries working for Gaddafi were Tuareg. The blackness of these foreign Tuaregs is questionable, as although they often (but not always)have black skin, they often have more "white" facial characteristics, being Berbers after all. At least in my opinion, the media has drawn too much attention to the fact that many killed are black instead of the fact that they are foreign workers.--Yalens (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Verified: Blacks are being killed in Libya; Verified: Blacks are being targeted in Libya; and Verified: Sub-Saharan africans are being targeted in Libya.

Note, the above does not state: "All blacks are being targeted in Libya". The article previously omitted a serious issue and element of the civil war in Libya, the article also omits the term "ethnic cleansing" but the dictionary definition has been stated above already and such a term should probably be left out for now until such a time and if credible, verifiable sources use it. 90.216.93.110 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is info about Africans being detained for no reason by the "rebels".--Metallurgist (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that the ongoing pogrom of Black Africans is not mentioned in this article, but a complete whitewash of human rights abuses by the rebels. Gaddafi's human rights abuses are described in detail (as well they should be) yet there is no section for the war crimes/human rights abuses by the rebels. It's like the US State Department wrote this article to reinforce its narrative of "Gaddafi all bad, rebels all good". In any civil war there are human right abuses/war crimes on both sides of the conflict, to simply mention the truth about what the rebels are doing is not to side with Gaddafi or against the rebels, it's responsible scholarship. The lack of mention of atrocities committed by the rebels in this article is morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. Utterly sickening the way people are whitewashing this article to push a particular political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.150.146 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, this debate over "ethnic cleansing" is a semantic distraction-- innocent people are being killed on the basis of their color/national origin-- use whatever damn phrase you want, but it deserves mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.150.146 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That it is actually on the basis of their color is contentious though.--Yalens (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And in case people like Kudzu pretend not to have seen it i repeat it here: [21] - independent RS confirmation of ethnic cleansing. 95.32.6.194 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things here. First, thank you for bringing this to my attention; the information in this article has been added to a number of relevant pages now, including this one, as you'll be happy to hear. Second, please assume good faith; this article was just published yesterday and I actually had not seen it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

from the article you cite moscow ip - "Any rebel abuses pale by comparison with those of the regime." "As the besieged Misuratans fought - some of the artillery fire raining down on them came from tawarga .." didn't see the phrase 'ethnic ccleansing' - Why don't you add stuff to the article if you think it is significant, following the source, and if you use your own wrds at all try and avoid pro-gaddafi hyperbole, instead of attacking other editors "..pretend not to see.." - don't judge everyone by your standards. - Orwell "everyone believs in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bthering to examine the evidence." - [22] Sayerslle (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course the author has to add usual anti-gaddafi ritual crap in the article (it's a media of the one of belligerents after all). However, unlike what he sees now with his own eyes this time, (1) there's no proof that the mentioned charred remains were victims of Khamis Bde or any other loyalist unit (and even when and where they actually died) except rebel claims (btw loyalist didn't bother to execute even the well-known convicted alQaeda members and common criminals in Abu-Salim which all were later freed by rebels and laid havoc to the Tripoli streets) and (2) from the footage i've seen the loyalists fighting in Misurata never looked particularly cruel or indiscriminate to me - even the heavy artillery was employed in direct fire role, and the rocked fire at the port actually pales in comparison to ANY rebel rocket fire on the loyalist towns, with their self-made crappy launchers with little or no aiming, in fact those are 1000 times more dangerous to the civilians in range (and sometimes the rebels themselves) than anything ever used by loyalists. This is how propaganda works: it prevent the people to think independently. As for me, now i have no time to add something big in decent english; and when i had, all my edits tend to be reverted really fast by some users who supposedly believe in the loyalist rapist cannibals and the rebel saints, so i better put some useful info right here for anybody willing to improve neutrality of this article. 95.32.96.134 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The words “ethnic cleansing” carries a LOT of baggage; Maybe it IS ethnic cleansing, maybe not. I submit that until this thing is over and investigated fully, that particular term should be avoided. We don’t yet know really who did what and why they did it (we may THINK we know, but we don’t).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proof of NTC allowing ethnic cleansing

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903532804576564861187966284.html

In it, Jibril, the NTC prime minister, says he won't interfere with what's going on in Tawergha. The article goes on to detail how the town of Tawergha was emptied of its mostly black residents by rebels. Then, they wrote stuff about negros being slaves and started burning down houses. They are not allowing anybody back in, and have tracked down some people who fled Tawergha to Tripoli, whom they have captured for interrogation.

I believe this, combined with the known lynchings of blacks, shows what can be considered ethnic cleansing. House_demolition#Ethnic_cleansing 128.62.24.195 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International's new report has also says the NTC may be guilty of war crimes for their targeting of sub-saharan africans, torture and summary executions Source here. This should be integrated into the article --Anon854 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

article on gaddafi shipping African migrants to Europe after NATO air strikes - - "the result was a tide of men and women, infants and the elderly being shipped across the Mediterranean in leaky boats and the resultant tragedy of dozens of dead bodies washing up on Europes southern shores.." [23] Sayerslle (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International is not neutral. (Almost any other source could be offered.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for section about regional repercussions

This article (near the bottom) has some quotes from highly-placed people saying that the conflict, and in particular the proliferation of weapons resulting from it, could be a vastly destabilizing influence on the surrounding countries. I considered adding this to the "After Tripoli" section, but perhaps a new sub-section is needed? Esn (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The The World War II article has “Aftermath” and “Impact “ section, with “Casualties and war crimes”, “Concentration camps and slave work”, “Home fronts and production”, “Occupation”, and “Advances in technology and warfare” subsections to the later.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Transition (post Kaddafi) need a comprehensive article

We are now and for the last 1 months in the transitional phase, which is as important and complex as the revolution/civil war itself. A clear, comprehensive, separate article on this transitional phase and its actors, problematics, dynamics, and moves is very much need. Yug (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No transition has begun yet- Right now it’s still in the “Kill GADAFII” mode alone. Once it does however, that should be addressed QUICKLY.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of all three timeline articles links in infobox?

Does anyone think this is a good idea? I.e. linking to both main timeline article and the three (in the future possibly four) separate "calendar articles" in infobox? Me think so, to easy get to diff. articles.

--Paracel63 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

"United Kingdom 1 airman killed in traffic accident in Italy[33][34]" -- Is this really a casualty of the war? Yes, he was on the way to the front, but I dont see how it counts really. If someone being deployed, but still on base, died, would that be a casualty?
"Netherlands 3 Dutch Marines captured (later released)[35]" -- If they are released, how are they still casualties?
"United States 1 USN MQ-8 shot down[36][37]" -- a drone is not a casualty
"Netherlands 1 Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx captured[35]" -- This appears to be about a helicopter, not a casualty.
"United States 1 USAF F-15E crashed[38]" -- crew survived
"United Arab Emirates 1 UAEAF F-16 damaged upon landing[39]" -- link is dead, but it appears the same as above

These should all be removed. They are not casualties.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, they shouldn't belong here. Especially the one about the traffic accident in Italy, which is just ridiculous to include. Dtnoip28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

I agree, materiel losses are not casualties of war. 99.69.86.204 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I may only agree on the issue of the planes. However, war articles regulary include the numbers of soldiers captured during the war. As far as the killed british soldier goes, the international media and the British government/MoD declared him a casualty of the war. The Iraq war, Afghan war and Vietnam war articles include hundreds of US soldiers killed in non-combat situations, and dozens of them even not in the war zone but places like Kuwait, Bahrain, Thailand, Japan, etc. So personal opinions don't count when something is properly sourced. EkoGraf (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thats fine then. Im not that up on war standards, but if theres precedent, no problem. As for the captured, they were released so I dont see how theyre still casualties.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that he died on the other side of the Mediterranean in a traffic accident, and that the victims of Fort Hood shooting, which was more directly related to the War in Afghanistan than this incident is to Libya, didn't count as casualties to that war, I say we remove this. Or at least move it to an article that handles this sort of thing.50.129.89.173 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Numereous war articles include in their infoboxes the number of soldiers captured during the war. We already include in this war's main infobox the number of loyalists captured. Besides, we already noted that the three have been released. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Captured is one thing. Released is another. Metallurgist (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone put the plane crashes back. Ill remove them. Metallurgist (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful not to confuse casualties with fatalities. In war casualty statistics, injuries that preclude an individual from returning to active duty are usually included in casualty counts even if the individual survived the injury. AJseagull1 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the car accident should be in the casualties. If another soldier got AIDS in a brothel near his base, then dies in the following year, he will be in this section too? 70.25.27.98 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point I would like to bring up is that said base has already been in existence before the war. It's not like the base popped up the moment Military Intervention was approved. Therefore this was a routine supply delivery that probably would have happened regardless of Britain's involvement with the no-fly zone. In fact, this incident probably would have happened if there wasn't military intervention.50.129.89.173 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AJseagull1 said “Please be careful not to confuse casualties with fatalities.” In fact, “caulty” means anything that degrades the service unit, component, whatever’s efficacy: Injuries, killed (“in action” or otherwise), even mechanical equipment that is damaged (beyond repair or not). “Generally” it is understood to mean only personnel (killed or injured) as a result of war-related activities.

"United Kingdom 1 airman killed in traffic accident in Italy" ¿If a soldier headed to D-Day died from an accident as sea, wouldn’t he be listed as a casualty? ¿Was he where he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing? It should stay.
"Netherlands 3 Dutch Marines captured (later released)" This should be removed unless there is some other justification.
"United States 1 USN MQ-8 shot down" Is a casualty in the broader sense, but CERTAINLY not for the intention of listing war DEAD. It could be listed in another section, but I don’t see the importance.
"Netherlands 1 Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx captured" Should be listed with the drone, unless some other justification exists.
"United States 1 USAF F-15E crashed" Should be listed with the drone, unless some other justification exists.
"United Arab Emirates 1 UAEAF F-16 damaged upon landing" Should be listed with the drone, unless some other justification exists.
In the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth cases, if the crew was killed or injured to the degree they require extended hospitalization (and it appears they were not killed), I sumbit listing them is really pretty silly.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

the only problem with comparing the dead Briton with a D-Day Soldier on the way to the front is that the airman wasn't on his way to the front; he was simply on a routine resupply of a UK airbase, which would have happened regardless of the UK's involvement. 50.129.89.173 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag

Maybe we should create "new flag", green flag to symbolize "Libyan Arab Socialist Jamaharia" (sorry for bad typing word), because for example in Czech section of article "Khamis Brigade" and "Khamis al-Gaddafi" is now libyan kingdom flag as symbol of services of these loyal Gaddafi units and Gaddafi son. Its strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.53.47 (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Other articles such as the Freedom in the World report by Freedom house shows Gaddafi era freedoms with the new flag. Other countries such as Nazi Germany have seperate flags for their respective political eras, and this one should too. 38.112.107.215 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we should NOT create a flag for them; They should be allowed to do that for themselves.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk)