Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Edit request

Reverse the latest edit of 83.189.90.131. See discussion above about Al Qaeda. Munci (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be adding another WP:WRONGVERSION to the article instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

no, it would correct IP vandalism. noclador (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is frozen with al qaeda listed as a full belligerent. that isnt how its reported in the Independent or on BBC News. and the refs don't say so either.doesn't the admin who is freezing a pro-gaddafi propaganda version have to give an account here for his action? Sayerslle (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Before you comment any further, please read and understand m:The Wrong Version.

Make a reasonable and detailed {{editprotected}} request that includes the references already there or introduces more sources, and the article will be changed. But I'm not going to simply revert what appear to be good faith edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Like an editor said above, some al qaeda are involved in the oposition to him, no doubt, some al qaeda members came from libya, that is a fact , but that is not the same as al qaeda being a full belligerent - the uprising began , Panorama had a full programme on it, Fighting Gaddafi you should watch it - when yellow hats police fired on unarmed ptoesters in Benghazi, they fired at a human rights protest over a massacre of dissenters in 1996, then it escalated when authorities launched a crackdown - 3 days of killing , then though unarmed, using benzine and bulldozers they beat the police and gaddafi soldiers- - gaddafi began to call them terrorists, scum, al qaeda - if the U.N hadn't intervened he would have wiped benghazi out 'get ready we are coming tonight to hunt for the scum..' etc - and in the time since there has been no story that however it began since then al qaeda have assumed a significant , full belligerent role, there just is no RS material for that story - you put al qaeda as a full belligerent because of 'good faith' edits . bloody hell, those are probably Gaddafi-ite edits - ever thought of that?Sayerslle (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another "gaddafite" thing for you my brainwashed friends - TRUE FACE of the "peaceful pro-democracy protesters" (warning, graphic content): [1] [2] [3] 77.45.146.187 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, It is intresting and graphic User:77.45.146.187.15:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wipsenade (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New Map

Hey guys, I made a map showing most of the cities, towns and villages along the coast in the Gulf of Sidra, I think it would be good alongside the current country map to illustrate the current situation. What do you guys think?

Infernoapple (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I love the level of detail, but the more detailed we get about any particular small town, the more likely we are to replicate inaccuracies of journalists. Any large or major city, we will have multiple credible sources stating it to be under the control of one side or the other. With small villages, that may not be the case. Not saying I am opposed to this type of map, just pointing something out that is worth considering. 76.245.46.147 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it, Good detail. I would say it is worth including B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but I have seen in the press that as the rebel advance is slowing down, reports have moved from the larger cities to the smaller villages. The advance on Sirt is definitely going to be reported through villages captured, as aside from that the route from Ben Jawad to Sirt is nothing but desert. I think that the map is good taking into account the vast amount of empty desert - fighting is only going to be concentrated around the small villages and towns. Just today I saw many sources reporting on the fighting near Uwayja and An Nawfaliyah, two small towns. As the rebel advance slows, every small village and town is going to be important gains. Infernoapple (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's funny because I was also working on a new map myself. I think it would be good to display the current fighting around the Gulf of Sirt region. Rafy talk 22:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like your map a lot, very detailed - better than anything I would be able to come up with. I like the outlines of the cities/towns. Where did you get your outline of Libya from? Infernoapple (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I traced it from wikimapia using inkscape.--Rafy talk 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As a cartophile I approve of both these maps! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I made it into an svg so people can update it easier. Working on changing all pages from the png to the svg. Infernoapple (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff from the map editors. But, shouldnt there be a km measurment line somwhere in the corner of the maps? I think it would be great if that would be added so the neutral observers would have a better view about the scale of the battle and distance between towns/cities.Ratipok (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega has fallen [[4]][[5]].

As Sidr, Ras Lanuf

As per Aljazeera, http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-29 Ras Lanuf is now being contested. That would probably also mean that As Sidr is under pro-Gaddafi forces' control. Uc smaller (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AFP, Al Arabiya etc. have reports that Ras Lanuf is allready fallen and that the battles are currently around a town of Uqayla, halfway between Ras Lanuf and Brega.Ratipok (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebels are pulling out of Brega to Ajdabiyah according to Reuters.[6]. 23sports (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Economist as a neutral source ?!

After removing the following PR text: "Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of the country became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories." I was attacked by User:Hon-3s-T for removing the text as it came from "neutral" source. The text was backed by two pieces from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/18290470 and http://www.economist.com/node/18239900.

The text not only uses an absurd statement of "impoverished" which is in stark contrast of the wealth buildup between 1970-2011 THROUGHOUT Libya (less in the East but "impoverished" implies the fall of living standards not a slower rise). The two references were clearly heavily influenced by the Benghazi-based rebels POV.

I hereby question the position of The Economist as "neutral" for the Libyan conflict. Its reporting on _this_ conflict is of the JANA class PR warfare and its statements shall not enjoy the blanket benefit of being considered neutral.Ihosama (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Gaddafi supporter nor do I believe that he's somehow done more good than harm, HOWEVER I believe that neutrality MUST be upheld. I read The Economist now and again and I can say that it mostly consists of editorials and less news. One needs to find 1. A source showing that the area was once a fertile "breadbasket" way back in time, and 2. a source indicating a rise in poverty/decline of living standards under Gaddafi which present fact. Perhaps an history-based site or an About.com article. I agree that The Economist's fact-to-opinion ratio is questionable given the large amount of editorials and opinion pieces in its content. MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to have the assumption that all sources must be neutral. Everything that is written is biased towards one way or another. The neutrality of an article states that the entire wikipedia article cannot be biased towards one view.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could not agree more. Would not bring this up had my edit not been summarily deleted on that exact assumption by a senior user.Ihosama (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the Economist just likes to state thinks how they actually are.

Given how much living standards have improved throughout the developing world, from South America to Asia, I think saying "impoverished" is a totally fair thing to say about an oil state if living standards haven't improved significantly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It specifically says in WP:V#Neutrality that the aource does not have to be neutral itself. Read the last two sentences please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we find another source to give credence to the Economist' view of the situation? And do we have any way of checking how they concluded what they did? -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/idIN108205791820110304 looks pretty solid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it should be cited instead of the economist? MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately, in that article there is not a single mention of Cyrenaica. Most claims are very general preferring vague statements over numbers. One comment caught my eye though:

CIA Factbook: "Population below poverty line: N/A, note: About one-third of Libyans live at or below the national poverty line" ("national" poverty line is defined by the government and arbitrary)

article: "According to the latest CIA statistics, 1/3 of Libyans live below the poverty line."

An article which takes "N/A" and make it into "according" does not really scream "reliability!".Ihosama (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is some impartial info:

• http://www.eubusiness.com/regions/libya/econ
• http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0859275.html
• http://blisty.cz/art/57915.html (this is in Czech- Czechoslovakia was Libya's biggest trade partner during the 80-ies resulting in many people having direct friendly ties to Libyan students who were here then)Ihosama (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So I took a look at these sources, the first is just copying content from the CIA world factbook, the second is owned by Pearson Plc so should be reasonable, and the latter is a Czech blog, who according to their Wikipedia page posts conspiracy theories. So the middle source looks reasonable, but we could just go and post from one of Pearson Plc's better known media sources, i.e. the Economist or the Financial Times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

eubusiness has reasonable comment, infoplease too, and blisty.cz were quoted for the comprehensive information including within the article. There are virtually no english-language sources with that level of detail. As mentioned this is caused by a massive trade/construction/culture exports of CzechoSlovakia into Libya during the 80ies.

My original point is getting lost though: I protest for the Economist opinion pieces concerning this topic being taken at face value. Especially the economy pieces written during' the uprising by authors directly influenced by either side.

I have yet to see a single specific and verifiable proof of any "impoverishment" of Cyrenaica by the Gaddafi policies. Especially in the sense what "impovershed" means within the African context (say Egypt nearby). Opinion pieces not backed by a single hard(=verifiable) number do not count whomever will publish them.Ihosama (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You may prefer these sources but they are much more borderline in terms of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source criteria than the Economist. Surely there must be other Czech sources you can use, e.g. Czech newspapers? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The point here was the dismissal of contributions based on contradicting some sacred "neutral" source. I really do not want to debate the obvious here, but one snip - The (material) living standards actually have tremendously improved with average income being several times as before the oil exploration era (in Libya), they just did not improve vis-a-vis Tripolitania thanks to a loss of Cyrenaican agriculture sector importance after the industrialization and oil-infestation of the economy and Tripoli (as the capitol) enjoying higher growth rates.Ihosama (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume you have a source for that claim? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My sources are (over the years) direct contacts with people from/working-in Libya. Plus some digging during this crisis on top of that (much of it in Czech).Ihosama (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So do you have anything that meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? Being in Czech is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the "Ekonomika ropného socialismu(Economy of the Oil Socialism)"section of an already cited article: http://blisty.cz/art/57915.html includes these sources: Human development Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index; Literacy, Malnutrition level, Infant and Child mortality, Education expenditures, Telecomunication/Internet penetration, Transportation system, Agriculture: http://www.indexmundi.com/libya; Health sector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Libya, http://countrystudies.us/libya/55.htm

Plus a bunch of Czech references not sourced but source-able from paper government records. (The article was co-written by JUDr. Václav Jumr, former ambassador and the head of the African Dept. at the Cezechoslovak Foreign Ministry during the 1980's.).

I am no getting any further into this never-ending argument of least-common-denominator semantic battle on what considers an opinion piece and what is news reporting. If someone reads those Economist pieces and considers them "factual description of reality" despite their consistent employment of blog-style semantics, there is not much more to say from me. I am not a native speaker, and nor a language expert to start fighting here using proper vocabulary needed for such a debate.

This is the last time I reply to this PR war directly. My question was NOT about the specific content but whether The Economist could be taken at face value considering the whole tone and un-sourced nature of the pieces that were cited. I say it should not.Ihosama (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK so you've got a left wing Czech blog, Wikipedia, and another source copying the CIA world Factbook, none of these sources are remotely comparable to the Economist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are incomparable. They cite their sources (with one of them being a primary source thanks to his former gov position).Ihosama (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Economist doesn't always cite its sources, but it doesn't need to as it is well known for being extremely reliable. So you're basically trying to argue is that a source equivalent to the New York Times is wrong/bias. Now it is possible to do that, but to do so you have to present a strong case backed up by multiple reliable sources, ideally involving some peer-reviewed academic works or something. The sources you have bought to the table so far aren't anywhere near good enough to meet that level of seriousness - the only source that looks reasonable is http://countrystudies.us/libya/, but it is dated 1987. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That same Economist who in 2009 just bunched up together all Czech bank passives and called them private foreign debt? That same Economist who has managed to come up with $2,000 billion figure and stick to it despite the reality being around $200 billion even after the Central Bank (unusually) publicly intervened to dismiss that crap?

Yeah. Extremely reliable to have an opinion. Seems I have questioned the sacred texts, thank God the Inquisition is no longer around./leaving Ihosama (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources make mistakes from time to time, sounds like an extra zero was added by accident. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a gross misunderstanding of accounting, not a rounding error. The paper then stood by the numbers causing further mayhem on the markets. But I am glad you finally concede that any paper may be wrong.Ihosama (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be free of bias per se but they do have to be "reliable". The problem here is that you decided the Economist was not, without any discussion on the matter and removed content with the edit summary "propaganda removal". It was reasonable for Hon-3, a recent changes patroller, to revert that. If you believe that a mainstream source like that is not appropriate for use here because it fails WP:RS requirements, you should have brought it up on the talk page first. If you have other problems about the text, that it is inaccurate, misleading or not a widely-held view, you shouldn't have left a summary that it was "propaganda". Hon-3 is not a mind-reader and could only judge your removal on the basis of what you said in the summary. I don't mean to criticize you; I realize that you're a new editor. But you seem upset about it and I think you should understand what happened and how to proceed in the future. I don't have an opinion on the actual content. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a reason I have dared call it propaganda:

"Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of the country became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories." The highlighted text was:

1) not explicitly present in the references (i.e. there was not a single mention of "impoverish" or no real mentioning of "poor" etc.)

2) the "breadbasket of the ancient world" is a completely irrelevant statement when judging a regime that is in power 40yrs (Not 1500 years). The relevant mention would have been agriculture production 40yrs ago which is neither in the "neutral" articles not in the text.

Since this WP article is generally over-sourced, I have decided to summarily remove the reference as it was backed by two heavily-opinionated articles and even on top of that clearly designed to evoke an emotional misunderstanding of the reality.

As far as me being "angry", no I was not angry. A was appalled by the arrogant removal of my work backed up by an absurd reasoning. A reasoning repeated after another use pointed it out.Ihosama (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are all valid points to consider. But your edit left the community no opportunity for anyone to consider them. What you did was simmer all those things in your head and decided X+Y+Z = "propaganda". That might be a fair characterization but it is a very vague communication. Hon-3 took that for its most likely meaning, that you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source, something you just can't do on your own. As it turns out, he seems to have been correct since it is also what you called for in opening this section.

I don't think you committed some grave error here. You left a bad edit summary. That's no big deal. Hon-3 made a completely reasonable revert based on that. Since then, you've complained about how it was an "attack" and a summary dismissal from a "senior user" (incidentally, his first edit was 13 days before yours). I won't count that you called it "appalling" since I prompted that. But you should understand that what happened was completely ordinary, routine, not malicious. I'm telling you this not to argue but I think it will hamper your experience on Wikipedia if you think every revert is a personal attack on you. It is very common for new users to think that. You did the right thing to take it to the talk page. Just don't take it so personally and remember to assume good faith in other editors. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. You have a point in wrongly assuming ulterior motives. It comes from me witnessing several weeks of professional PR warfare on this topic coupled with removal of information referenced from neutral source and rv removal of content referenced from neutral sources. Please do not remove material solely according to your sympathies. Two not-exactly WP:AGF complaint statements. In the middle of a raging PR war I have found it hard to trust someone who is right-out (implicitly) accusing me of malice ...

On another note: "... you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source." No, I was not. There is a very big difference between usable and axiomatically neutral. I never claimed the refs were unusable. Though they were useless (in an article where they are reffed several times) and on top of that used to back up a made-up PR sentence.Ihosama (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

solution for this problem is to find another source stating how libya got rich during the period, and to contrast those two statements in the article. every reader will believe more facts and data (from this potential reliable source) than opinions (from economist and the like). 188.2.162.17 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What you'd ideally do is compare it to other oil states and compare how rich/well educated/healthy Libya is in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, direct comparison is not of much use as there is exactly zero of comparable sparse-populated, oil-rich (since 1960's), desert countries which were pretty much medieval just 50yrs ago... Funnily-enough, Russia around 1950s would be probably the best fit (sans Stalin).Ihosama (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a pretty good start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Algeria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait are all good exsampels of backwaters, come oil emirates.Wipsenade (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia has 4*the population density on top of a magnitude bigger oil industry. The Oman example would be appropriate though.Ihosama (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civil

Let's all go and read WP:Civil!Wipsenade (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Libyan uprising

65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Are these other 2 are still O.K.?Wipsenade (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikinews category was renamed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ras Lanouf, Uqayla and Brega post 15.02 GMT/30/March 2011.

Gadaffi has retaken it [7]. Wipsenade (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Uqayla re-taken by Ghaddafi, Brega under fire and almost taken.-- User 58.9.150.113 (unsinged)

BREGA JUST RE-TAKEN BY GHADDAFI FORCES Source:Al Jazeera breaking news from Libyan 58.9.150.113 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The last rebels are fleeing Brega [[8]]. Source:Monsters and critics.Wipsenade (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi now controles the towns of Ras Lanuf, Uqayla and Brega! Source:Sydney Morning Herald, [[9]].--Wipsenade (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chadian involvement

I have reverted an Infobox edit quoting [10]. So far the only claims of Chad's involvement came from the rebel commanders. Are there any other sources confirming it?

EDIT: Regarding this topic there is a high probability of mis-understanding. Over the past decades Libya has been actively enticing Chadian refugees to settle in its southern provinces. These people are likely to have high level of allegiance to the Gaddafi regime along with a possible experience from the Toyota War(which would fit current Loyalist tactics) thus can be easily misidentified as Chadian mercenaries. Ihosama (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've only read sources quoting a rebel commander, too. There are other sources alleging Chadian involvement, but there is no actual evidence the Chadian government is directly helping or whether or not they are providing mercenaries. I'll keep an eye out to see if any RS start saying it, but right now, I agree it shouldn't be included in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovezer (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Water pipeline

I think that it should be note whether the achievements were a part of a 'systematically bias regime' that favoured some tribes, sects or places and alike until the disfavoured and persecuted sections of society rebelled against the government. The history section is best minimalized and stuff added to History of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi, unless it was part of an on-going persecution (such as a years long water blockade) or directly contributed to the crisis (such as killing a dissident at a earlier public rally) Wipsenade (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the pipeline stuff to History of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi, end of water story.Wipsenade (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega

According to The Guardian Brega has been re-taken by Gaddafi and AlJazeera is showing pictures of rebels destroying materiel on the road between Brega and Ajdabiyah, suggesting the same.Uc smaller (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted.Wipsenade (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Locking

I think that article should be locked because there are many vandals. I try to revert this change but it is impossible.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.28.24 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some admin tried that and it didn't go over well. Semi-Protection works imo rather than full. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan rebels target black African migrant workers

The article at present extensively charts atrocities committed by pro-Gaddafi forces, but contains little information on atrocities committed by the anti-Gaddafi rebels. The most striking among these that I've noted would be murders of black African migrant workers. Credible sources have even warned of a potential genocide against black non-Arabs. Story here: [11] (African workers are one of the most vulnerable groups in Libya right now. Analysts say unless a preventative measure is taken, a massive bloodletting is feared. ... "I think it is urgent to do something about it now, otherwise, a genocide against anyone who has black skin and who doesn't speak perfect Arabic is possible," said Jabbar.) This has also received coverage from the Los Angeles Times. I wonder where in the article's present structure this can be included, or is a new section necessary? Adlerschloß (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Check [12] and [13]. These were already referenced in the article, but looks like someone removed them, i can't say when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.120.163 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a few sentences on this to the "Humanitarian Situation" section, but this seems inadequate -- we have credible sources warning of a potential genocide, surely one of the most dramatic aspects of this entire conflict. We have an entire section on "Gaddafi's response"... Would it be appropriate for me to create a section following that called something like "Atrocities committed by rebels"? This article is severely unbalanced at present. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the former solution would be most proper. There are reliable sources suggesting isolated incidents have occurred and citing wider concerns, but I haven't really seen any saying there's an ongoing genocide or that the rebels are committing atrocities en masse. Mentioning that black Africans have been targeted and some have expressed concern (the Somaliland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, notably) seems sufficient for now. If details emerge of rebel commanders being complicit in systematic killings of black Africans in Libya, then a separate section or page would be warranted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

'warning of a potential genocide' - are there RS sources that anything of the kind has happened. Would it be appropriate for you to make up a section called something like ' atrocities committed by rebels according to me Adlerdross ' - no it would not. 92.4.114.187 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Genocide is the wrong term at any rate-that's a much larger business tasked with eliminating an entire group, which this is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Kudzu1's suggestion above agreeable to everyone? If so I will fix and remove the tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, I did my best with it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

POV Flagged

In response to the discussion above I have pov flagged the Humanitarion situation section until the content removed is replaced or improved upon. Since everyone is saying the topic needs to be included, and since noone has included it, this renders the section pov by omission, imo. Any content negative towards the rebels could be seen as being hit with unexplained removal and pov resistance both in content and timing (inclusion is slow as mollasses). This might be understandable but not acceptable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You can do it yourself without slapping on a redundant tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an option, but I think the Editors involved in the discussion should do it (have done it) as they are more acquainted with the topic. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Respect the words on the tag. I have put the section tag back; it is not a redundant tag and should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is a blockable offence to remove tags prematurely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I removed the tag and did it myself as Kintetsubuffalo suggested although I have not been following that particular issue. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone remob=ved the content, I have put it back until consensus is reached. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Opinion vs. Facts

Wikipedia's reputation has just taken another hit. People are making revisions based on what they think instead of what has been in the news. I will not get into an edit war, but I am sorely disappointed that people are putting their personal feelings ahead of the facts. I asked in the talk page for help with the citations, but it appears that people would rather their own personal views be on the page then put out what the news is reporting. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to this [14], in which you add your unsourced personal opinion. I agree that isn't good; I'm glad you've realised it. In particular, there have been reports that Al Qaeda has infilitrated the rebel organization to supply them with fighters and small arms, as well was Hamas supplying them with Katyusha rocket systems. is obviously contentious and you'd need a good source William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

...and "Wikipedia's reputation", in your opinion, before this critical "hit" it suffered just now, has been what exactly, dear 152.131.9.132? It's not like the project had had smooth sailing for ten years just until this specific conflict erupted. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Theres been some spectacularly one sided coverage of the uprising in many WP:RS so it not surprising many good faith editors seem to have a pro rebel POV. However very credible sources as well as my personal conversations with Lybian ex pats are saying that a substantial proportion of the rebels are racists, Islamic fundamentalists and tribalists who hate Gaddafi for cracking down on FGM and other barbaric practices, along with remnants of the old regime who want to get their hands on the oil revenue. Gaddafi is certainly oppressive and probably crazy, but he's channeled more of the oil wealth into his peoples' welfare than any other comparable leader. Possibly the allies are right to support the rebels, but theres a much less clear good /evil divide between the rebels / Gdaffi forces than the article currently suggests. Will add a few balancing sources, lets keep it NPOV please. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi also biult a masive trans-Sahara water pipeline from an aqiufer to Tripoli and Bengazi in 2006[[15]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article: Yoweri Museveni on Gadhafi [16] 95.32.200.229 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent piece. One of the very few at least attempting a neutral stance. It really needs to be somehow included in the article.Ihosama (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the uprising/civil war, not about the achievements of the Gaddafi regime or about Gaddafi himself. Also, this is the Ugandan's President's opinion and views regarding Gaddafi. So while it is an interesting article, I just don't see where you can incorporate anything he said into this specific article. Maybe a good place would be the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war page or Muammar Gaddafi's page itself? Fovezer (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The international reactions would be a good place to a make a paragraph on his position. However what I meant by "somehow included" is that there were many explicit-and-verifiable statements relevant to the topics described in this article. Including one or two where appropriate was the idea.Ihosama (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

HRW claims Gadaffi forces laid landmines outside Ajdabiya

It is in yonder source [17]. An HRW researcher said that after two anti-personal mines were detonated by an electrical utility truck, the area was swept for mines and 54 more were recovered. What do you guys think? Put it in the article? (by which I mean one of you do it, I'm too lazy to cite it. =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya is not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, so I don't see the bid deal. Libya has lots of mines, even a least 1 WWII AP minefield outside Ajdabija. Either way, it's a common weapon in Libya and it wouldn't surprise me in the least of both sides are employing them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Times put it up on the front page when I happened to be looking there, so I guess they thought it was, because the HRW seemed to think it was. So nada then? Hmm, you're right they didn't sign the Ottawa Treaty. Bah, neither did Israel, I better watch where I step this summer just in case (just kidding... I hope).

The Human Rights Watch complains about landmine use everywhere, landmines have been used since the 1800's in scores of conflicts. There use in the Libyan conflict is neither suprising nor unique. Other conflicts that have used landmines do not generally mention them in great detail, so why the need to do so here?XavierGreen (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, that's what I was asking you guys about, whether it should be included or not. So the current concensus is two no's-nothing special. My own opinion is that the HRW whines in general and not always about the things they should. Do they count as an RS? The Times does obviously, but what about the HRW? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a source for Eastern Libya's land mine status. They are being used by Col Ghadaffi, but in limmited numbers [[18]]. Wipsenade (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-empting al-Jazeera report about Israeli weapons

Undoubtedly someone is going to come here and post the al-Jazeera story where the rebels said they had captured Israeli-made weaponry from Gadaffi's forces. Here is a reliable source refuting that claim from the evidence that was broadcasted. [19] I'm putting this here in the event someone decides they want that story put in this article. This is the only article about it though that I can actually find at the moment. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

An Israeli source stating the Israelis haven't sold weapons to Gadaffi isn't going to be the best source, I think if Al Jazeera claims the Israelis have sold weapons the best thing we can do is to include both claims and stating who made them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that fact isn't lost on me, but it's all I could find (though not all Israeli news sources think alike of course, YNet is generally centre-right from what I know, but the article relating to their affiliated newspaper beg to differ). =( All they're really doing of course is showing the images (though they are somewhat small) and saying you can't see any Israeli symbols or serial numbers to confirm it. Yeah, that would probably work. al-Jazeera stated that the rebels had claimed they'd found Israeli weapons, Israel's YNet stated that there was no discernable evidence in the images broadcasted to confirm this report. I'll let someone else find the al-Jazeera source. Shouldn't take too long. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't preface YNet with Israel's - as otherwise you are expressing that they might be unreliable. I think stating both al-Jazeera and YNet without qualification is best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. I was thinking of doing it because many people outside of Israel might not have heard of it, but as you said, that would seem to harm its credibility here. Wikilinking would do the job much better. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary style

The point of creating separate sub-articles is to reduce the amount of information present in the main article. I'm seeing absurdly long 'summaries'. Either do an actual summary, or don't bother creating a sub-article in the first place. Duplication isn't helping anyone. Flatterworld (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs edit clarifying.82.2.64.166 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please manually archive!

Yes, MiszaBot has been changed from 3 days to 2 days, but (for example) an anonymous edit was made to the mammoth first move discussion today with the text, "Grogan?" Thus we have another two days of struggling under its weight (if we don't get someone asking "Grogan?" again). Thus we have the 261kbyte page, which breaks down functionality on modern computers that have no problem with other merely oversized Wikipedia pages. I can only imagine how impossible this page is to use for some users. Someone with commonsense regarding what is functionally "2 days stale" and how to archive without making a mess could do us a big favor. Wareh (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be archiving the the "Grogan?" section and 1 other that Miza bot missed elsware for you. My comp' is groaning under the presure to!Wipsenade (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Grogan?" and 5 other old debates have been archived and Miza bot has been sped up to!Wipsenade (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now only 208KB long.

Breaga nearly falls, but the rebels hang on 13.49, April 1

Brega IS NOT (unfortunately )in rebels hands as for today, but fights are ongoing, please update the color on the map. User:MaXiMiLiAnO 08:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Brega has just come back again under rebels' hands. 180.183.48.198 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebels finaly retake Breaga.86.29.78.32 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Read this for the latest info on it [[20]].Wipsenade (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya has now also being attacked [[21]].--Wipsenade (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There´s nothing about Adjabiya beeing attacked in that article. --89.173.16.218 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well?Sarurahn (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi to the list of Commanders and leaders

I suggest Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi be added to the list of "Commanders and leaders" in the box at the right-top. According to a german language report he was the one, who implemented a new and important tactics in fighting the rebels in the eastern part of Libya. --Dinarsad (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy sourcing

If the executive director of Human Rights Watch writes an article in Foreign Policy about Libya it is his opinion and not "The Human Rights Watch stated". If Human Rights Watch states anything then it can be found under Human Rights Watch - News Releases. Also to make out of "Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya." this line "at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections", when a) some of 25 are not a few dozens b) the article never says any of this man has "al-Qaeda connections"; c) where the "at least" comes from is also an open question. When quoting or copying from sources, be precise! thanks, noclador (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

On the former, I haven't re-added it to the article so fine. On the latter, we've already discussed it at length on this talk page, in a discussion you refused to partake in, even after I strongly requested that you do so. Drop the stick and move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated above the line is wrong! I am not against including al-Qaeda in the article; I am against misquoting from the source!! Please read the telegraph piece again before you put the "and at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections" line back in, as it is not supported by the source. "and some fighters out of a group of 25 that went to Iraq are on the front line today" is the line that is supported by the article. The rest "at least" "a few dozens" "have al-Qaeda connections" are all not supported by the source. and threatening me with an ANI report does not make erroneous material correct; what you are now trying to do is to keep material not supported by the source in the article and you try to shut down a discussion about it by threatening me with an ANI report??? how about instead showing me my error and pointing out the line in the telegraph were it says "at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections"; if you can point me to that line in the telegraph article I will shut up immediately! noclador (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

a compromise for me would be to put in the article "Some of a group of 25 men from Derna, who went to fight against coalition troops in Iraq are today on the front lines in Adjabiya. Some Western news sources claimed that these men might have al-Qaeda connections; a claim denied by the man, who recruited them to fight in Iraq". Because then the source is correctly quoted. noclador (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed KIA for Khamis Gaddaffi

There is no official confirmation (or) even widespread media consensus that Khamis is dead-could be plane rebel propoganda or more (first casualty of war is the truth) --Pranav (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

we might add that the choice of "† as a symbol for "KIA" was a bit of a poor choice. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of † in infoboxes is customary and widely used via Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history practices. If you want to challenge its merits and usage the place to do it would be on that WikiProject's talk page, though i doubt there is much support in changing the practice as it is so widely used.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also the policy to ignore all rules. In a situation like this, we need to use a little common sense and have a different symbology in articles that are heavily-based in Islamic areas. -- Avanu (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It also fits in rather nicely with this little thing right here: Wikipedia:Drama#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama. Convenient, no? It's also a good policy to follow. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the symbol is actually called a "dagger," and implies "killed" rather than "given (Christian) burial." It definitely looks like a cross, but much like the BC/AD convention only grudgingly giving way to BCE/CE, it might take a while before an acceptable alternative is both developed and adopted widely. ChristopherGregory (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I brought up the same point at Gaza War, where it was used for some Hamas fellows. Somebody switched to a skull and crossbones and since then to just say "KIA" in brackets. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a problem with it being so small. I wouldn't think dagger if you had not mentioned it. Skull and cross bones would cause a bit less confusion imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You think so? The Gaza War infobox looks fine to me, even on my laptop. I don't really care though. I only brought it up there because I thought it was ironic to use Christian symbols for Islamist figures. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I mean it's supposed to be a dagger, but it looks like a cross unless someone says it is a dagger and even then it still looks like a cross. Hell if you put it in another font, it looks more daggerlike (fancy one though), but also like a fancy cross. I guess it is because Christians often shaped their blades like crosses (mostly from the Roman Spatha though, but I don't think it has to do with religion). KIA makes more sense because it also says they were killed as a result of the conflict. Putting just that odd dagger symbol there could mean that they were part of it, but they died as a result of choking on a fishbone or something, though common sense would/should (common sense isn't very common after all) tell you they were killed during fighting of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh you meant the dagger. Yeah, I agree it is small. But it is cross-like. That part of the hilt is even called a crossguard. But check out the "KIA" at Gaza War. I think it looks okay although we don't have any dead commanders here at the moment. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well even before Christianity was the cool religion in Europe (and long before it was the required one) they still had the shape called a cross of course as that bit crosses it. =p (though the name crossguard probably came later so what I just said had no point) I did, I thought the K.I.A.'s looked nice and uncontroversial. Looked nice and organised as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What about putting a black rectangle around a name to represent KIA? i know this isnt the place to discuss this but whatever Uc smaller (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit ambiguous; I'm not sure people would get what the black box means, like whether it shows who is important etc. Nope, this is a good place to dicuss what we should use in the box, keeps away the dreaded Drama Llama. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Khamis Gaddaffi has come back from the dead! He's reserected him self! He's imortal!Wipsenade (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can he bring back micheal jackson? XD wipsnade!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nightlight sales will skyrocket.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

:-)Sarurahn (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Queda

Should information from this article be incorporated into this article? If so, how? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Quaeda and Hamas have both been supplying the rebels. I added in a small section but am not sure how to add in the references? BBC carried the stories. Thanks! 152.131.9.132 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is on Jazera now.Sarurahn (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links. Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. (source: Telegraph) Ratipok (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph is written, no? Why didn't you link the article rather than just saying it was the source? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the same article we discussed earlier when all the IP's kept trying to vandalize the page and add the al-Qaeda flag to the infobox. It's a bad article where the contents don't match up to the headline, but that headline causes kneejerk reactions. Fovezer (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, be consistent then. Look at some of the "sources" added in the main article about Gaddafi and his troops, his regime and so on. Some of the sources are plain blogs from common people or from the media that publicly supports the Rebels, yet they are included withouth question. Here is the link for the Telegraph story: . Apparently it was first published in Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore. Ratipok (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

it was not first published in "Il Sole 24 ore" - Il sole carried an article, which the telegraph condensed and perverted! Here is the original article [22] and I guess I am the only one who actually read it! The Il Sole article never makes the al-Qaeda - Libyan rebels connection and states that this claim actually generated on February 24th by the Libyan deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim and that the same claim of al-Qaeda being active in Derna was reiterated by Gaddafi himslef on March 3rd. Then the article goes on to say around 10 times that there are no foreign jihadists in Libya, that there is no al-Qaeda connection, that Abdul Hakim al Hasadi was never a member of al-Qaeda and so on and on. How the telegraph came up with their shitty headline is beyond me! noclador (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/node/18488264?story_id=18488264 looks to say that there are fighters with "strongly Islamist credentials". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

it says so. But how many? and are they organized as such? are they under some leadership? It does say nothing beyond "worries persist that the most ardent rebel fighters have strongly Islamist credentials." that doesn't make al-Qaeda an active participant in this campaign. noclador (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalize Letters on Title!

Right now it is 2011 Libyan civil war. "civil" and "war" is uncapitalised!! do it Civil War!! it look very unprofessional like that!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A civil war is not a proper noun. This is an encyclopedic article, not the title of a film. J1.grammar natz (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use title case per WP:Manual of Style. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be capitalized.

American Civil War English Civil War Chinese Civil War Russian Civil War Somali Civil War 69.141.37.208 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It also isn't the proper name of the conflict except in a few sources, and they mostly talk about a civil war in Libya rather than naming it the "Libyan Civil War". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

lol, "Capitalize Letters on Title!" You forgot to Capitalize the "on", there. Did anyone ever tell you that using four exclamation marks in a single line, in exchange for dropping grammatical endings, looks a little bit ... unprofessional?

So far, I find two (2) sources (out of thousands) treating "Libyan Civil War" as a proper noun, canadafreepress.com (an Obama bashing blog) and fitsnews.com (a personal blog claiming to be "Unfair. Imbalanced.") Not exactly an overwhelming case so far, I am afraid. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• When I closed the move discussion, I lowercased "civil war" because editors who voted in that discussion wanted it to be treated as a civil war, but there's not yet a consensus in the media that the name of the conflict is "the Libyan Civil War." Might eventually be, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly in the history books or a few months from now in the papers if they haven't moved on to something else (hard to imagine they won't by next month, knowing the media). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

THAT does not matter. Look at Somali Civil War and American Civil War; they both use the proper cases for "Civil War". Therefore I support the capitalization of the name. -- 92.4.107.56 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be because they are in fact the proper names for those events? That is especially so in the case of American Civil War, mostly because we just call it the Civil War, and American and US are just added for an international context. Please be sure to read all posts in each topic: ":::It also isn't the proper name of the conflict except in a few sources, and they mostly talk about a civil war in Libya rather than naming it the "Libyan Civil War". Those events have also entered into the history books (the US Civil War since before most of our grandfathers were born), and the Somali Civil War started in 1991 (and has been going ever since), so it is already in the history books as well. That and what else are you going to call something like Somalia's situation when it has lasted for 20 years? You can't compare a 20 year war to the situation in Libya. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"

It is unacceptably biased to describe combatants in negative terms as 'anti-Gaddafi'.

It is unacceptably biased to describe combatants in negative terms as 'anti-Gaddafi'. Those combatants have come together for positive reasons and positive affirmation of their own values. Further they define themselves as a 'National Transition Council' and 'Libyan Arab Republic', not as an anti- anything. The so called 'pro-Gaddafi' forces are not banded together to prevent only the murder and persecution of members of the Gaddafi tribe. They do not define themselves as 'pro-Gaddafi' but as the GSPLAJ and they are rather pro-socialism and pro the cultural traditions of GSPLAJ. Gaddafipeace (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

He's got a point, you know!Wipsenade (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are not "anti-Gaddafi", why are they fighting him then. Pro- and Anti- do not carry positive/negative connotations for native english speakers.Uc smaller (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

no he does not have a point.

"Gaddafi" does not mean the Qadhadfa tribe, "Gaddafi" means the individual autocrat, Muammar al-Gaddafi. Nobody ever claimed anything else. The sole and only purpose uniting these rebels is their desire to topple the Gaddafi regime. Consequently, they are best described as "anti-Gaddafi". Not only are they best so described, they are also actually so described (see [23]), which is the only thing we as a tertiary source are interested in. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wednesdays Independent, Kim Sengupta again - " the protest movement is a complex and composite body. While the intelligentsia in Benghazi talk passionately about democracy, civil rights and pluralism, a strong motivation for many on the front line is unwavering faith in Islam and the belief that gaddafi and his henchmen are apostates..amidst scant evidence of organised al-Qa'ida activity the regime has focused on Darnah," etc..so anti-gaddafi does seem o.k to me and like Dbachman says , it is how they are in fact described. Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that the majority of people that would be reading this don't know anything about Libya's tribal system (myself included) and will automatically know we are talking about the guy himself rather than his tribe which is not well known outside of Libya and the surrounding area, as Dbachmann said. WP:KISS - it'll be a a lot easier if we stick with the current terminology. Also like UC said, it pro or negative have no connotations that are either postive or negative on their own and merely describe someone's view of something (if you know some German, think of dafür (for it) and dagegen (against it)) we don't really have a better more NPOV way to describe them that is easily understood by the readers. If we put GSPLAJ, people will say "what?" (on of the reasons if you're going to use it at all, call it the Jamahiyra). Also, and this is a serious question. Readers don't have to maintain an NPOV, so how many people reading this article would consider anti-Gadaffi to be negative? Very few. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Jawf situation report

It was liberated by the rebels and local tribes on the 11th of March and mostly retaken by Gadhafi’s forces on the 15th[[24]][[25]].Wipsenade (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Jawf is not mentioned in the second article. Only al-Jawf province in Yemen... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest reports are that the brigades in Kufra defected to the opposition. Unfortunately there's a paucity of media in southern Libya and not a lot of news getting out of it. Source -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a section about War Crimes

I think this article needs a section about War Crimes comited by all three sides in the war. The Loyalist (alleged killings of civilians and bombings of urban settlements etc.), the Rebels (alleged killings and torture of black African workers, supposed mercenaries) and UN Coalition (alleged bombings of urban settlements, which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva convention, and the alleged civilan casualties inflicted by the air strikes). The section could probably be placed between section 4. Battles between Gaddafi and opposition and 5. Humanitarian situation.Ratipok (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for a UN fact-finding mission when there is less misinformation and chaos. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then we should also wait for a UN fact finding mission to confirm any of the genocide and shooting-civilians claims by the rebels(and loyalists) which are taken by the article at face value, shouldn't we?Ihosama (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the whole article in a while I'm afraid. I think in the case of reports like that that have not been/cannot be independently confirmed. that indeed we should wait. They should be investigated so that it can be seen if they are true. It's not a good idea to put up this and that about massacres and genocides (I'm not sure how genocide applies in this case anyway) without videotaped footage (that can be put in proper context) and/or mass graves, etc. It worked with Srbija, we should do the same here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully. Encyclopedia is not a gossip publishing house. Just wanted to note that many statements in the article could not dream to hold up to such a standard.

There are many statements and accusations already present throughout that would just need to be moved to a "war crimes" section. Doing so would help clean up the article of scattered accusations and having them at a single place would also allow for a much easier implementation of a more stringent quality control for crime accusations.Ihosama (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, they should be taken out or moved to an alleged war crimes section as you said. Otherwise you have unsubstantiated claims presented as fact to the readers, and there are a lot of people getting their info from this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. Unfortunately I personally do not feel up to it. :( Ihosama (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone will probably do it, there's always someone willing to take up the slack, thankfully. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This aricle [26] tells about the murders of Gaddafi supporters in Cyrenaica, in particular about some of the soldiers who allegedly were killed by loyalist troops "because they refused to shoot unarmed protesters" according to the early media reports, but in fact they were captured and murdered by rebels. 95.32.110.73 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

gaddafi 'supporters' - is that a euphemism for 'the ones who were shooting the unarmed protesters as the uprising began' - this was on Panorama, film of the events, you can't whitewash it away, the gaddafi school of falsification, - tonight I saw the hospital ship bringing wounded from Misrata, teenage victims of snipers bullets , Khamis gaddafi besieging the town, . - all this cult of personality, gaddafi is good, everything else bad - mindless . Sayerslle (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sayerslle please respect WP:NICE. Ranting to an editor because of him bringing up a factual information is not the way to go.Ihosama (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, let's check our emotions at the door if they are likely to be riding high. Angry editing is bad editing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper terminology to refer to usurper group

There are two alternatives: 'National Transition Council' and 'Libyan Arab Republic'. The former must be preferred when attempting to distinguish from the GSPLAJ which is also a Libyan Arab Republic/Jamahiriya == SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

A jamahiriya (a neologism coined by Gaddafi that only applies to Libya) is not a republic. I agree we should consider ways we can rewrite the article to focus more on the factions than the conflict centering around pro- and anti-Gaddafi (though that's the common terminology, which is important on Wikipedia), but it's just not correct to translate "jamahiriya" as "republic". The National Transitional Council officially purports to govern the Libyan Republic, a de facto independent (albeit not secessionist) state that hasn't been officially recognized internationally inasmuch that it hasn't been mentioned in any official government dossiers or releases, at least that have been made public (though the NTC has been recognized as representing the Libyan people, presumably as its interim government, by France, Qatar, and reportedly Portugal), while Gaddafi's government is internationally recognized as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - not a republic, not democratic, and by most objective accounts, not truly a state of the people.

There is a bit of a danger in trying to lump the rebels into one discrete, singular faction because of historic problems they've had with disorganization and difficulty in exerting full control. There have also been multiple changes in military leadership (Younis was first asked to resign in favor of Haftar, and more recently Haftar has been asked to resign, and it's not clear what role El-Hariri has played in military affairs amidst all this) and challenges to Abdul-Jalil's political leadership. Certainly the US and UK, strong international allies of the opposition, have not yet formally recognized the government in Benghazi; I think it's not a stretch to consider they obviously have some concerns when determining how to frame this conflict. And I think it's disingenuous to frame the conflict as a struggle against Abdul-Jalil's "rule", which is tenuous, counterbalanced by Prime Minister Jibril and the Free Libyan Army, and geographically limited; this began as a protest of Gaddafi's 42-year-long rule, and I think Gaddafi continues to motivate more people than Abdul-Jalil. It wouldn't surprise me if some people fighting for the rebels in Libya, especially in Tripolitania where they're relatively isolated and haven't been able to get much support from the east, don't even know who Abdul-Jalil is and possibly aren't even aware of the political situation in Benghazi, perhaps even the name of the council or its self-declared Libyan Republic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging all or most of the battle pages

Making this suggestions here since this is the main article. I've noticed we've started stacking battles like crazy based on each individual town along the axis of advance for both Loyalist and Rebel forces. In the case of Brega, we have reached "3rd Brega" in the space of 2 weeks. This is horrendously bad military terminology, since all of these fights can be considered part of a single battle for central Libya. The Rebels want the Sirt Basin, and the Loyalists don't want them to have it. Every single action we have seen over the last week is related to this objective. Modern warfare is mechanized, and spread out over wide areas, and this war is no exception. We cannot continue making an individual battle article for each town that gets hit along the way. If this was done for other major mechanized campaigns that have occurred in this region, like the First Battle of El Alamein, we would have an enormous quantity of "battle" articles. I would refer users to the map in the El Alamein Wikipedia article. You will note that fighting occurred in numerous towns and villages over the course of a month. ArcherMan86 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You make good points, however we shall keep in mind that the standard for "battle" in an standard uprising/civil war would barely make it for a "skirmish" during WW2 (or OIF). As for the 3 "Battles of Brega", that is actually the only town where we have three. By the standards of this conflict:

• the first "battle" of Brega was one of the hardest-and-most-important during the first rebel offensive.
• the second "battle" of Brega was one of the most heavy-and-most-important during the first loyalist offensive.
• The third "battle" seems to be one of the few engagements that properly fit the "battle moniker" as front seems to be forming there for the first time.

There already is an article about the second rebel coastal offensive and there probably will come to life another about the first rebel "offensive" and first loyalist offensive. Those shall consume the small engagement/battle articles over time. Calling the whole coastal campaign a single "battle" would be like calling the whole OIF push to Baghdad a single "battle".Ihosama (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions section for SuperblySpiffingPerson

Please feel free to add suggestions for SuperblySpiffingPerson. I have been trying to convey the point to him that these recent edits, while incredibly good faith, need to be merged with the material we have, rather than just supplanting it. I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere, maybe other editors can help. I think SuperblySpiffingPerson brings a great viewpoint to this article, but is causing a disruption at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What can we do if he refuses to come and explain his views on the talk page? Significant changes like that need a consensus, and he is not trying to get one. Like you said, at this point, it's nothing but disruptive vandalism. Fovezer (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think repeatedly referring to the rebels as "turncoats", "usurpers", and "warlords", intimating that Gaddafist Libya is a democracy, equating the terms "republic" and "jamahiriya", framing the conflict as a struggle against the "rule" of Abdul-Jalil or the "occupation" of "transitionist" (not a word, as others have noted) "guerrillas", or referring to air and sea operations in accordance with a UN mandate as an "invasion" equals a "great viewpoint". And of course there's certainly no question that edit warring, declining to seek consensus, and obdurately refusing to justify his proposed edits on the Talk page is not the correct way to advance any viewpoint.

If he comes back, chastened by being banned for twice as long as his previous block, and wants to start a rational discussion on the Talk page - I don't think a bit of rewriting to focus on the factions rather than on Gaddafi himself would be amiss, for example, even if I think the dramatic reinterpretation of this civil war as a struggle for the Gaddafists (not an official term, of course) to "restore order" after "transitionists ... seized control" is completely fantastical and ludicrous on a number of levels - then that's great, but I'm not holding my breath for him to do anything but pop up on 16/17 April and start immediately turning the article into an alphabet soup of acronyms with a dash of blatant pro-Gaddafi propaganda yet again. I realize we have to assume good faith, but this is getting ridiculous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The guy is definitely trying hard as an edit, and you've got to give him props for persistence, but I'm gonna be frank; it seems like he is on a crusade, practically, to put in these acronyms and make his edits stay when all the other editors disagreev(normal people ofc, not politicians or anyone who should often be denied what they want). If, when he is unbanned, he goes right back to doing what got him banned the first two times, then at some point you have to take WP:TURNIP to heart and realise it's not good faith anymore if the guy keeps it up after fifteen or more people have told him not to. I know there's WP:CIVIL and all, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is. (citing wikiessays allows me to continue my laziness so I don't contribute anything myself, hehe) Of course, it could be that he learns his lesson and we are all pleasantly surprised and he contributes greatly to the article. I would like for this to happen. If Mr. Superb is reading this, maybe you want to turn over a new leaf? It couldn't hurt.

Btw, anyone ever see this one before? WP:DUCKSEASON. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that you're unbanned for talk pages, Superb, would you be so kind as to prove the negative parts of my assessment to be incorrect? It would be much appreciated. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

before being blocked he moved the article Anti-Gaddafi forces to Libyan Transitionist forces [27]. Transitionist?? that's not even a word! should that move be reversed??? noclador (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved back. Unfortunately, he's unblocked now. I was hoping for a rest.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it'll probably be a word soon knowing our language (1.2 million words and counting). Wait, actually it is, sorta, but it's apparently the name of an artistic movement as shown in this article: Deanne Cheuk as well as here, TSC, the Transitionist Snowboard Camp, but neither of those helps us in any way of course. He also visited Politics of Libya as can be seen here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Video of public execution of black African man in Benghazi

Found this video on Youtube (you have to sign up to view it), where an angry mob hanged (upside down) a black African man (alleged to be Gaddafi's mercenary) and then chopped his head off with a machete. Doesnt really fit into 'freedom fighters anti-Gaddafi' description they want West to see, does it? If anyone wants to incorporate it into the article, feel free to do so.

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVukQDXuCSE&fmt=18&has_verified=1&skipcontrinter=1 or [[28]] Ratipok (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of such (and worse, and not only black-skinned victims) videos from Libya on youtube, but i suspect that anti-Gaddafi protesters editors here will complain immediately about the original research, youtube not being a reliable source or something like this. 95.32.161.87 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen so many cell-phones and cameras recording at once. Interesting video though I thought the guy who put it up went into a lot of hyperbole. I mean the people in Afghanistan stormed a UN building and killed people there, but I wouldn't call them all terrorists. Fanatics, yes, but not terrorists. Is there an article backing up the video that maybe gives a background to it (there should be with so many people taking videos)? It would compliment the video. You should have said that they hung him upside down (hanging usually implies a noose around one's neck), I couldn't tell where he was until the guy got in close. What is that odd "aaaaaayyyyiii ayyyyyyiiiii" sound btw? I've heard it before somewhere. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw one of the "horrible Gaddafi crimes against unarmed protesters" few years ago was something similar to what happened in Afghanistan yesterday - angry mobs were storming italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi and security forces shot at them (current 2011 protests were linked to these 2006 shooting incidents). Now we see what happens if nobody stops "peaceful protesters" 95.32.161.87 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Grose!82.2.65.192 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is horrific!Wipsenade (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2things to tell 1. So many phones and no proofs of AntiKadaffi rebels claims about bombings of civilians or use of mercenaries. 2. You should add this video to main article as example of Lynching provoked by Media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.42.109 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Brega?

There have been quite a few contradictory reports about the situation in Brega. Some say the rebels have pulled out, while other articles state that the loyalists have lost Brega. What is our stance? -Tim, Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.34 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Last I read from Al Jazeera's Live Blog was that the rebels had taken control of most of the city. "2:40pm Al Jazeera's correspondent reported that Libyan pro-democracy fighters have taken control of most the Libyan city of Brega after having engaged in clashes with Gaddafi forces."[29] I still think it is too early to know for certain the outcome, though. Have to wait a little longer to get a clearer picture. Fovezer (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So i would say the battle's ongoing (blue). Uc smaller (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AlJazeera and SMH are reporting that the frontlines are CURRENTLY at Brega's University, 5-10 km East of Brega. Meaning that as of the situation RIGHT NOW, Brega is still under Gaddafi control.Uc smaller (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

here is a snip I have posted to the Third Battle of Brega discussion:

Brega university campus is:

• 10km(!) of desert away from Brega town
• 2km x 2km(!) big area of continuous settlements, there are actually more buildings in the campus than in Brega
• being a Uni campus, it is reasonable to conclude it is UNINHABITED at the moment (as it has no permanent residents to speak of)

Given the above, it makes sense to split the fighting on/for the campus with fighting in/for the Brega town itself.Ihosama (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It would seem I was wrong on satellite imagery identification. The Uni is about 2 miles east of Brega directly on the coastal highway. Does someone have info on what that big 2km x 2km urban complex about 4 miles further north-east of the Uni?Ihosama (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is called "New Brega." Here is a recent article where they refer to it as New Brega: Brega stretches out over several miles of the coast and is concentrated in three main sections: New Brega, a largely residential area on the east end; West Brega, which includes a refinery and housing for oil workers; and a university between them. West Brega was still contested.[30] Fovezer (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reports of US soldiers (Special Forces) already being stationed on Libyan soil + arming the Rebels already under way

Al Jazeera reports that, despite the insurances from Obama that no US soldier will put boots on Libya soil, US soldiers (Special Forces) are already in east Libya where they are traning the Rebels togheter with the Egyptians. According to them the Rebels have allready been supplied with weapons that came from Egypt, despite the UN arms embargo. Source: [[31]]. Ratipok (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"our source is rebel fighter"... and "he was sent there to fire Katyusha rockets, but the weapon he had to begin with was a simple unguided kind of pop of the shoulder rocket"... the lightest Katyusha rockets weigh 60-70kg and you definitely do not fire them from your shoulder, because the fire from the rocket engine would incinerate you... "state of the art Katyusha rockets, which were heat seeking" - the are no heat seeking Katyusha rockets. It sounds like a lot of BS to me: either the fighter is talking BS or the reporter has no clue what he is talking about. noclador (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

if you look at the Al Jazeera live blog from April 3rd at 1:33pm you see they are already back-paddling on their claim. noclador (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reporters never know what they are talking about when it comes to weapons. Uc smaller (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it certainly couldn't have been Katyusha rockets to which this source was referring doesn't necessarily obviate the gist of the claim - but for now it's an unconfirmed report, and we've been getting a lot of those out of Libya lately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Katyusha was originally the nickname given to Russian multiple rocket launchers (not the rockets) during WW2, after a popular song of the time. The English equivalent is "Katie" (which makes them sound much less dangerous!) Since then, the name has been applied to many different simple, short range, usually unguided, missiles (I was almost on the receiving end of one fired from Lebanon into Israel in 1979. Luckily it missed!) so it should probably only really be applied as a general term, as in this case. Lynbarn (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All Katyusha rockets are unguided, thats why there called rockets and not missles. They are just larger size unguided artillery rockets and are very common in even the poorest of african military forces.XavierGreen (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

XavierGreen, Being pedantic, as I often am, the terms "rocket" and "missile" are not mutually exclusive - a missile is simply any weapon that is thrown (by whatever means). A stone can be a missile. A rocket can be a missile, or it can be for other (ie non-weapon) use, such as satellite launching, with plenty of examples of the same design being used for both (e.g. Thor). Whether it is guided or not is not the relevent differentiator, or else we would not need to refer to "guided missiles", although I agree in modern military parlance, an unguided, self-propelled missile is normally referred to as a rocket! :) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(NB. The following is purely conjecture on my part) US soldiers (ie "combat troops") may not have boots on the ground, but the US may perhaps have provided "military advisors" which would be one way to stay within the letter of UNSCR 1973, if not the spirit. UK SAS spotters were allegedly responsible for aborting at least one RAF mission to Tripoli when they saw the civilians/reporters in the target area. Other nations will likely also have similar covert forces in theatre, but as I've said before, the "fog of war" decends very quickly and very thickly, so we will never know all the truths - certainly not while the campaign is ongoing. Lynbarn (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There was also this story about us having CIA operatives operating there [32] in a reconnaissance capacity. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The training report is too sketchy(unconfirmed) and the reconnaissance too non-notable for inclusion, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2011

If this is the first civil war in Libya,is there need to include the year in the TITLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.11.31 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I would remove the 2011 from the title. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Me too. But, repeating myself, considering the huge several-hundred-post-long battles on other renaming topics, let's not start another renaming craze. There already is a redirect and the current title is anything but inaccurate.Ihosama (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Libya also had civil wars (or events that could be termed as such) in 1711 and 1835 (EDIT: also 1795 and 1920), according to a very cursory glance at GoogleBooks. Articles on either of those conflicts (if not already covered elsewhere) would certainly be welcome additions to WP overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do those events have a page?????????????Or even an actual name????

Figures involved in the events have their pages. I didn't glance in-depth, so not sure how often they're referred to as the "1711 Libyan Civil War", and how often it's just "civil war broke out in Libya in 1711". Not quite sure what WP:MILHIST policy is on labelling such conflicts, but the point remains that there certainly have been multiple events in Libya described as "civil war", so the title should specify "2011". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

UN General Assy

The article asks for the date of when the UN suspended Libya from the Human Rights Council. The official press release is dated 1 March 2011

"General Assembly Suspends Libya from Human Rights Council". United Nations General Assembly GA/11050 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York- Sixty-fifth General Assembly Plenary 76th Meeting. 1 March 2011.

Suggest edit "On March 1st..." and move to date order after Feb actions.69.72.27.30 (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Defection?

Is Abdul Ati al-Obeidi the Moussa Koussa deputy Al Jazeera is reporting fled to Greece?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab League did NOT back Libyan no-fly zone

Recently exposed: only 11 of 22 members present, only 9 of them voted for [33]. And then BBC reports that "only 2 league members were against". Sounds like an anecdote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.177.235 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is written like a conspiracy theory. It can't be used as an RS. On the subject of the vote: If it passed it passed. If members weren't present, it was their loss. I assume that the Arab League doesn't require the votes of all members and just those that are there? I am honestly not sure. If that is the case though, it's like presidential elections in the US and other countries (where voting isn't mandatory), as well as legislative votes, if you don't vote, don't be upset about the consequences. So if it does function that way, it doesn't really matter if they didn't participate, they should have, but they chose not to. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like they had no time to choose. And about the RS better check the refs for the infobox mercenary presense. Now there's a blog, an article that doesn't deals with merc existence at all, and a bunch of very ambiguous articles referencing each other. And on such shaky grounds someone removes "limited/alleged" description for the mercs in the infobox, when the right question should be "is merc presense proven and significant enough to include them there at all" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.177.235 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They had plenty of warning. The idea of a no-fly zone was discussed for days and days before and whether the Arab League gives its ok was also discussed. They had lots of time, and even if the Arab League ok wasn't discussed, they would have it was probably going to happen. On top of all that, even if the no-fly zone hadn't been all over the news, they do have intelligence agencies that would have known something and they could have sent their representative or acting representative in advance. They have resources at their disposal, and they use them. So yeah, they had plenty of time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. If they weren't present or abstained, that isn't equivalent to a "no" vote. If this is true, that's still 9-2 in favor, which under Arab League rules constitutes adoption of the motion - the same way the UN Security Council vote was a unanimous 10-0 in favor, even though five countries abstained; they failed to register their opposition, and so they're not counted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with wording something as 10 to 0, if only 5 people voted. You might be able to get away with 'unanimous', although I would characterize that as disingenuous. -- Avanu (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's why one should be specifc, W voted for, X voted against, Y abstained, and Z not present. Though an abstaining vote is quiet acquiesence to the winning decision. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But it certainly isn't correct to say the Arab League didn't call for a no-fly zone when, legally speaking and in accordance with proper procedure, they did. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they didn't. Also according to the wiki article on the League internal workings, "Each member state has one vote in the League Council, while decisions are binding only for those states that have voted for them", so i doubt if it's entirely correct to say "Arab League (as a whole) decided something" even if majority of its members voted for something (and now they have only 9 votes of 22). Also didn't Arab League official complained about the airstrikes shortly after they had begun? 77.45.177.235 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Amr Moussa did, yes, but he walked back his remarks. The resolution was nonbinding anyway, IIRC, so that italicized portion doesn't really apply. And states that abstain or are not present forfeit their vote by nature of the format; the quorum was fulfilled and the Arab League adopted the nonbinding resolution in accordance with its own statutes. Besides, I haven't seen any other sources aside from that sketchy one you posted corroborating the claim that half of Arab League states showed up to the vote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, according to this [34] article quorum was 15 (fifteen) members in 2009. Does anybody have any info about the current rules? 95.32.163.35 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine they know the rules better than a bunch of schmucks on Wikipedia do. The media reported that they had called for a no-fly zone, Moussa and others acknowledged they called for a no-fly zone, Lebanon introduced the resolution with language saying that the Arab League called for a no-fly zone. We know Syria and Algeria both voted against it, but their governments haven't gone so far as to claim the vote wasn't legal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote might be legal only for present countries, but this means it's a will only of these countries. So far all i see is media interpretations and cliches. Same as the rant about "international community will" referring to several countries out of some 200. 95.32.96.202 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS indicate the position of the Arab League is that they voted to call upon the UN to impose a no-fly zone. Resolution 1973 was introduced by Lebanon, an assenting member state of the Arab League, to the UN Security Council for that purpose, noting its endorsement by the Arab League, and it was duly adopted. This is an entirely semantic argument beyond that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the fussymess

I believe that it is s bunch of 'locker-bashing' loonies. Lockerbie is their fought of all Libyans since none have apologised for their actions on either side. Quadaffi is only trying to sop Iranian backed radical mullahs anyhow.Sheron B. (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The above user is a troll!De Openteeth (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Sir, please bring your bias elsewhere. John Holmes II (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Rules 1 & 2 of the internet. Also I hate to tell you, but I believe you just linked this page in a way (some sort of IP origin thing if I remember from forums), so we might be having some visitors soon. (change your pw's just in case. :X) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011 Libyan civil war -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to change. For every "strongly support" vote, there's a "strongly oppose" vote. Last time it was a clear majority for changing to some form of "civil war," but now there's not a consensus for anything. It's currently 32 support and 43 opposes, but no matter whether those numbers continue to fluctuate, the two camps are clearly not going to reach agreement any time soon. For now, I'll reinforce my previous close, but User:Ohms law has created a page at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move for discussion of future possible renames. Perhaps consensus can emerge there. As a side note, there's an allegation of serious sockpuppetry at the end of this discussion, which people knowledgeable about that process should investigate, if they haven't already.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion

A: Google News exact phrase search yields 3 times as many hits for Libyan conflict as for Libyan civil war[35][36] B: It is Orwellian double speak to call something a civil war when the most powerful and likely the determining participant is an outside "community". The civil war argument is DOA in terms of logic and definition and more importantly the Reliable Sources are not using "Libyan civil war" in anywhere near enough frequency to necessitate its usage in an encyclopedia. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support: Please read Cuban Revolution. Just because there's armed rebellion does not mean its a civil war. civil wars are usually about secession and as far as I know no one partition was be proposed by any of the parties involved in the CONFLICT. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Support, sure, why not? It's still the most common last I checked as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Support, conflict is a better description, especially when you have major world powers coordinating the efforts and working on methods to arm and finance the internal combatants. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Support. A Google News search shows about 16,000 hits over the last 24 hours for Libyan+civil+war and about 22,000 each for Libyan+uprising and Libyan+conflict. "Libyan civil war" and "Libyan uprising" get 1,000 apiece while "Libyan conflict" gets 2,000. "Civil war" may become more common if the conflict becomes more prolonged. Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Comment - Wow, I didn't expect that someone would beat me to the punch! But that said, this is ironic because now I'm going to be neutral on this move. I think enough sources are starting to call this a civil war that having the article title refer to this as some sort of a civil war might be justified. But as I said, for the time being, I am neutral.--Witan (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Support - It does look better, makes more sense, and seems to be neutral the term "Libyan Conflict" than "Libyan Civil War" or "Libyan Uprising". There is a precedent in "Kosovo War" (look at the infobox) but "2011 Libyan War" is not in common use, so "2011 Libyan Conflict" is the best choice. 186.69.49.245 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Civil Wars can have outside intervention. What matters is the driving forces behind the conflict, the origins of the conflict, and what the end state of the conflict is. Here we have a bottom up revolt that resulted in half the country splitting off from the ruling establishment. This section of the country has subsequently formed a government, organized an army, and is now waging war against the other half of the country. I am sorry my friends, but that is the very definition of civil war. If any changes should be made, I think dropping the 2011 from the title would be more apt, as this is Libya's first (and only) Civil War. You don't see us calling the American Civil War "The 1861 American Civil War". ArcherMan86 (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Comment It doesn't really matter what this is or is not in a dictionary definition (there isn't anyway a clear distinction between "civil war," "uprising," "conflict," "rebellion" or any of the other terms associated with this topic.) What matters is what it is actually being called now. Equilibrium007 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Indeed, WP:COMMONNAME Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom!23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Comment Civil war is defined as a war between political factions or regions within the same country. I think this fits. Wikipedia's Civil War article also supports it. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Please see WP:SYNTH, you cannot put two and two together to make four, only the sources can do that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Support. "Libyan conflict" prevails by a ratio of 3.7-to-1 in the current news sources. I have nothing against "Libyan civil war"...as soon as these same sources start to use it more than "Libyan conflict." I believe the following census is the methodologically superior: +"libyan conflict" -"libyan civil war" (1961) -"libyan conflict" +"libyan civil war" (530) Wareh (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC) How many of those entries are old entries for the usage of the word "conflict" though? Over time this has changed in scope. -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) That is an excellent point. When people do the news search they should be sure to set the time filter (under Any Recent News), in case anyone's not been doing that. =) Of course the only good options are within the last day and the last week Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC) In fact, if we set the time filter to March 28-31 we get 1932-622 (no filter: 2011-to-541). Wareh (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Maybe it has an automatic filter as well (like when you don't put special settings)? It might be it gives you sources from further back, but, if there is a high number of recent articles about the topic, heavily favours more recent ones. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strong Support As per above, Libyan conflict is far more widely used than Libyan Civil War. And the sources that are using civil war are mainly using the term to emphasize a political point - e.g. Red Cross to emphasize the humanitarian crisis, or Ghadaffi in warning of possible consequences of the crisis. It makes the term "civil war" politically charged and in violation of NPOV, in my opinion. DigitalRevolution (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Support Eventually we're going to probably rename it 'civil war,' but for now, it would be appropriate to rename it 'conflict.' The name 'uprising' has a connotation that there was a brief period or violence that peaked early but then subsided. Here, we have an organized ground war with international intervention. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 74.241.99.78 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Support per WP:COMMONNAME (but that's probably just because of the sources that I favor. Such is life.) It's just a better title though, I think. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Support per above comments, as well as my own comments in the previous move request. 'Conflict' is more neutral, is supported by more sources and has more staying power. I will re-iterate once again here that we should not be rushing to find a suitable name for this article. The previous move request to 'civil war' suffered from the exact reason things should not be rushed - current events are in constant flux and terminology changes constantly. 'Civil war' may have been accurate from a dictionary perspective and appeared in some sources but was not supported by the majority of sources, and this combined with the rapidly changing nature of events mean it should never have passed. My 'support' vote here is to resolve this prior error in favour of a neutral name that can remain until non-volatile sources settle on an appropriate name for the conflict. There is no rush here, people. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Support As per my comment in the last discussion. Conflict was being employed (in media) to a greater extent than civil war. The results posted by Wareh are a mirror of my own search results.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Support I think 'conflict' is much more neutral and to be preferred until the facts have a chance to emerge. Son of eugene (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Support It's still being called the Libyan conflict by the BBC. 'Civil War' is by no means the common name in RS.MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose - "Conflict" is much more general and doesnt describe this accurately. This is exactly what a civil war is -citizens of the same country entering in a conflict with each other because of political beliefs. Who cares if there are international parties involved, thats usually the case with every civil war. Uc smaller (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Support. Polental (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC). Support Since NATO, Qatari, Emirati and Swedish military personnel, which have had a significant impact on the war, are involved, it can no more be defined a civil war Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose Some of you [redacted] are [redacted] stupid and are trying to act smart (Orwellian double speak? LOL!). A civil war can have outside intervention. The Sri Lankan Civil War had Indian help for the government. Same thing with the Spanish Civil War and others. B-Machine (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support. It is not a civil war. It is a totalitarian government hiring foreign mercenaries to slaughter civilians. A civil war implies that the nation is split and there is support for the regime, when in reality the people oppose the regime, with a very small minority who are being paid to like the government. --FizzBrine (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BIG Support Libya's situation can't be classified as a "civil war". It's an armed conflict. Civil war occurs between two or more factions of PEOPLE that usually seek SECESSION, not GOVERNMENTS seeking OUSTING each other. Just my two cents. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by86.108.28.24 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Support. What we are seeing are anti-government protests that escalated to an armed conflict. It is not a civil war.--bender235 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose The current situation is well described by the term "civil war" according to Wikipedia's entry on civil war.Mvxzw (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. Please read WP:OR. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC) WP:LAWYER. You don't need to state it every time someone mentions the civil war article. We get your point.99.182.252.92 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) It seems some people do, but others, not so much as they keep doing it, though I'm glad you get the point as you said. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC) And on that note: CNN calls it a civil war. That's a pretty large +1 for an Oppose. 99.182.252.92 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) CNN is good, but is there anything in COMMON about weight for sources in cases like this? Like do we consider CNN to be bigger than say JPost or the Daily News? (I'm not very sure.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah, it says "major English-language media outlets". I've seen CNN, Time, National Post, Telegraph, The New York Times, etc. call it a civil war. 99.182.252.92 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC) At least some of those equally use "conflict," for example, Telegraph.[37] And CNN is big, but on the "conflict" side we can cite BBC, AP, NPR, AFP, of which AP alone is 3x bigger than CNN (measured by Google News references for their own reporting).[38] Wareh (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Here are some more to compliment those, Washington Post[39], Jerusalem Post[40], The Guardian[41], The Financial Times calls it a conflict (but also an uprising in a 27 March article) [42], FOX News[43], USA Today[44] and Washington Times[45]. These are some of the biggest and widely known English language news sources. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) @99: Ah yes, wonderful that I forgot about that important bit. By the way, and this is just a funny not, I have seen the Times use Conflict, Civil War and Uprising (the latter two in the lede for the Libya Topic) on the same page. We have them, but the Google News search is still showing it overwhelmingly for conflict. By the way, it's very strange, but when I googled National Post, it froze my browser, twice, first FF and then IE. Weird. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) NPR,AP via Senator Lugar, AFP, has quite a few, and there is more. There isn't enough usage to override consensus that has already been reached.99.182.252.92 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well, can't say anything against the first one; the second one they quote him saying it's a civil war but the article's writer calls it a conflict; the third one they only say conflict, civil war only pops up in one of the comments and the thing about the US Civil war on the side, at least when I did a find search. As for the fourth, if I did it right (replaced civil war with conflict):[46] they have a few too for conflict. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Comment. This is interesting. Look at this article here from CNN.[47] It is mainly about Côte d'Ivoire's Civil War and talks about Libya's "conflict" as well. Is it possible that some of the hits for Libya and civil war might be about the Ivory Coast's civil war as well? (I mean they are both armed conflicts against the government in Africa occuring simultaneously) Interesting anomaly or something else? Oppose There have been civil wars where other foreign countries intervined, like the Sri Lankan or Bosnian civil wars. The war is an internal conflict between the citizens of the country. On one side are the tribes of Eastern Libya and some minor tribes of Western Libya, on the other side are Gaddafi's tribe, than there is the large Warfala tribe, the Tuareg minority who live in the Fezzan region and others. The assertion that just because the government has employed foreign mercenaries the war can not be called a civil war is simply wrong. Many civil wars have been fought through the centuries where mercenaries were also used. Also, the assertion by one editor that a civil war is only a civil war if one side wants secession, and a civil war is not a civil war if one side wants to overthrow the government is again simply wrong. People should read up on what a civil war is. Civil war is the right term. EkoGraf(talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. Please read WP:OR. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC) There is no original research here. I have no idea where you came up with that. And you pointing every oppose editor to reading the rule on OR will not change the fact what this war is. And Sir Flinders maybe you should, like I said, read up on Civil war. I will quote Wikipedias article on what a civil war is - A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Indeed there is good sir, look at WP:SYNTH specifically, you're using what you see going on in Libya, and the separate article on Wikipedia about civil wars and coming to the conclusion that it is a civil war based on those two sources. At least according to what you said in this argument right here. You are right though that I am mostly favouring the opposers, but I don't want to spam now do I? =p Also, his last name was Petrie, his full name was just very long. Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {ec} So, according to you, BBC and CNN reporters who are in the field in Libya are calling it a civil war based on their own original research? EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Are you one of the reporters in the field? Did one of them make the argument that you just put up there? I believe when I said you I was referring to you specifically and that specific argument you were making. If you are directly quoting one of those field reporters or saying that one of them said it then their commentary does not go against WP:OR. If you did happen to be one of those reporters though, I think it goes against the rule dealing with self-published material. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) First of, please stay civil, asking me sarcasticly Are you one of the reporters in the field? borders on the violation of Wikipedia's civility rule. Second, honestly, whatever your personal opinion is, the thing is, BBC and CNN reporters (and others) have called it a civil war and are calling it a civil war. And their oppinion (which is based on years of veteran reporting) trumps your's any day. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I do apologise if you felt I was saying that in a way meant to be sarcastically, but you did characterise it as such when I was addressing you specifically, and you then applied what I said to reporters for a reason I don't really get. I'm afraid I don't see your point with regard to the second thing. Why are we even holding a concensus vote then if not to get editors' opinions? =p That begs the question: How do we weigh CNN and BBC's reporters' feelings against the rest of reliable sources? Sure they and some others might be calling it that, but does that mean we ignore the thousands of other reliable sources calling it conflict? Well I thought my quoting ad nauseum of WP:OR made it clear that my opinion of what this whole thing constitutes doesn't mean anything in over the common name. Now that last bit borders on an ad hominem attack (credentials and such). I suggest we both relax a bit and end this current thread here as it seems to be heading toward an angry argument. Let's indeed try to maintain WP:CIVIL. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) My point is. BBC and CNN reporters on the ground have far better knowledge of what is going on than a politician or analyst thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. If they say it's a civil war than it's a civil war and by all acounts it fits in perfectly with the preconditions for a civil war to be named a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Ah, so that's what you meant. Still I think it depends on the analyst and to some extent on the politician. While we do take the reporters to be RSs, I don't think we consider them experts over let's say historians, political scientists, certain longtime politicians etc. The education (and fields of education in some cases) of reporters also varies a great deal, and their primary job is to convey info (albeit with a bit of drama) I would not trust Anderson Cooper over say Henry Kissenger who probably has access to all of the things the news outlets are reporting and then some. Still, if I understand it right, we go by whatever name they put in their article, so I guess the point about them not being actual experts is moot (otherwise a good number of Libyans calling it a civil war would be RSs, and I don't think we're treating them as such for the most part). If you look up top a little ways you'll see that while CNN and BBC are sometimes calling it a civil war, many of the other major English language news outlets are calling it "conflict". Wareh linked some and I linked some, and the IP starting with 99 also linked two, but one quotes Senator Lugar calling it a civil war while the article itself calls it a conflict. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:POINT the article has literally just been moved from that title to this one, so moving it back (when there was a consensus to move it here) is inappropriate at this time. If you feel there wasn't a consensus for the original move take it to WP:ANI or wherever is more appropriate. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Comment I'm afraid you might have misread this. The proposal is not to put it back to 2011 Libyan Uprising, but to change it to 2011 Libyan Conflict. We cannot change it back to 2011 Libyan Conflict if we didn't change it from that to begin with. Also please reviewWP:NOTPOINTY, as concensus doesn't appear to be heavily against this nor does it seem to be dusrupting Wikipedia just to make a point, which is what WP:POINT is about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {ec} Good point. I retract my opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) So neutral then? I do apologise if my comment sounded a bit harsh btw, hard to communicate tone through text you know without emoticons. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Yes :), honestly I'm not fussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Glad to see someone who doesn't consider it a competition. =p Oppose "Conflict" is too vague. There are two sides, each with their own significant support, that are fighting for the future of the country. Libya is basically split right in the middle with two governments and armies on each side. This is a classic civil war. Just because an outside force has entered the picture, doesn't mean that what's happening in Libya right now is not a civil war (seeRussian Civil War). --Tocino 20:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose Since when is Google News search a reliable and logical point to this discussion in which "civil war" is just recently becoming the normal term? The 2011 Libyan civil war is defined to the 't' in Wikipedia's own Civil War article. And lastly, when are conglomerate news giants and presidents of countries not reliable sources? 66.176.53.36 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. Since it is how we find the common name with relation to current events. It is the only reasonable way to find which name is most commonly used without searching through every article in every news source and keeping a tally. Using a Wikipedia's article on the civil war to determine whether or not what you're seeing in Libya constitutes a civil war goes againstWP:SYNTH, so it really doesn't matter what the civil war article says here. Well it depends on what most of them are using as the term and most are saying conflict I'm afraid. As for presidents, well it depends on the president I guess and a concensus, and that's really a popularity contest to be perfectly honest. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. (after edit conflict) Like a lot of the oppose !votes, this one suggests that civil war is more accurate, a better title. That's beside the point. Our policy WP:COMMONNAME requires us to use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." If this name is objectionable because less strictly correct etc. (from someone's point of view), we still use it. Perhaps it doesn't matter because a closing admin should have no trouble ignoring opinions that have nothing to do with the established article title criteria, but it would be good if we all reviewedWP:COMMONNAME. Then, if desired, someone could make an argument that we're looking at the wrong English-language reliable sources or incorrectly determining what their most frequent form of reference is, or that conflict is not "obviously the most frequently used"...those would be germane considerations. Wareh (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) P.S.WP:COMMONNAME explicitly endorses the use of Google to apply its criterion, with appropriate cautions that no one has argued are not being heeded here. Wareh (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC) More people need to read this comment. Remember, we are not here to decide for ourselves what the name is. We're here to decide what is the most common name in use. The majority of the arguments in favour of 'civil war' do not respect this.TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Comment How many of the articles on Google are telling it from the point of view from the rebels. For objective purposes, this is a civil war. But from the subjective view of the countries involved, its a conflict. Google probably reflects the latter because of the nature of NATO involvement, their own publications will say something. So then, and I'm honestly asking here, wouldn't it be a POV issue to call it a conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.44 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I don't think so. "Conflict" is very bland, really a catch-all term. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be widely agreed that a civil war is just one type of (armed) conflict. Wareh (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support Conflict is more neutral. "Civil War" is the Khadafi-preferred term to refer to the situation. It's absurd that we're using the Khadafi terminology for the conflict while ignoring the preferred rebel term for it, which would be Revolution.Rarito (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well not many sources are really calling it a revolution (much less most), so we can't I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It's not just a Khadafi terminology, it's also used by BBC and CNN reporters on the ground. So please put your personal opinions aside Rarito. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah that too, we cannot let our personal feelings get into our editting. Both Civil war and conflict are being used a good deal more than revolution, and so we run with one of those, preferably the more common one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Stop trying to make this seem lighter and less dangerous than it really is. The article was named "Libyan uprising" for weeks, even after the United States and it's Allies came to launch missiles and airstrikes. Finally, you change it to Libyan Civil War and now you want it back to "Oh, it's just a conflict". Might as well call it "Armed Streetfight".--24.192.70.167 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I understand you feel it belittles what's going on, but you shouldn't let your personal feelings about what is happening be your reason for rejecting a perfectly reasonable proposal. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose. "Conflict" is too weak a term. It is either a civil war, or a revolution. Macarion (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) We're not trying to find the strongest term though, just the one that is most common and maintains NPOV the best. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Comment. "libya war" yields 41,800 results in Google news search of the past 30 days while "libya conflict" yields 23,900 results.24.13.120.168 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose Personally having read the previous comments that have been made I think that this is more like a Civil War then just a conflict, which seems an odd title to use in itself. However I can see why so many would prefer to return to the old title of 2011 Libyan conflict although I wouldn't be surprised if this does end up being called the Libyan Civil War (minus the date as it isn't necessary as they haven't had another civil war to my knowledge) but the name is likely to be decided by what happens in the next few days/weeks/months and as this article is a work in progress the title is likely to be subject to change.--LordAdama(talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose The usage of the term 'Civil War' to describe it is increasingly more common in the news, and it is far too much of an understatement to call it a 'conflict'. If we move it now, it'll just get moved back here in a few weeks.KnowitallWiki (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose per the entire previous poll that led to renaming the conflict 'civil war'. 'Conflict' is vague and thus rarely used.ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Support per above.--Rafy talk 11:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose Outside intervention does not automatically mean its not a civil war. Many civil wars during the Cold War were also proxy wars. Angola, Mozambique and Guatemala for example. Redsxfenway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC). Oppose Wasn't this already extensively debated and then moved from "conflict" to "civil war" already? Honestly if this "conflict" doesn't meet the definition of civil war then I'm not sure what does. bob rulz (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose "Conflict" is a broader, more vague term and can be used to describe virtually any situation where two or more parties do not sit well with each other. "Civil war" is a more specific, informative term and is generally used to describe a war where two(or more) groups of people from the same country fight each other. I see no reason to use a vague term and make the topic less informative, when a more specific and more informative term can be applied. Also, since the point has been raised, a "civil war" is not "a war without foreign intervention". Quite the opposite, a lot of civil wars have had varying degrees of foreign influence. Spanish Civil War, for example, is a well-known civil war where extensive foreign support was involved. Blodance the Seeker 13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose For the reasons given above. --NinjaQuail (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose and Comment Oppose because 'Civil War' is becoming a much used term to describe this event, and it fits the technical definition of a civil war, although those are probably both mentioned above by numerous other editors. My comment is regarding the current title, why is it the 2011 Libyan civil war? I don't think I'm mistaken is saying that Libya has not previously ha a civil war, so including the year is kind of strange...I mean you don't use the term the 1861-65 American Civil War, or the 1642-1651 English Civil war. They're just the American Civil War and the English Civil War, respectively.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Guys! 1) We have barely finished renaming it from "Uprising". 2) As it stands the conflict bears ALL marks of a civil war. Stop this renaming craze (3rd request in a row(!)) and start improving the article! Ihosama (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose "Libyan civil war" is precise, recognizable and consistent. There have been lots of conflicts in Libya but there has been only one civil war. The term "conflict" is generic, vague, and inconsistent with the names of every other civil war in history and in wikipedia. There is also a fundamental difference between "conflicts" such as the Israeli-Palestian conflict or Northern Ireland conflict, which have consisted of sporadic violence over a period of several decades, and what is happening now in Libya, a full-scale war with sustained fighting. It is clearly a civil war as it is between two rival Libyan governments, each supported by Libyans. Foreign intervention, as in the Bosnian, Russian, Spanish and English civil wars, is perfectly consistent with the title.Petroff (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Conflict is very imprecise. Conflict could be the ETA problem or the eternal conflict between Palestina or Israel. In Libya there is a Open war with artillery, before planes, snipers, and in both bands there are citizens converted to militians. Is not enough to thinking that the Libyan success is a civil war? Thor8 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose. Conflict is a meaningless term. It can mean anything from "I just had a conflict with my little brother" to "a million people were killed in this conflict". Civil war is much more precise and is therefore the preferred term. -TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Big support. I also suggest that the article be renamed Libyan War (2011) (see below why). The events that are taking place in Libya could probably be termed as civil war at the beginning, and if it was a civil war per se, the outcome would very likely be different from what it actually is at the moment. The US-led coalition invaded Libya and has made a crucial impact on the course of events. This conflict is no longer a domestic Libyan issue, the belligerents include the US, France, the UK and their allies. In fact, this article should be titled Libyan War. If you consider the term Russian-Georgian War (in reference to the2008 South Ossetia war), you'll see what I mean. Would you term those events Georgian Civil War (because Georgia launched a military operation against its breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia who defied the authority of Tbilisi?).Denghu (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1) as stated already, let's stop this renaming craze - 2011 Libyan Uprising - 2011 Libyan civil war - 2011 Libyan Civil War- Libyan civil war - 2011 Libyan Conflict - Next fancy name someone comes up with - etc. 2) there are redirects for that, if you feel someone would not fing the conflict by its current name, feel free to create one. 3) Georgian example does not apply as the 2008 war was between de-facto independent entities. I doea not even apply to the initla Ossetian and Abhkazian war of 1990-ies as those were a direct continuation of the USSR-breakup-war(s) and not in any way limited to Georgia.Ihosama (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Suport Conflict maches the local waring factions more.Sarurahn (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose. The term "conflict" kind of undersells all that is happening in the country (and outside). This is not some skirmish, it's an all-out fight for the fate of the nation. "Conflict" does not express that. BalanceFish (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC) What if this was to spill over to next year? That is a possibility, and therefore I go for "Libyan War" (proper noun as well). -- 92.4.70.59 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose - IMHO, "conflict" is too general, and "civil war" better describes the situation.--Dэя-Бøяg 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Support per Avanu, although let's see later on, when the definition to these events will become clearer. Until then a more neutral name should be served as. Userpd (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose as this was all thoroughly discussed on the former "Libyan Uprising" talk page for a lengthy period of time. Consensus has been reached and the current name is backed by dictionary definitions, reliable sources and historical precedent.99.231.200.55 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 'Important Comment'google news hits for "libyan conflict" are not 3x the google news hits for "libyan civil war". The precise number is 13,500 for "libyan civil war" to 21,000 for "libyan conflict", thats 60% more not "3 times" as many. Secondly, in choosing to use only the google news numbers the person who started this ignored the overall hit numbers for google search, which are: 19.9 million for "Libyan Civil War" to 13.7 million for "Libyan Conflict". Thirdly, there is already an article with the name "libyan conflict" located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict. If you google "Libyan Conflict" it is the first result on the page, I thus suggest to everyone here that re-naming this article would cause confusion between the two.174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC) As stated, the search comparison was an exact phrase search comparison, [48][49] which still runs about 3-1, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC) As stated above, that exact phrase comment is only on google news and not the larger google search engine, and as stated above the exact phrase comment is only 60% larger and not 3 to 1 as that is stated in the opening of this request. I just double checked it now, the numbers have only changed a little bit from 20,600 to 12,600. With quotes it is 2020 to 896 which is still not 3 to 1, if you're going to begin a request to change please base it on factual information not fabricated numbers.174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC) @174: Please do not characterise the actions of another editor as having "lied", this goes against WP:GOODFAITH and can be construed as an ad hominem attack as well (as you are basically calling person a liar). I have seen grantevans edits for over a month and have found him to be a stand up editor so far. On the topic of Google searches, if you don't use the Google News area you will find that a lot of the hits you are recieving are from posts on forums and blogs (go to like page 20 or 30 where it gets away from news sites (there are several thousand pages of course)). I got 22.700.000 hits when I looked for Libyan Civil War without quotes[50] which appears to be what you did here (as it produced 905.000 with them [51]). Libyan Conflict produced 13.900.000 w/o quotes [52] and 914.000 with[53]. The fact is though that a lot of these hits are from forums and blogs, not news sites and are therefore useless to us. "Major English languages news sources" remember, so we best stick with Google News. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC) If WP:COMMONNAME is an important factor in deciding the name of an article, then the use of the term libyan civil war across multiple types of media lends support to naming the article civil war. Just a PS, this is why I think google hits are bs and shoudn't even be a factor, a position which I made clear repeatedly in the previous name change debate. Also, it wouldn't matter what I called him, I could have called him someone who couldn't do math or a liar, I chose liar. What else do you call someone who look at the numbers, and comes on here and writes a figure that is completely different from the actual amount? What else do you call someone who completely ignores larger search results and chooses the specific ones which fit their definition of what is right? I've been watching these debates as well and it is obvious that you would have veneration for someone who agrees with your position and I would have distrust of someone who restarts a move request on false pretenses. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Conflict is used more often in the major English language sources as has been stated many many times before. Using Google hits is indeed bs, but using Google News is not as it links to news rather than forum posts etc which regular Google gets you. Either of those things you "could have called him" are incredibly rude and uncivil, plain and simple, why not take the better approach and say you think he might be mistaken etc. You do not go out and call someone a liar just like that. It assumes bad faith and is just generally poor policy in interacting with other people. Even if you feel someone is full of it, you should still try and defeat their argument in a civil and non-provocative manner. Shouting "You Lie!" etc is just not something you should do here (check out WP:LIAR) or in any debate. The larger search results were incorrectly formatted and picked up wholly unrelated pages I'm afraid. Regular Google Search (as opposed to Google News) is unreliable in general. Now now, let's not make this a competition. Personally I could care less what this is called, but I'd like it to be consistent with the most often used name. This is not an US vs. THEM competiton, it's an attempt to reach a friendly concensus among the editors of this article. Also you'll notice I had chastised grant after he had behaved in an uncivil manner towards you, but then retracted it gracefully as any reasonable editor would. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) The problem with that methodology is that google news uses the same search engine patterns to select relevant news sources as does the main site to select regular ones, so it gives you a smaller sample size but doesn't change the overall accuracy in results. I've seen both terms used in major english media sources, the bbc being the only one who doesn't use it that often (originally they had an article titled civil war but then changed it back to conflict). This article would never have gotten its name changed to begin with if there were not a plethora of relevant, authoritative news sources that used the "civil war" term, I know for a fact that there are several going all the way back to the beginning of this civil war, I provided them for the original name change as did many others. I stick by what I said, there is no way that someone could have possibly mistook a 60% difference for a 3 to 1 difference, and almost everyone supporting this requested move is the exact same group of people who were against the move to civil war. In other words, they're disaffected and are trying to continue their debate under a different, thinly veiled guise rather than sticking with the consensus that was achieved on civil war. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC) You should use the search methods suggested Red River Beach for more precision then, as Google News is the best we've got. What matters is the current usage and the results are for the most part from the last few days. It wasn't so much the news sources as people first coming and calling it that, most people, if you remember from the original Uprising --> Civil War topic were using their own research to come to that conclusion, only a few were saying more sources use it etc. You searched from March 27th to March 29th or so to make sure he put the incorrect ratio etc.? Comparing his numbers then to the numbers you got when you posted yours isn't the best thing to do of course, so I assume you checked that date range? (I will admit I have not yet and cannot at the moment as I am dosed up on GuS Soda and music by Gaelic Storm, damn good stuff). If you have, could you please put them here, and if they inded show that at the time grant was incorrect, he should explain himself. It's not like we're considering the name to be the be all and end all of this article, I think most just saw the name and saw one used more than the other and then would want the more common one used in accordance with policy.Remember it ain't about winning. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC) The fact that you don't realize the contradiction in your own position is what has contributed to keeping this entire move request going on. On the one hand you're saying google results are BS, and then on the other you're saying google news is "the best we've got". On the other hand you tell me to do a date range search and then say that results from the last few days are more valuable. Lets be clear, google is google, google uses the same search engine to search for news as it does for regular results, with news the sample size is merely lower. You advocate for the use of "major english language news sources" and yet you advocate for using google news, which is filled with thousands of results for non-major english language news sources, including news sources which straddle the line between blogs and news. This is why even entering google results into the equation of choosing an article title is a waste of time, google is not neutral and neither are the people who search it. For every result you produce I can throw a completely different one back at you that produces a result that favours my position. Whether its regular google vs. google news, whether its exact phrase vs. regular search. There is a disparity between each of these different methodologies in searching which precludes them from being useful tools in resolving the name of this article title. Lastly, it has been your position all along that people were using original research, but if that were the case then this article would never have had its title changed at all, citing a dictionary defition of civil war and comparing it to this situation isn't original research. Anyone who wasn't citing the dictionary was simply using WP:SENSE, for which I applaud them for. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC) "Even entering google results into the equation of choosing an article title is a waste of time." If you really believe this is true, then your real job is to advocate that WP:COMMONNAME, the policy governing article titles, be rewritten. It currently endorses the (intelligent and careful) use of exactly this kind of test. See also WP:GOOG. Wareh (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it say that google results shall be used to determine article titles, infact it goes out of its way to say "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." I thus direct you to WP:GOOGLE where it lists all the faults of using google in an instance such as this. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid you may have misread what I said. "Using Google hits is indeed bs, but using Google News is not as it links to news rather than forum posts etc which regular Google gets you." -- It is clear by google hits I am referring to the regular (incredibly broad) google search engine as I make the distinction between the results of regular google and google news in the same sentence. Google News is what we use plain and simple and even if the sources are sometimes in another language (say Ha'aretz or YNet), they are still oftentimes major established sources in their English form. As well, both myself and Wareh cited, by hand, quite a few major sources that used the term conflict when only two major news sources were used for civil war, so in lieu of using Google news for numbers, you can use it to find the right sources too and put them yourself. The blogs are, for the most part, the blogs of newspapers, which I believe are acceptable as they are run by journalists, but they use a different format. It does not matter if google is not neutral as sources are not required to maintain an NPOV. I only said they used OR in the form of WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR, which I have quoted at least 100 times (not using that in the meme form, being serious), and where this sort of thing: "citing a dictionary defition of civil war and comparing it to this situation" in the case of this conflict is indeed synthesis if you are not citing a source as reaching this conclusion. As for WP:SENSE (you did cite it after all), please look at the little part entitled there is no common sense, what seems like common sense to some might not seem the same to others~. This bit is also important: "Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing "common sense" and leaving it at that." =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC) As I just told the user above, nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it state that google shall be used to determine the naming of articles, in fact there is another page all about the faults of search engines WP:GOOGLE where it says among other things: "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." "Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects." Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. Google indexes self created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that is mandatory and applies to all articles, and all article-related editorial activity. As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity. So it seems to me that NPOV is indeed tied up with the issue of using google, wherein it is specifically cited that google is not a source of neutral articles, and multiple types of caution are suggested to be used. As for the dictionary definition, to say that calling this a civil war based on a dictionary definition is synthesis is equivilant to saying that looking at a map and saying this war is taking place in libya is synthensis. Also the part where it says there is no common sense is specifically directed at not telling someone to "use common sense", not saying that an individual user should not exercize it. As for there only being two major news sources that refer to this as the libyan civil war, well I won't call you a liar but...how do you explain these sources:http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/23/libya.islamists/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373457/Libya-Do-stomach-bombing-Gaddafi-6-months.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/04/libya-civil-war-ceasefirehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-no-fly-zone-could-prevent-a-libyan-bloodbath/article1939210/and since you think blogs are ok, here's one from the economist:http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/rhetoric_intervention . These are just a few I found doing a quick search, clearly more than 2... 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Well I think I'm going to concede this round and let others handle it, but on the topic of pov titles, they can be POV as per WP:POVTITLE, and the two sources comment was in relation to the discussion up top which was as of that day (April 1st (around 02:00 EDT)). With that I'll bow out, but maybe chime in if I have anything to add. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose As per my comments directly above, and in addition: We just had a long and bitter debate over the name change, we don't need to have another one now when the situation hasn't changed at all. There are multiple sources with both names, there is no [WP:COMMONNAME] yet and probably won't be one for some time. In lieu of this, keeping civil war makes more sense because it is descriptive. As a student of IR I must also add that speaking strictly in terms of definitions, conflicts are between nation-states. When two groups within a state are fighting that is a civil war and nothing else, it is merely a question of degree. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (redacted)Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Also against WP:CIVIL, and I am disappointed. =/ Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 21:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Shh. Polental (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly support Disregarding all of the bunk about whether or not this technically meets Wikipedia's definition of civil war (that isn't actually relevant at all), conflict is still more common than civil war. Most news agencies use both terms, though. So we need to look at what those terms mean: conflict can mean any sort of armed struggle and is a safe bet because there's no way this isn't a conflict. But although this may be a civil war in that it is an internal conflict among the same people, its political implications and the associated protests make it more accurately an uprising; the defection of Fatah Younis make it an abortive coup; the mass defections make it a revolt; and if it were to succeed it would be a revolution. So civil war is technically correct, but it doesn't portray the full story and also carries some misleading connotations, while conflict is generally safe to use and doesn't confuse the reader at all. Confusion with the Chad-Libya conflict seems like a stretch to me.--Henohenomoheji (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly beyond all human capacity to understand, also really big, huge -- in fact Actually I already posted a position above, but I think its funny to see the various strongs and bigs and such. -- Avanu (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly support A check of past 24 hrs Google for Libya+Conflict has 3X as many news items as Libya +Civil+War, & is neutral. As a current event, even the title may change several times. I agree with other points made above by Henohenomoheji.Red River Beach (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I just re-checked what I stated a day ago, Libyan+War nets 19,400 results, while Libyan+Civil War nets 12,400 on google news. That means Libyan War has 60% more hits than Libyan Civil War, not 3x as many. 174.114.87.236(talk) 18:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you. My Last Recheck: Google: Last week news re: Libya + Conflict =23,000; re: Libya + Civil + War =11,500. You might need to keep "+" between "civil" & "war", or articles may include those discussing Libya "civil rights", "civil strife" etc. Red River Beach (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC) With a + inbetween civil an war it lowers the result to 11,400. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Zanmaq (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose Conflict is a much more loosely used term, and this is a fight between two internal factions. There is a no fly-zone, not an invasion which would warrant the term 'Libyan War', in any case in the past foreign countries have intervened in civil wars, and the term has not been used (Sierra Leone). Also dont see why the year is in the title, should just be called the Libyan Civil War KP-TheSpectre (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose A Civil War is a precis kind of conflict. Kormin (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose It is a WAR, not a "conflict." Gadhafi even DECLARED it would be a long war!Booyahhayoob (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Support a move to Libyan War; contrary to the BBC using "conflict" as a term and this article title, this really is a war... -- 92.4.107.56 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose A civil war occurs between citizens of the same country, which is the case here. Full stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigb0x (talk •contribs) 21:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose, From the Webster's dictionary definition of civil war : " a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" This is the same definition that Wikipedia itself uses to describe civil war. You have members of the same country, who all consider themselves Libyans, engaged in conventional armed warfare. To label this a "conflict" diminishes both the significance and scale of what is happening in that country. I wouldn't oppose removing 2011 from the title, provided that there hasn't been any previous civil wars in Libya's history.MCQknight (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2011 (MWT) Strongly Oppose, A civil war is a conflict, but not every conflict is a civil war. A civil war occurs between citizens of the same country, which is the case in this event.Barbarbaron (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support*. "Conflict" is a better description of this war. 24.74.146.253(talk) 03:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support*. "Conflict" is a better description of this war. Dmarquard (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Does it really matter which name is being used more? From what I've reviewed from this discussion, both names are being used, and, though "Conflict" is used more often, "Civil War" is also being used by reliable and well-known sources. At this point, I don't think it really matter about the numbers and statistics (though still useful nonetheless). In my opinion I think I we should continue with "Civil War" since two, organized factions of the same country are at war with each other. It isn't as general as a "Conflict" of Libya's or a "War" related in some, major way to Libya. Oppose--Dalaru (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose The use of 'conflict' downplays the actuality of the situation, which indeed is a civil war (and from what I see, the term the media is referring to it as). --BignBad 04:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose To refer to this as nothing but a mere "conflict" is disrespectful and a slap in the face to those Libyans who have fought, suffered, and died in this terrible war. Even if foreign intervention somehow made it no longer suitable to call the fighting in Libya a civil war (which I don't think it does; look at the Spanish Civil War which involved foreign intervention)it would still be a war. Muammar Gaddaffi and the rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani have referred to the fighting as a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.17.116(talk) 06:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I don't see why people are so afraid of using the term 'civil war' even when so many media use it. Andreas Willow (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose. This is very much a civil war now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose. The notion that Google hits rather than facts determine nomenclature is completely mind-boggling. By any possible measure, this is a civil war. Valadius (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose. By all definition this is a civil war, as for foreign participation, more than 100 000 Czechoslovak soldiers participated in Russian civil war and tens of thousands of Polish soldiers which intervened in areas of Belarus and even Ukraine. Much smaller forces that will ever step foot on the Libyan soil. --89.173.16.218 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose It is not true that civil wars usually involve secession. Russian civil war in 1918-20 did not for instance. In Libya, both sides are claiming to be legitimate governments of the whole country, control parts of it's territory and are engaged in warfare to "liberate" the whole coutry. It is a classic case of a civil war. --88.196.30.49(talk) 06:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly OpposeWhile most nations recognize Gadaffi as the sole legitimate gov of Libya, some recognize the rebels as the sole legit gov. Calling it a conflict would detract from the true nature of this war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.121.39(talk) 02:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support Libyan War. Zhaoni (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC) As it stands right now, 27 support, 42 oppose. Not counting the support from the post immediately above this which is for a different name entirely, or the duplicate support from 24.74.146.253 and Dmarquard (they posted in succession with identical text, I counted 1 vote for support). A couple of the opposes are suspect to me, 89.173.16.218 and 88.196.30.49 posted back to back and both made mention of the russian civil war. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC) The tag says; "Before you vote, please ensure you provide rationale based on policy," I wonder if a non-involved Editor could tally up exclusively the votes backed by a Wikipedia:Article titles policy rationale? I think that would be at least as relevant a statistic because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I'm disappointed to see that most of the oppose votes seem to be based on personal interpretation or synthesisof reported events against the definition of a civil war instead of addressing Wikipedia policy as they're required to do.TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I believe there is quite a few wikipedia based policies on not slinging around wikipedia policy at eachother. The people who have voted expressed their opinion on WP:COMMONNAME by default, to argue that your interpretation of the rules is the only right one is a waste of time. Also, comparing the definition of a civil war to the ongoings in libya is perfect legitimate, as surely as looking at a map and saying this is happening in libya is legitimate. [WP:SYNTH]] says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." WP:SYNTH is about combining two or more sources to draw a conclusion, not looking at a source and interpreting the results. Interpretation is innate in consciousness, you can't read or understand anything without doing it. All you are doing is accusing one person of synthesizing becauase they disagree with you. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not at all suggesting people are using synthesis because they disagree with me. 'Civil War' is not a universally clear term. It has a wide differing range of criteria depending on who you ask, and even in political and academic circles it's still debated. The synthesis being employed by people here is taking particular definitions (eg. the Wikipedia article on civil war, or the UN definition of non-international conflict), what you might call source A, and applying them to the descriptions seen in newspaper articles of individual facts (eg. the number of people dead, whether or not the rebels have de facto governance over territory), what you might call source B, to come to a synthetic conclusion C that the events in Libya should be called a civil war. That is synthesis, per Wikipedia's policies. What is not synthesis is that some reliable sources do refer to the events as a civil war. This fact is perfectly legitimate in arguing the case here, but it's also easily countered by the evidence that suggests that there are a greater number of equally reliable sources that do not refer to the events as a civil war, including some that expressly say that it is not (yet) considered one. I've stated my vote previously and I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by compelling counter-argument, but thus far the majority (not all) of the counter-arguments fail to respect Wikipedia's policies. You may considered it rules-lawyering, but the policies are there for a reason and there's been no compelling arguments to bypass them on this occasion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC) This is exactly the point. I'd go further and say that the -only- thing to be considered here is WP:COMMONNAME. If this progresses so that it's commonly called a civil war I'd eagerly support changing it to that but it it isn't the case now. Whether appeals to definitions are WP:SYNTH or WP:OR doesn't really matter since this article should be exclusively titled by its common name. It is not wikipedia's role or policy to judge and decide what the reality is or isn't but simply to represent the opinions and knowledge that is out there. Equilibrium007 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The problem here is that this entire move request isn't entirely based on wikipedia policy, and that has invited people to argue to the contrary without using policy. The user who initiated this offered 3 justifiations for why it shouldn't be called a civil war 1) google results 2) that its "orwellian double speak" bc the international community is involved and 3) that more news sources use the term conflict. #1 doesn't matter, nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it say that google results deterine a commonname, and that page specifically links to WP:GOOGLE which discusses the faults and dangers of drawing conclusions from google results. #2 doesn't matter bc it is the same argument as "this is the definition of civil war therefore this is a civil war" except reversed to "this is the definition of a civil war therefore this is not one". #3 is the real point of contention, except the problem is that there are multiple authoritive sources calling it a civil war and multiple authoritive sources calling it a conflict. The problem is thus that there is no commonname to use, unless we can say some sources are more authoritive than others or establish what the cut off for an acceptable amount of sources is. The bottom line is the title shouldn't have been changed from uprising so quickly.174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I believe you raise a good point, insofar as the "Orwellian double speak" justification is totally inappropriate and, as you say, exactly of a piece with the invalid oppose !votes on semantic grounds (as opposed to the proper grounds of widespread usage in relevantWP:RS). After that I think your point breaks down for lack of suggesting a better way to poll the good and recent sources. In those sources covered by Google News, the incidence of "conflict" over "civil war" has only increased and is now at more than 4-to-1 ([54]-to-597). The argument is not that Google News is a perfect index, it is that (1) a human browser can quickly go through (see the discussion) and confirm that "conflict" is widely used in A+++ WP:RS like BBC, Reuters, etc., etc., (2) Google News is better than any other poll ofWP:RS that has been suggested, (3) the more than 4-to-1 advantage on Google News is simply too lopsided, so that your (apparent) point -- that despite this lopsided result, a strict application of WP:COMMONNAME according to better-than-Google-News criteria would find that the less-than-1-to-4 alternative is in actual fact "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" -- is just not plausible. At the risk of tedium, I repeat the Wikipedia policy criterion: "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I am open to an argument that really supports the position that "Libyan civil war" satisfies that criterion better than "Libyan conflict." I don't see it at all in this discussion. Failing that, Google News' lopsided results in the news media is at least something to go on. Wareh (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I'm glad you agree with the orwellian double speak not being relevant, that helps us narrow things down. Now again as I have said before, google is not a good measure because there are too many different ways to search for something. The relevance of google in this request to move is predicated on the notion that google news is more relevant than a general google search, and that is dubious at best. As I pointed out above, WP:GOOGLE offers some important commentary on the use of search engines: "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." "Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects." "Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. Google indexes self created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that is mandatory and applies to all articles, and all article-related editorial activity. As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." You're right though I failed to offer an alternative criteria, and I was thinking about that after my post. Instead of relying on google results I believe we should tally up a list of actual sources that we can find that use conflict and use civil war, instead of relying on the accuracy and neutrality of google. I did a quick search yesterday and found that CNN, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, TheGlobeAndMail, The Economist, Time Magazine, and The National Post have all used the term civil war in their headline and I think these sources are as least as credible as the BBC and Reuters. As for the point of the tide turning in the usage, Reuters has said the US is now warning of a civil war: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-libya-protests-idUSTRE71G0A620110301so I don't think we can call an end to that debate just yet. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (1) I wondered about your list and decided to check the Guardian, but I found that itsmost recent Libya story uses the term "conflict" and not "civil war." I can only assume that some of the other items in your list are also using "conflict" in their reporting. (2) The Wikipedia policy is to canvass English-language reliable sources in general. While the cautions against crude use of Google are well taken, I suspect you'd probably admit that the majority of the 3000 hits are, in fact, reliable sources (despite bloggy and dodgy exceptions here and there). How can you imagine that a more careful count can overcome the fact that more than 80% of these mostly-reliable sources prefer "Libyan conflict" to "Libyan civil war"? My conclusion is that you're not offering anything against the lopsidedness/plausibility argument here. My most charitable construction of your position is that "the best sources" (as opposed to "the greatest number of merely-good sources," which would stick closer to the WP:COMMONNAME formulation) use "civil war," but that does not seem to be a valid generalization. Wareh (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC) You'll notice that the guardian story says "Government forces pushed the rebels back from Brega again on Tuesday, continuing the stalemate in the conflict." Its using conflict in a general sense not "libyan conflict" as a title such as BBC has done. I think we should restrict any argument for renaming the page to sources which say "libyan conflict" as a proper name and not merely use the word "conflict" within the source. You bring up a good point, and I will explain the value of tallying results from our efforts and not from google news. I did a more thorough searching of google news with the term "libyan conflict" (I used quotes), and found that a significant number of the 2467 results for that term were multiple news articles from the same core group of sources (BBC, The Associated Press, Reuters). I'm sure you would agree that any effort to determine how common a name is should look at how many sources use the term, and not how often a single source re-uses the term. Secondly, I also found that past the first few pages of search results most of the sources come from such distinguished "English-language reliable sources" as "sify.com" "blogcritics.org" "neontommy.com" "east african business week" "texasgopvote.com" "black star news" "bet.com" "steelguru.com" I won't keep going... This small sample shows us a few important things. 1) Google considers entertainment sites as news sites 2) Google considers blog websites news sites 3) Google counts non-major english language news sources which few people here probably consider to be either major sources or authoritive sources. I therefore re-affirm that we should provide our own tally of sources which use the terms "libyan conflict" and "libyan civil war" as a proper name. If you wish to disregard the authority of news sources alltogether and simply pick whichever term is used more offen then I suggest you have a look at the regular google results for "libyan civil war" http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22libyan+civil+war%22&aq=f&aqi=g1g-c1g3g-m1&aql=&oq= (1,630,000) to "libyan conflict" http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22libyan+conflict%22&aq=f&aqi=g2g-s2g2g-s1g3&aql=&oq= (1,120,000)174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Support - Most other printed and electronic media speak of "conflict", "uprise" or "fighting", the term "civil war" is very rarely used. WP is by definition not the place for wp:original research - and this is what calling this conflict a "civil war" means. It's really that simple. --Edoe (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I'm not 100% sure it can properly be called a "civil war", due to the EXTREME amounts of outside intervention, but on the other hand, "conflict" does not seem like the appropriate term. And calling it the "Libya War" is likely way too politically charged. So for now, status quo. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Support: I want it to stay civil war, but recognize I am biased in saying so. I would agree with "war" but unfortunately we do not know enough of the background to either side of the force to state for a fact that there are full states on each side. Khadafi may be employing the current regime, but not necessarily have state support. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Trajega (talk •contribs) 14:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose: I believe the term civil war is more appropriate to describe the current situation in Libya.Soldier198 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Soldier198 Support. "Conflict" seems to be used more often in the media. GreyHood Talk 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Comment I have done a search of "libyan conflict" and "libyan civil war" and tried to find as many news results for either as possible. Right now, I am disregarding how many articles a certain source has referring to either one. I am only going to list sources that use the term at least once.: Conflict: http://www.abc.net.au/, http://www.bbc.co.uk/, http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/, http://www.foxnews.com/,http://www.guardian.co.uk/, http://www.inquirer.net/, http://www.thenational.ae/, http://www.npr.org/,http://www.nytimes.com/, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/, http://www.politics.co.uk/, http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/,http://www.therepublic.com/, http://www.reuters.com/, http://www.smh.com.au/, , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, Civil War: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/, http://www.cnn.com/, http://www.foxnews.com/, http://www.irishtimes.com/,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ This is probably not a very accurate list, so if there are sources that I have missed or sources that should/shouldn't belong here, please just say so. I would also like to cite WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I don't think we must adhere strictly to what is most common or the most used in order to improve this article.--Dalaru (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I thank you very much for creating this list, I think this is the right thing to do. To the Civil War side I would add thehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com (perhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-no-fly-zone-could-prevent-a-libyan-bloodbath/article1939210/). The economist has two blogs that say civil warhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/rhetoric_intervention andhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/humanitarian_intervention as well as listing libya under its "civil wars" index (http://www.economist.com/topics/civil-wars). Time Magazine uses civil warhttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058832,00.html (though it does say "in partnership with CNN", so that might be counting 1 source as 2). ABC News (Australia) has also used civil war, though it did say 'civil war'http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/07/3157475.htm . The http://dailymail.co.uk has used civil war on several occasions, but I leave it up to someone else ot determine whether that source is authoritive. I think its also important to note that Russia's foreign minister called this a civil war as well http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72R0QW20110328174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose This is not a coined by wikipedia term and has all the makings of a civil war, heck you even have two governments here in Libya now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Discussion Is there another place we can take this to get Wikipedian input on it, or some appeals process or something? Zhaoni(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can put a tag up requesting input from editors like they do in the Policy area. I'm not sure how to do that though. I'm also not sure why these edits were made either. [55][56] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Someone had posted an RfC, but it was about removing the move request notice. The problem here isn't a lack of input; if anything, it's the reverse, and I re-removed the tag from the article in accord with our (admittedly small) discussion last time. The 'appeals process' would be the Arbitration Committee as far as I know. Regarding the pictures, Ithink the cockroach was a reference to an earlier section by an IP about Gaddafi calling his people cockroaches. Since we're on the topic of confusing edits, I apologise for undoing the removal of Libyan War from the section title. I was unaware it had been added by yet another IP. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC) We should ask them about this issue. Zhaoni (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC) The next step in the "appeals process" would be Wikipedia:Mediation committee. However, I personally don't see any need forDispute resolution, here. We're collectively discussing the issue, and will continue to discuss the issue. If people avoid getting all worked up into a moral panic over the name of this article then there isn't really a problem, now is there? Really, the article's title isn't that big of a deal, is it? Besides, comparatively speaking, there's hardly any conflict (no pun intended) around this issue at all. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) You pop in every few days don't you? =p Like I said up top, I don't really care what the name is, so long as it is the best name put by the sources, though I'm not sure why I'm debating so much. =p I think arbitration is for stuff that causes killings in the real world like Israel-Palestine, Macedonia naming, Kosovo, anything Serbian related in the 90's etc. Stuff where you will have death threats and the like here. It can get heated here, sure, but it's not worthy of arbitration. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I agree 100% with User:Ohms law's observations about some people perhaps being in a "moral panic" over the title. Can someone please explain to me why? anyone would be in such a moral panic over such a matter? Obviously the solution, as Ohms law says, is to avoid such a panic, but I am just curious as to how and why such feelings would even exist? If anyone has an explanation, I'd like to hear it so I can maybe understand better the nuances and ramifications of a title change request.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, that's easy. There's a shooting war going on, and people are dying! Don't you know, we have to do something about that! Nevermind the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the UN General Assembly... *roll eyes*. I know that there's been quite a bit of acronym speak thrown around already in these discussions, but there are (always) some people who become involved in these current events articles who really need to read and understand Wikipedia's Editing policy. Sorry for the minor rant here, but... — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) In other words, typical internet drama you would find on any forum on the internet (though it is A LOT more calm than on other forums). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Compromised Votes Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paliku, it seems Polenta and Zhaoni were one and the same. One editor, one vote, or should his votes be discounted entirely? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Technically, none of these statements are supposed to really be votes, but just input into the direction of the article. If the media started consistently calling this a "chicken pot pie", we would have to change the name to that, despite the number of 'votes', per reliable sources (even though I think the reliable sources standard is lacking). We have about 4 zillion votes already though, so it hardly matters that someone was trying to game the results a little (unless everyone above is). -- Avanu (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I know it's not a vote, but I couldn't think of another term to use at the as I was and still am working on a rather nice headache at the moment (and the Advil Migraine Extra Strength didn't do jack to help it), though maybe opinion could have worked. =( Plus you know I know about that bit as I always cite WP:COMMON all over the place. =p Are we sure admins and such won't treat it like a vote though? I mean ideally they would do stuff by policy and disregard the OR stuff, but not all are the same of course. Then again I don't really know. =p I wasn't sure what you do when you have concensus survey and someone is found to have used multiple accounts.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! Lets read WP:COMMON today.De Openteeth (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Good luck with that, I've been barking up that tree for about a month. Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 21:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Are these all sockpupets? They have been buggering about in Egypt, Libya and the Mortal Combat gameWipsenade (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC). User talk:94.246.150.68 User:Sarurahn User:Seruru User:HanzoHattori[[57]] [[58]][[59]] User:SuperblySpiffingPerson[[60]] User:Paliku[[61]] Well?Wipsenade (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Further discussion Just to let everyone interested know, I've started a dedicated draft "Requested move" page at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move. This issue obviously isn't going to go away; even if the current discussion results in a decision, ongoing events are likely to cause opinions and our sources to change. This requested move is actually supposed to be closing now, but with (in my opinion) the lack of any significant consensus, and the general backlog at WP:RM, it may be a while before someone uninvolved actually closes this discussion. When that does happen however, someone should open the dedicated page for discussion. Regards, — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Compromised votes revisited and possible sock puppets

Are these all sockpuppets? They have been buggering about in Egypt, Libya and the Mortal Combat game.Wipsenade (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

• User talk:94.246.150.68
• User:Sarurahn
• User:Seruru
• User:Gaddafipeace
• User:HanzoHattori[[62]][[63]][[64]]
• User:SuperblySpiffingPerson[[65]]
• User:Paliku[[66]]

Well, will it spead to Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move next?!Wipsenade (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

GadaffiPeace was Superb's and he has had a two week ban put in place whereas Paliku has recieved the mighty banhammer. Most of the others are banned as well, so no worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)