Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 12

Muammar Gaddafi has arrived to Belarus?
According to Charter97 a military plane from Libya arrived to Belarus on September 26. Närking (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Impossible, all flights to, in and from Libya are monitored by NATO. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it IS possible, but until it is CONFIRMED it shouldn’t be mentioned. (I haven’t seen anything about it in a couple days, so it may be confirmed by now.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything is possible, but I haven't seen any other report about it yet. But I will keep my eyes open. Närking (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing the timeline info to say the war mostly ended in early October.
The Timeline shouldn't say present anymore except with a small note saying small mop up operations contiune for the NTC. cause a vast majority of the war is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicevan (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The NTC itself disagrees. Jibril said yesterday (Libyan time) that the government would consider Libya to be liberated with the fall of Sirte and immediately begin the democratic transition, while considering holdouts in Bani Walid and the Sahara to be rogue elements and dealing with them accordingly. But Sirte hasn't fallen yet, and it might not fall for several days or even weeks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability
Please respect Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:V. Wikipedia is not an NTC leaflet. For instance, take this sentence: "Libyan citizen journalist Mohammed Nabbous was shot in the head by Gaddafi's soldiers..." There is no evidence (much less a court verdict) of who shot Nabbous, so please remove that part of the statement.--217.157.165.109 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This event was as such reported by all reliable sources and so it is written here as such.--EllsworthSK (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

CLASHES IN ZWARA ?
There are reports of renewed clashes in Zwara between NTC and loyalists forces. Also, NTC consolidated the full control of Ghat 180.183.120.55 (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for these? Jeancey (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I heared the same thing about Zwara from guy which was passing from Ras Idjir to Tripoli yesterday but however it werenr clashes but shelling from nearby town which was inflitrated by pro-G elements and was dealt with today after what reinforcements from Tripoli arrived. However, beside few pictures I have no source and it wasn´t anything major so we can let it go. As for Ghat, I´d like a source for it as well. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. There have been some clashes following an attack with GRAD missiles. As for Ghat, the source is this Tripolitan organization,but I am not sure if it's good enough (check the updates in the center-right of the page). http://wmclibya.org/

BTW Today according to Al Jazeera-which is a reliable source-, Mutassim Ghaddafi fled Sirte towards southern Libya, one of his convoy was captured by NTC. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya  180.183.120.55 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide direct link on article on WMClibya.org which says something about Ghat because I was unable to find anything there. As for AJE Live Blog, south of Libya is 99 percent vast uninhabited desert. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Libyan transition
It is need to create a specific article to collect information about the power transition, political forces, political moves, incidents, etc. The transitional phase is as important as the war itself, and need an independent coverage and article to let us work smoothly. Yug (talk)  05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

After the capture of Sirte and the promised declaration of "liberated Libya" by NTC, we might consider start this chapter. But I am afraid unless Ghaddafi is captured, guerrilla and clashes in some parts of the country will go on. So,let's wait for the right time to do that.180.183.127.41 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree (with the caveat that as soon as active fighting has ended, with or without the capture or killing of GHADDAFI, that the page should be created ASAP).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention of contributions of Turkey
Turkey is mentioned only one throughout the article. However Turkey is one of the major players of the civil war.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan is a belligerent of this war. Turkey arranged several meetings in Istanbul. Please see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/15/c_13987890.htm and http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Diplomats-Meet-in-Turkey-to-Discuss-Libyas-Future-128427383.html

In addition Turkey provided 300 million USD in cash to NTC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html). This should be added to the funding table because it is a bigger then France.--Starcrescent (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find that information in the articles Foreign relations of Libya and 2011 military intervention in Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Death of Abdullah Senussi
Alert Net and other sources have reported that Abdullah Senussi has been killed in battle. Should we add the (KIA) to his name in the info-box. 50.129.89.173 (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How about a link to your source first? 97.92.36.131 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some links. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-libya-senussi-idUSTRE77S60820110829 and http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/rebels-believe-gaddafi-intelligence-chief-is-dead.  Sorry about that.  I did not know how to insert a link at first.  50.129.89.173 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For Clarity
I am essentially proposing the article be expanded to include the following (which can be copied an pasted mostly as-is, though with some expansion). (I have removed the other sections that this includes.) ++Aftermath++

++Impact++

GHADDAFI’S removal from power…

+++Casualties and war crimes+++

No final tally of the casualties of the conflict could be confirmed…

Or

In the final tally, …

In terms of war crimes, …

+++Home fronts and production+++

During the conflict, Lybian production was reduced, especially of their main export (oil)…

+++Advances in technology and warfare+++

Extensive use of technicals (civilian or military non-combat vehicle modified to provide an offensive capability), many with improvised armor (an attempt to improve survivability) by loyalist and anti-Gaddafi forces was seen to move to and fro on the desert terrain. They quickly become the vehicle of choice for both sides (despite the use of tanks and helicopters). Medium flatbed trucks carrying the Soviet-made towed quad barreled ZPU and twin barreled ZU-23-2 guns, recoilless rifles, and UB-32 helicopter rocket launcher pods were the most common seen; In the case of rocket launchers, low-tech devices were improvised to activate the weapons (such as the use of doorbells). Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing map
The status quo overview map has served this article well, but at this point it conveys no information other than "Bani Walid surrounded, fighting in Sirte". A map that doesn't say more than six words isn't worth the screen space.

Instead we should look towards compiling a map that shows an overview of the developments during March to September. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Such as an animation (but one with a LOT of frames)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just remove it, this situation has always been too dynamic to be properly conveyed in a map. Vietminh (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

this map is ridiculous. today there was reported heavy fightings inside of tripolis. there are no rebels left in sirte. etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FRIENDLY FIRE CASUALITIES
I suggest to mention the high toll of casualities due to friendly fire and unexperience by local FF. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/oct/14/libya-muammar-gaddafi In the battle of Sirte there have been many casualities as such and also during celebrations in Tripoli there have been many casualities due to bullets shot for celebration.

It worths mentioning that.180.183.53.77 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No Democracy wanted
Please take notice german media reported http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/libyenkonflikt102.html USA and NTC rejected offers for international observed elections and peace.

Also it breaks international law to intervene a civil war. Period. This should be considered in one of the first sentences, since this is an obvious fact and outstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What do I expect - neutral source
So plz. Zawya is green... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want that added, you will need to provide a source. Jeancey (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok CIA worker Jeancey;)

Before and after will be presented ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Maps soon to be out-dated
Seeing the Civil war is drawing to a close with almoist all of Libya under the NTC's control my proposal is to create new maps that show dates of the battles (area of control over time in a time lapse photo maybe?) or something of the sort, does anyone have any other ideas for this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan, Knowledgekid87. I'd favor a time-lapse GIF of the entire country and separate maps based on the existing Gulf and Tripolitania front maps showing lines of control and dates (like the ones for Misrata and Tripoli). -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me and I would support that as well. Something needs to be done as almost all of the maps now show majority pink/red and are not very useful to describe the event as a whole anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent change in name to uncapitalized 2011 Libyan civil war (as opposed to the original Civil War) and Move Requests (Consolidated)
Clearly a fair number of people are dissatisfied with the current name, though there's been no clear consensus to move. Perhaps first we should decide, if we want it moved, which name do we want? The proposals, from status quo to most radical, have been:


 * 2011 Libyan civil war
 * Libyan civil war (2011)
 * Libyan Civil War
 * 2011 Libyan revolution
 * Libyan Revolution
 * split into civil war and revolution articles

Can we maybe narrow down the possibilities? — kwami (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I say reopen the Libyan Civil War one, it's probably the best out of all of those (see my comments in it before it was closed,) and it was the only one with no oppose votes (I think.) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a difficult situation now, I think we should wait at least a little. Also, as I saw, the articles about the two revolutions occurred earlier during the Arab Spring are called the Tunisian revolution and the 2011 Egyptian revolution. So if we agree to call it a revolution, we should keep these in line and change to Libyan revolution. (If we decide to call Gaddafi's coup in 1969 a revolution, than 2011 Libyan revolution.) Or change the two other articles to start all the words with capitals as well. But I think we should wait now, see what happens in Sirte and Fezzan in the next weeks and what will be the fate of Gaddafi and his sons. Beleszólok (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think 2011 Libyan revolution is best choice for title. Sayerslle (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Find something less useless to focus on. This is a stupid, pointless, and worthless discussion, since the final title will come along on it's own without you guys feeling the need to determine it for the world. Work on some actual valuable contributions instead of haggling about this. I almost 100% sure you probably can find some rather dull and mindless subject that will keep you occupied without having to fill the page with move discussions that add nothing of substance to the article. Rant done, but really people.... -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ^I couldn't have put it better myself... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs to be renamed simply "Libyan Civil War", unless there has ever been another Civil War since 1951 (and I don't know of any). Dates like this are only relevant to differentiating similar events, but there are no similar events. --Hibernian (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See also: Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 10 there were other civil wars and even then it was suggested to wait for the conflict to end. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I have seen no widespread use of "Libyan Civil War" in reliable news sources, just "civil war in Libya" or "Libyan civil war". Its use as a proper noun is not the common trend. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But it is the trend on Wikipedia. American Civil War.  Spanish Civil War.  Sri Lankan Civil War. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those other conflicts are used as proper nouns in reliable sources. My point stands. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No way to tell that they aren't using it as a proper noun, too (no way to tell if something on the radio is capitalized...) I still say it should be "Libyan Civil War". Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to any move. Just because the civil war turned out favourable to the rebels doesn't suddenly change it to a 'revolution'. Many civil wars resulted in a regime change (e.g. Spanish Civil War, English Civil War) but we don't call those 'revolutions'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think its also too early to tell what this will go down in history as. When the NTC forms a government and all the land is under their control then I can see discussions being brought back up about recent RS names for this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose In the interim, at least. I’d be more comfortable waiting until this thing plays out, THEN decide how to proceed (rename, split, etc). In point of fact, I’m opposed to any edits to the page in any way, shape, or form for the next 6 months to see what pays out in the interim.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose to the recent uncapitalization of Civil War. Save for one poorly formatted exception, there is no precedent whatsoever to not capitalize the words Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars Dan Wang (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bani Walid seized by Anti-Gaddafi Forces
Al Jazeera reporting Anti-Gaddafi victory over most of Bani Walid: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/2011101713437351911.html 38.112.107.215 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I say we keep it blue until it's confirmed that all of Bani Walid is functionally under the control of the anti-Gaddafists. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Source claiming the fall of Bani Walid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8832220/Libya-Gaddafi-stronghold-Bani-Walid-falls-NTC-forces-claim.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.1 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

When should we consider the war to be over?
When fighting stops, when Gaddafi is captured, or when a formal agreement is reached? --Polmas (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It will have to be based on WP:RS. I'm sure that once Sirte falls, the NTC will declare victory, but Gaddafi will very likely remain at large and Bani Walid will still be under the control of Gaddafi loyalists. We'll just have to see what RS say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, RS may look like a good idea but it isn´t so because there won´t be uniteral view on this issue just as there wasn´t on Iraq war. However I´d say when the fighting is over and when loyalist units are reduced to guerillas and control no perimeter in country (meaning currently Sirte and Bani Walid), --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking of starting a discussion section about this but you guys beat me to it. Anyway, here's what I am thinking:


 * I concur with the above conditions - i.e. when both Sirte and Bani Walid have fallen, the war is over. I also agree that the NTC will probably declare victory when Sirte falls.
 * Just because Gaddafi and co. remain uncaptured, doesn't mean the war isn't over - the war is truly for control of the country, not the man.
 * I think the best use of the discussion here is to prevent edit warring over the actual status of the conflict. We have seen this problem with other parts of this article - let's not repeat it.
 * What did you mean by "a formal agreement being reached", e.g. when Gaddafi agrees it is over - which will never happen, or when RS agree it is over, or when there is WP:CON that is over?


 * One final note of caution, for all the posturing we can do right now, remember that the conditions for victory/war end, however unlikely, could still change. Therefore, don't assume any agreement on terms here are final. -Noha307 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree; As long as GHADDAFI is alive, there is a real possibility that he may stage a counter-revolution or (another) coup d’état. I submit that once active fighting has ceased we wait 6-8 months to see if it’s really over, and how those involved are treating the situation.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Lets see, Rwandan civil war ended when Tutsi rebels pushed out Hutu army from Rwanda, not when leaders of Hutu militia and army were captured/killed nearly a decade later. Same goes for nearly all civil wars in African - enemy combatants are pushed out of country/destroyed and military operations stops, war is over. So far on NTC held territories we can see in 2 months 1 insurgency attack which ended after few hours, meaning comparision with post-invasion Iraq or Afghanistan stands on no ground. With Bani Walid now down only Sirte remaing and lets be honest - that will fall within days, loyalist fighters are running out of food, ammo, men and neigbourhood they are stationed in is beeing razed to the ground. After that, I believe, we can end the war. As for G himself, he´s not the first, nor the last internationaly wanted criminal on run. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, hat's so, no you're wrong.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right. MG is capable of anything, but regarding Wikipedia being "better" than the weekly world news, It's not a matter of being better ,it's a matter of being DIFFERENT. A daily news bulletin is different from a Encyclopedia. Thanks God we have both of them ! 180.183.142.239 (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

MOTASSIM GADDAFI POW ?
Well, the piece of news is still to be confirmed amidst contradictory news. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya This Libyan war will be remembered as the double-war, one on the field and another one of rumors.180.183.119.47 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Mutassim is dead along with his daddy. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bombings in Sirte
The Pravda.ru reported that 2% of the population of Sirte was killed by NATO bombings, i guess this should be added on "Humanitarian Situation" Source: Pravda.ru 177.9.187.70 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Two things here. One, it's Pravda, the name of which is virtually synonymous with "propaganda". Two, it's a commentary piece, and the writer makes a number of outlandish claims without ever citing a source. I don't think it meets the criteria of WP:RS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As Lothar once wrote - Pravda, eto ne pravda. Pravda reported that Misrata has fallen, that there are gignatic battles happening in Tripoli, that Sabha, Gharyan, Zlitan, Tobruq and most of Benghazi are under G control. If that ain´t enough bollocks for you I don´t know what is. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sirte Captured
Sirte has been captured according to AP and Aljazeera, but is this the end of the war? Should we wait until Jalil announces the liberation of Libya? Also, I updated the map and some of the article to reflect the capture of Sirte. --Skipbox (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The NTC is careful not to announce the end of the conflict, and we should do the same. Apparently, Gaddafi is lurking somewhere in southern Libya and gathering tribal mercenaries. Until they capture Gaddafi, he can potentially still cause a lot of damage.

But with the main conflict is over, there is no point in showing a map of the "current frontline", as there is none. Instead, we should compile a map summarizing the major developments, February to October. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The War is over! Change the page to stating that the war completed on October 20th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.17.219 (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this was via edit conflict? See WP:V. We want to claim all major cities are under NTC control, that's fine, there are plenty of news reports stating just that. But a civil war isn't necessarily over if all major cities are controlled by one side. See Afghanistan, or any guerilla war. These can be drawn out for years if the "rebels" (meaning, at this point, the Gaddafi forces trying to overthrow the current government) can hide away in remote areas. You want to claim "the war is over", you will need excellent references saying just that. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New map suggestions
I am the creator of most maps of the conflict and I intend on creating one last map now the war is almost over. What would be better: an animated gif or a map showing front lines' development similat to the Tripoli one?--  R a f y  talk 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * please, no animated gif. These are terrible for inclusion as thumbnails. An overview map of the major developments would be much preferable. Perhaps label major cities with the date when they changed allegiance / were captured, perhaps colour coded by month (Feb to Oct). --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How about one with the dates over the cities like the mountains map. An animated GIF is not that good. --Skipbox (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Id say the frontlites thing would be better. If you do need any help do not hesitate to contact me. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion is to colour the map according to when the different areas were captured. The colour wavelength could be made to correspond to the timeline. The reason is that colours are easier to see even within a thumbnail. Text is notoriously mangled in pictures. A link to an animated gif would be neat thoe. Electron9 (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Revolution
Oh Come on guys¡¡¡..I think it is fair to say that this is right now a Revolution...why do not make the changes?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.105.62 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a revolution. But the conflict, which this article covers, was a civil war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

¿Where Did My Section Go?
¿Where did my section on “after the war” go? It was much less than 20 days old, and I hadn’t added it yet as there were no comments (in support, opposition, or something else entirely), meaning someone removed it.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that section, do you know where it fit into the talk page? like which sections were before and after it? Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I misse dit becasue it's not section 16.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign intervention expenditure
Someone has messed up this section of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willknowsalmosteverything (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Prime Minister of Denmark
Denmark have just had elections and a new Prime Minister is in power. Shouldn't Helle Thorning-Schmidt now be listed in the infobox instead of Lars Løkke Rasmussen? Froztbyte (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Both should be listed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

the commander in chief of the Danish forces is the monarch of Denmark, the same can be said for the monarchs of the UK, should they also not be listed --Scottykira (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The same goes for Canada and Norway. But, apparently heads of state who follow ministerial advice are to be left out, as seems to have been decided here and here. Not my choice, but... -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

War over?
Isn't the war over now that all places have been taken by the rebel troops? Shouldn't that be said in the beginning? --Metron (User talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See above.
 * The article should state that all major cities are under NTC control, which is now consequently the de-facto government of all of Libya.
 * This isn't the same as claiming "the war is over". Gaddafi is still on the run, and he is reputedly trying to muster a force of 12,000 African mercenaries in southern Libya.
 * As long as Gaddafi hasn't been caught or killed, it will be hard to tell if the war is over or just on hiatus. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * that said, we are now clearly entering the "political" phase. There is an Associated Press report, google "trying to recruit", according to which Mahmoud Jibril claimed that 68 vehicles with fighters had crossed the border from Mali as part of Gaddafi's attempt to rebuild his fighting force. But we cannot know if the NTC isn't overblowing this in for political reasons. Because as soon as the war is over, there is going to be much political bickering and instability. So it will be in the NTC's (and probably, Libya's) interest to keep things in a state of "the fighting stopped, but the war isn't over yet" for as long as possible. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice someone has updated the article to give an end date and shift the language to past tense. None of the sources I've read so far confirm this viewpoint, rather the essence I've gotten from the sources is that there's still ongoing fighting between NTC forces and Gaddafi loyalists. Could someone provide some sources that explicitly state the civil war is over? The fact that Gaddafi is dead or that the NTC holds all major population centres does not mean the war is over. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the war over day would probably be 22 October. Sources indicate that the NTC will declare victory on saturday, which should be the date we use.  Shouldn't be considered over until then though, I think Jeancey (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point out where exactly in whole Libya is there ongoing fighting between NTC forces and pro-Gaddafi loyalists? Military operations ended, hence civil war ended. Morever military leaders are dead, government was overthrown, I dont really see what else is there to it. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen whether or not there will still be fighting. If the NTC is going to declare it over in 2 days, I don't see why that can't be considered the end, especially if THEY are considering it the end.  This might be the end of hostilities for the moment, but not the end of the war.  Keep in mind, in technical terms the koreas are still at war because no one has ever declared it over. Jeancey (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We follow the sources, not our own analysis. When reputable english language sources start reporting that the war is over, then its over. Using the NTC declaration of victory would be a) original research (it tells us that someone declared victory, not that the war is over) and b) undue weight, because other sources would not yet indicate that it is over. If the NTC declares victory that is most certainly worth mentioning, but we cannot draw conclusions from that, it would be against Wikipedia policy. Vietminh (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true, I submit to your judgement :) Jeancey (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding (POW) next to Saif Al-Islam's Name
Just a small note/request, but in the Belligerents box on the sidebar, there should be a (POW) next to Saif's name, because it was confirmed by NTC / The Justice Minister that he was captured.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.128.156 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Jeancey (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is far from being confirmed independently - the probably got it wrong the first time, and all major news networks still say he is probably still at large. 75.38.193.168 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis of Libyan offensive needed in lead
The lead is in desperate need of more info covering the Libyan-led advance; almost everything military-related is about the UN right now, even after I pruned a bunch of excessive info. That seems a bit lopsided for an article about a civil war. :) I haven't followed all the specific battles and such, so it would be nice if someone could add some info to flesh it out... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good point. I'll try and work something up if possible - though the article in general needs alot of work to make it the best it can be and that'll be a more long-term process which is dependent on the situation in Libya calming down before we can start writing concrete things about the conflict. Redverton (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's a lot of ambiguous information; e.g. the "rearguard campaign." I'm not sure if that's referring to Gaddafi's forces bottling up in Bani Walid and Sirte, or just the last few days in Sirte... (And don't know enough to know which to use in the lead, or I'd perhaps edit it and incorporate Gaddafi's death into mentioning things wrapping up in Sirte.) The other main problem seems to be a lack of Libya-centric information on the war between when the protests spread to August push, other than the UN no-fly zone being mentioned...quite a gap. :) (And again, I'm not sure which are the most important points to use there, since we can't stuff everything into the lead.) The lede (intro paragraph) itself looks decent I think, mainly need to summarize that gap between the initial push, re-take by Gaddafi, and re-re-take by rebels. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

When did the civil war begin?
The above is a query I've wondered about for sometime and, since this article is receiving as much attention as it ever will, now seems the right time to raise it.

When did the situation in Libya reach the point at which it can be defined as a civil war? Protests started on February 15, but protests do not in of themselves constitute the start of a civil war: after all, they weren't part of a pre-conceived plan on the way to a civil war. The protests happened and somewhere along the lines a civil war emerged. Perhaps when it started depends on whether this article is renamed to cover the wider pre/post-war Libyan Revolution (at which point I'd say the start date can be brought back right to the earliest set of protests) or whether the civil war and revolution are separated into different articles (e.g. Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War), but my guess is a civil war as is historically understood did not begin until one of these defining points. No real certainty on my part as to which one:

February 17 - 'Day of Revolt': the name for the successful push to increase the scale of the protests.

February 19 - Gaddafi forces withdraw from Bayda - the first area seemingly where protests turned into a direct usurpation of Gaddafi's control over an area in the country.

February 27 - National Transitional Council established, thus representing a clear break between sections of Libyan society into two opposing camps committed to opposing each other militarily.

If every set of initial protests were called a civil war, then plenty of articles on protests could be called civil wars despite failing rapidly. I guess that's the jist of what I'm getting at. In the end, maybe because of the fluidity and rapidity of how protests turned to civil war, it might best to stick with February 15 as the starting point. But, whatever the result, seems wise to get a consensus on this point before proceeding further in sprucing up the article. :) Redverton (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The war started at the very moment the conflict between loyalists and anti-Gaddafists started, that's 15 February. Most civil wars in history didn't start as wars but more of as civil unrests and later evolved into civil wars. In that respect, 15 February is a solid date. EkoGraf (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Massoud Abdelhafid's fate
Someone recently got rid of the KIA by the head of Libya's secret police saying that he was in Egypt. If that was true, then why was he leading the defenses of Sabha after he was reported to have fled http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8754761/All-eyes-on-the-desert-as-the-hunt-for-Gaddafi-continues.html? Can someone please find the answer and provide a source? 50.129.89.173 (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The KIA symbol was removed because no sources were provided that confirm he was killed. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed "2011 Libyan revolution" alternate from the lede...
Here's my rationale: normally, alternate names are used in this fashion for different *proper* names, and especially not for different names that are just generic synonyms in the case of things like events. (Or, in this case, a subset; the revolution is part of the civil war.) If there were multiple sources stating the name of this thing as the "Libyan Civil War" or "Libyan Revolution," I'd take that as a valid proper name, and if both were used, including the alternate would make sense.

However, we're really referring to the "Libyan civil war." Likewise, media mentions are the same; they refer to a "civil war" in Libyan and/or a "revolution" in Libya, not "the Libyan "... So, going back to the previous case, we're left as having two non-proper name synonyms, which really doesn't flow with the article nor does it make sense...since again, the civil war did indeed include and consist of a revolution. But we refer to it as a civil war, for reasons that have been discussed elsewhere... So no need for the synonym, especially when it's just being generically used in the media, since media mentions were the rationale to add it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good move, this will just spark a pointless debate that doesn't, and shouldn't, be undertaken right now. Vietminh (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And revert wars are less pointless than discussion on a talk page? – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "good move". Vietminh (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my sarcasm filter seems to have been a bit too sensitive, and registered a false positive... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Here's the deal:
 * While "revolution" is not the most common label for the conflict, it is certainly widely-used enough to warrant a mention in the lead.
 * Removing "revolution" ignores this significant viewpoint (and will likely cause issues with some editors).
 * The point about proper names is well taken. However, that is no reason to remove one of them outright.
 * I have made a compromise version. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I pulled some irrelevant refs from the "civil war" part, so it doesn't look quite as ugly and cluttered...but it still reads oddly to me. I'm not going to start an edit-war, but it'd still be nice to have a smoother lede without what feels like a "weird" compromise. Actually, I'd say it should either be the usual bolded text for both alternates, or just "civil war", not the odd intermediate... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What bugs me much more than the "revolution" question is the pompous claim that the "native name" of this war is "al-ḥarb al-ahlīyah fī Lībiyā ‘ām 2011". We give native names for *proper* names of article topics. While this is simply the straightforward Arabic translation of the English article title. It isn't even the article title on ar-wiki, which has the equivalent of "Revolution of 17 February". --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the native name. I believe it should only be used when the name is either official or verry common, which is not the case here. The current name of the Arabic article is taken from the Facebook page which originally called for protests. It is promoted by some Libyan and Arab youths who campaigned for the protests, though definitely not the most common name for the conflict in Arabic.--  R a f y  talk 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It says on this page that the civil war ended on 20-th of october. I found a source (CNN) however, that says the NTC will declare saturday to be the 'official date' Libya is free. Shouldn't that also mark the official end of the civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.91.20 (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should indeed mark the official end. However, it's just an announced date; it should not be added to the article until the NTC actually declares victory. I'm sure it'll be added in a timely fashion when that happens, since it will likely be breaking news... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I can't put the source link in here... I just pressed 'save page' but ik won't save it... This wikipedia is hopelesly complicated  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.91.20 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * this is splitting hairs in my opinion. Who says that the "start date" of the civil war was 15 February? After all, it's the "Revolution of 17 February". Yet nobody took issue with the 15 February date so far. Because giving or taking a day or two is really an arbitrary decision in such matters. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because protests and armed clashes started on 15th February in Al Bayda. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The NTC HAS sort of declared victory. The old regime is dead. Gadaffi is DEAD and most of his top supporters are in exile or have been either killed or co-opted. A revolution is a change of regime, right? In Egypt for instance, the only people to go were Mubarak and his immediate family (both literal and political). The government of Egypt as of now contain about 80% of the same people who were the government a year ago. The same with Tunisia, if the top guy and his family are gone, then it's a revolution. Remember, the new regime in Tunisia fell a few months after Zia did. Also remember that there were TWO Russian revolutions, one in February and one in October. THEN there was a civil war. In this case, the civil war is effectively over (the last Republicans in the Spanish hills didn't surrender until the early 1950s). If there's a revolt against the NTC, then it's an entirely DIFFERENT revolution. change the color back to black.Ericl (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualties section
It seems the line "NTC said 30.000 died, one month later, the NTC reduced the estimated number of killed to 25,000." is based only McCain briefly saying that "They've got thousands and thousands of wounded. They say that they've lost 25,000 people killed, 3000 have been maimed, 60,000 injured. That's their government figures," McCain told CBS television's Face the Nation program.

Is this really a good source? Could McCain have gotten the numbers wrong? Where did the 5.000 less casualties come from? The 30.000 number was given as 15.000 dead Ghaddafi soldiers, 5000 dead rebel soldiers and 10.000 civilians.

The NTC also stated that with the 30k number that "War wounded were estimated as at least 50,000, of which about 20,000 were serious injuries,", McCain puts this at 3000 maimed and 60.000 injured, shouldn't this be updated as well if we go with what he said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bani Walid
Seeing as the "Tripolitanian Front" map has become practically all red with a little green dot for Bani Walid, shouldn't we create a new map showing just Bani Walid, as was done for Sirte? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, thing are getting hot again in and around Tripoli:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.91.3 (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "getting hot", you mean a few dozen disgruntled Gaddafist hardliners-in-hiding decided to raise a brief fuss.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

the time will come you realize tripoli is green and the rebels are on the run. stay ignorant so i can enjoy the coming victory even more. you will learn your lesson if you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously don't you have a critical rationalness? how many times did they capture this or that person, take sirte and other "last strongholds" over and over again? even CNN is much more critically to NTC-reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.196.150 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About the map... Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, I think it would be a good idea to have a map. Media hasn't paid BW as much heed as Sirte, so it's dependent on there being reliable sources, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I must say that the pro gaddafi people on this are either brainwashed or deluded as evidenced in the above comments. The NTC control the whole country and Gaddafi is dead, his governments is gone. The War is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.243 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Zawya under green control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXyg317-NI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to verify that the place pictured is actually zawiya, or when the video was taken.... Jeancey (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rebel flag on one building is "all" day before ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And still no way to prove when the video was taken. Jeancey (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Under heavy censorship, it is amazing to news coming... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When a reliable source states that Zawiya has been taken by pro-gaddafi forces, it will be added. Jeancey (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeancey, if for you reliable source CNN and BBC.. in this case my grandma is very competent for discussion ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source would be any news agency, preferably several, with actual dates, names of sources, and verifiable information. Also, please stop adding new sections. Discussion can happen in this section. Jeancey (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"A reliable source would be any news agency, preferably several, with actual dates, names of sources, and verifiable information." of courese.. I just say - my grandma is very competent for all. All kidding aside .. where is your valid source, and it is not western or Al-Jazzier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You need a valid source to ADD information. You don't need a source to NOT add information. Jeancey (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And what is valid for you??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I already state what would be reliable. We have used Pro-Gaddafi TV sources to dispute deaths and captures before.  They atleast have dates, locations, and sources, unlike youtube videos.  If you want, you can see what makes up a reliable source at the wiki page WP:RS Jeancey (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course.. it is wiki :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.55.61 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The video you linked apparently shows anti-gaddafi forces, and it is from february. Thus, no changes.  end of discussion Jeancey (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeancey you show on your account pure anti-Gaddafi position.. so I think - you have not rights for any discussion... I'm just neutral, and I don't want your lies CIA worker ;)

That video is 6 months old. And great, this article is beeing spammed by bunch of trolls, thank god for this page beeing locked. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Zawiya could be under Pro G control, i doubt there are many there who support him, not after what happened back in March to the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.244.243 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NTC announces that Libya is now Liberated.
(ABC News) (Wall Street Journal) (The Jerusalem Post)

Should the end of the civil war be marked as this date? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on the WP:RS giving this announcement as the end of the civil war, I boldly went ahead and made the change. Like V-J Day, it's a formality, but the declaration of liberation marks the official end of the war even if fighting ended on 20 October. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

THIS MEANS THAT IT'S A REVOLUTION! SERIOUSLY GUYS! STOP TRYING TO CHANGE HISTORY! Rab777hp (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Civil War Montage
With the war almost reaching its end, would it be a good idea to prepare a montage as the main image for the infobox? I've already prepared one as an example:



Clockwise, from the top-left: The Libyan National Transitional Council flag is flown from a communications tower in Bayda in July; Anti-Gaddafi forces shelling loyalists positions during the Battle of Sirte; Protesters stand on a tank, in Benghazi, at the start of the uprising; a French rescue helicopter lands on USS Mount Whitney, at the beginning of the military intervention; Remains of two Palmaria heavy howitzers of the Libyan Army, destroyed by French warplanes near Benghazi; USS Barry launches one of the Tomahawk missiles during Operation Unified Protector.

Any ideas? --70.82.134.146 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Great idea. There's also a great picture of then-rebels flying the tricolor flag on a hill near (I think) Brega that could be used. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "example" isn´t uploaded, was deleted or you just posted corrupted link. However montages are pretty good thing but do we have enough images for one? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry - the example has been deleted. I had to take two of the 6 pictures from external, reliable sources (Al-Jazeera mainly). But seeing as I am quite new to uploading pictures, it appears I didn't take the procedures needed to upload the file. I can try to take pictures only found on Wikipedia, but there are only limited shots of the civil war.--NovusLux (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited the example with free pictures from Wikipedia Commons. Although it doesn't represent the war as well as the first montage (Government rally and Battle of Tripoli are missing in this one), it still does the job. --NovusLux (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good, although the Barry picture is low-res. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks bad, this is a totally, multiple copyright violation because of "stolen" images! I tagged the image for deletion. Please don't upload again non-free images from newspaper sites or any other site. Please read first the policy which images are allowed to be uploaded. mabdul 10:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All of those images are on Wikimedia Commons. Not sure what you're on about. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, seems like I'll be giving up on this montage, because even when I take the trouble of using less quality, copyright-free files from Wikimedia Commons, even when I clearly know all the images used have the correct license. If anyone wants one of the two montage examples, I can post an external link on their talk page.--NovusLux (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you put a link to the image so we may see it now that it's been deleted? Thanks. --Polmas (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely. The second image, which has no copyright issues, can be found here. The first image, which doesn't really respect copyright issues (But was still better than the second one ;)), can be found here.--70.82.134.146 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! I almost wanted to say about this too whereby you put images in the infobox after the civil war is over. 175.144.125.245 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out above there needs to be something for the infobox, the battle maps are now all but worthless and dont add much to the article now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Description has been modified according to the new montage found in the infobox of the article. Could someone add it below it?--NovusLux (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ¿Al-Jazeera? ¿As a “reliable source?” ¿What planet do you live on? This is the same bunch that variously have praised bin LADEN, tried to accuse Isræl for 9/11, and set up a porn site as “proof” that American Soldiers

(who were wearing some weird variation of a German uniform) were raping Arab and Mulum women in prison…Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi Captured (Update: And Dead)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955 The BBC are on the reliable list, I think... 89.238.141.2 (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AJA says he was killed, so will will wait to see if killed or captured. --Skipbox (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not confirmed yet although reports are popping out about Gaddafi beeing transport to Misrata as we speak. If he does, however, I suggest ending the war. Comparision with Afghanistan stands on no ground as for 2 months since fall of Tripoli we have one report about insurgency attack. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's now a picture claimed to be one of Gaddafi after capture in this picture and article. Undetermined weather he's alive or not. Electron9 (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Confirmed, there's now comfirmation that he is dead, I'm gonna update the page. --Polmas (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconding, from the currently streaming Al Jazeera English Live Stream (currently watching); it's from a video (very dizzyingly yet too visual and and sensitive) taken from a mobile phone, shown the dead Gaddafi being kicked around, hence the source of the video still, and currently, there are reports he was alive when he was captured. Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this signify the end of the war? Noneofyour (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the war is over. Making a country to work is another ballgame completely. Electron9 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the end of the war. All cities are now under the new government's control (nominally), Gaddafi is dead, three of his sons are dead, the rest are in exile (except for Saif al-Islam, whose status is unknown), and the NTC has declared the country liberated. The transition may well lead to another civil war, or experience an insurgency, but this war - the war between Gaddafi and his loyalists and those who want to overthrow Gaddafi - is over. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, how accurate is that source from BBC and that one from that Arab news station. NTC hasn't actually identified that it's his body or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.240.185 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is confirmed I will agree that we should put 20 October as the end of the war. Without Gaddafi, there is no "pro-Gaddafi" cause and, mercenaries will not get paid, and will probably just go away. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To add (still from Al Jazeera English): Mutassim Gaddafi is still alive, and is reportedly captured and still held in Sirte. (In other words, remove the KIA symbol beside his name) Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's as dead as disco, judging from the photos and videos of his bloodied corpse. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

CNN is also reporting his death. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/20/libyan-fighters-say-they-have-captured-gadhafi/?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1 Wingtipvortex (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the end of the War as it exists now. If the country devolves back into conflict again, it will be for different reason and honestly a different conflict all together. So yes, 20-Oct-2011 is as good a date as any to mark the end of the conflict. There may be some holdouts, but there is no hope for Gadaffi to return to power now that he is dead, his senior leaders dead, and his Army destroyed. ArcherMan86 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can not object any more strenuously; Personally, I DO believe he’s dead. I believe the video showing his face (pixilated, but it was him). That’s not the point. The point is his death, capture, or something else entirely has not been independently VERIFIED (and I don’t accept a news media outlet’s “verification,” even a reputable one). Until there is a coroner’s report, he’s not dead. Leave that alone until his IS dead-dead. ¿DO we REALLY want to go back in 6 months and try to explain why we declared him dead when he’s still alive then?Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * His body is currently being paraded around Misrata and several journalists have seen it personally. There isn't really any question at this point that he is dead. Jeancey (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that several quotable sources have now stated that "the war is over". Don't forget that we are just supposed to be a tertiary source. The beautiful thing is that plain common sense most often does correspond to the general consensus of respectable sources. Regardless of the often unbelievable degree of human stupidity, especially online, it is reassuring that the general consensus will still get it mostly right most of the time. It's why Wikipedia's approach makes sense. --dab (𒁳) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I say NO. No edit to the page to reflect this until his actual death is independently confirmed, regardless what I personally believe to be true; The world is not flat, and GADDAFI may still be alive.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC) EDIT: However, the fact that the family is “demanding’ the body does lend credence to the claim he’s dead.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, common sense- So useful. So helpful. Why, the Russians even declared they had the body of Adolph HITLER- They even had a picture to prove it: hitlersescape.com/hitler_double.jpg.
 * Actually a coroner already released a preliminary report stating that the cause of dead was a gunshot wound to the head. So it has confirmation.  What do you mean by independent?  Reporters have seen his body, confirmed its him.  What else do you want?Jeancey (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proof that it’s really him would be nice; Before mop up operations had even secured the city of Berlin, the Russian Army declared they’d found HITLER’S body. But the body they found wasn’t even his double, it was just a guy that happened to look a lot like him. I’d hate to see 6 months down the road “us” explaining why we “declared” him dead when he’s in Tahiti sipping margaritas and plotting a counter-revolution. A few days delay harms no one, and even one days delay may be all it takes to confirm that is, in fact, dead; That he was actually the man shot in the head after being shoved into a truck after being dragged out of a sewer pipe.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh the coroner indicated that it was in fact him. I was really just wondering what you mean by proof? DNA test? We would have to gain access to his blood or that of his relatives for that and that could take weeks. Jeancey (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then wait the “weeks” (but try “days”) it takes. This isn’t a newspaper, and there’s no need to rush. There is, however, and mandate to “get it right” (there’s actually a section dedicated to this somewhere, but I can’t find it right now). A few days hesitation harms no one.


 * Can you provide links to any of those sources, dab? All of the news articles I've read on the issue say there's still fighting between loyalists and the NTC. None have even hinted that the war itself may be over. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename article to :
With the death of Gaddafi now it's ok to rename the article Libyan Revolution or 2011 Libyan revolution, please do this speedily thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a revolution before Gaddafi's death. But it was also a civil war, and this article mainly covers that conflict. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no Libyan Revolution article, though; I sugggest the change be made quickly, as well -- Wikipedia's been far too slow to go along with what it's been called from nearly the outset. Stolengood (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? A majority of WP:RS have referred to the conflict as a "civil war". -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who has been calling it the libyan revolution? Most news sources have been saying it was a civil war. Jeancey (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * President Obama just called it a revolution. "You have won your revolution" <---do you see revolution at the end of the sentence, right before the closing quotes??..Can read it here too if you don't believe it.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obama is not the majority of the world. The general consensus is that this is a civil war.  From the civil war article, these are the criteria of a civil war:
 * The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
 * The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
 * The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
 * The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
 * All of those apply. Therefore, civil war Jeancey (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, it's fine to call it both. So Obama calling it a revolution doesn't mean it's not a civil war... (But it's a civil war anyways, per the list of points above and similar conflicts being referred to as "civil wars.") Not that it's very scientific, but Googling "libyan civil war" (with quotes) gets 1.5 million results, while "libyan revolution" gets 1.1 million results. (Hmm, though Wikipedia may have contributed to that!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Google is throwing up results from the duration of the activities including pre the fall of Tripoli and I think that result is therefore not very useful or scientific. Now that Gaddafi is dead it is impossible to deny that a revolution has taken place, and recent reliable sources anecdotally show a far higher use of the word 'revolution'. I would support a move to 2011 Libyan Revolution at this point.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between just a revolution and a civil war. A revolution is an overthrough of a government, usually much less bloody, and much quicker.  For instance the Egyptian revolution.  In this case it is very clearly a civil war, by every definition of the term. Jeancey (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is now both, but the title can't really include both.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the reason why the article about this civil war should be renamed now it is over, or because it is over? The article was about an ongoing civil war, and now it is about a civil war that has just ended. Whatever considerations could be brought up regarding the article title, the events of today have nothing to do with them. Compare Russian Revolution vs. Russian civil war. One is about the political revolution, the other about the military conflict. Of course the two are related, but this doesn't mean they are one and the same. --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does the year have to be specified? Has there ever been another Libyan civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For those of you guys who don't understand: the only difference between a Civil War and Revolution is the outcome. A Civil War is a failure or ongoing, and a Revolution is a success. Thus, as the regime changed, Gadahfi overthrown and killed, it's a revolution. Also now IS fitting because it's not just the fall of Gadhafi, but pretty much the fall of his regime, as Sirte was the last place not under NTC control Rab777hp (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in any definition of civil war does it say that its only for failed or ongoing conflict? The only ones i can find say the stated above, or that it has "over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict." Which applies here. Jeancey (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If that were the case than there would have been a 2nd American Revolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The american civil war definitely had over 1000 deaths per year of conflict. The south controlled part of the country and was defacto government, had recognition as a belligerent and the sides were fighting militarily... how is that NOT a civil war? Jeancey (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on this: " A Civil War is a failure or ongoing, and a Revolution is a success" reguardless of the outcome it was still called "Civil war" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rab, please stop trying to redirect the article without consensus. I have reverted your second attempt. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep name I favor keeping the title as is, the majority of references refer this to a civil war and that is what wikipedia relies on, just my thoughts but there were gaddafi loyalists fighting anti gaddafi rebels. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong rename: This historic event is now being called the end of a revolution and in fact it always was a majority of people trying to get rid of a dictator. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't really gonna do much. I strongly suggest you make a move request so we have have consensus, as per wiki policy. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak rename: Many revolutions, such as the French Revolution or the American Revolution, have been tainted with blood. I suggest, tho, that we wait a bit and see if the name "Libyan Revolution" will be used more. Also, the Arab Spring names the Libyan conflict as a revolution. If we keep the name as civil war, should we also edit the Arab Spring article so the two do not enter in conflict?--NovusLux (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The issue with the arab spring article is that this WAS a revolution, and then it turned INTO a civil war. I think one of the main differences is an organized military conflict.  Both sides had forces that were centrally commanded and were (for the most part) behaving in an organized fashion like an army.  In the american revolution you can make that argument too, but the opposing party wasn't the nation itself, but britain.  The french revolution did NOT have military conflict like this, thus was a revolution.  Jeancey (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeancey, your judgements of "characteristics of a true revolution" are pure WP:OR, just like a lot of these keep votes are. Here at Wikipedia, we care only about what reliable sources say. Personal assessments of "oh, this has too much violence/isn't against a foreign entity, thus it isn't a revolution" and "deposed leader means revolution" are equally unencyclopaedic. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that. That's why I haven't voted at all, I couldn't cited anything. I was citing the wikipedia article on Civil War for my definition of a civil war, which I believe is ok. Jeancey (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Arab Spring name keeps getting changed to Revolution by this IP that is not listening to anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep name. This is not the right way to change article name. There must be official request for comment, like the previous one.-- В и к и  T   23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep name. What the editor above said; the "campaign" to change the name has been quite unconstructive, just from observing 12 hours of it. Plus the other real reasons: meets the definition of "civil war" and is similar to the usage of "civil war" elsewhere on Wikipedia. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff)

Firstly, if you want the article to be moved, please file a move request, so that it will appear on appropriate lists and editors will be made aware that a discussion is underway. Secondly, be very careful of the distinction between someone naming an event and someone describing an event. A newspaper article that says 'More civilian deaths have been reported as the Libyan civil war heats up' are naming the event as the 'Libyan civil war'. Barack Obama saying 'You have won your revolution' is him describing the event as a revolution. Our article is titled based on what the majority of reliable sources are naming the conflict, not on how they are describing it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose: Once again, a few days delay to see how it all "hashes out" harms no one, and given the potential for further violence (which is more liekly than not) must be given to ensure we don't "declare" this a revolution, or rebbelion, or whatever when it turns out to be something else in the view of historians.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on this matter, but would not suggest moving the page. The English Civil War, while a far longer process, also resulted in the death of a head of state, and is listed as a civil war.  From this website's definition of a civil war:  A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic.  This topic fits the criteria, so let's keep it here for at least a few more days.   DCI talk 01:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep name, don't rename. Civil war, plain and simple. Obama is not the whole world, even though most US presidents think of themselves as such. And your example of the American revolution is flawed because there it was American colonists against a foreign (British) occupying power. The Colonists never saw themselves as British, but American. In the case we have here, it's Libyan against Libyan. EkoGraf (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong rename By definition, a revolution is "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed." A civil war is "a war between political factions or regions within the same country." This war was clearly an overthrow of the existing government, and therefore a revolution. As someone else pointed out, a revolution is only a revolution upon success. In the past 24 hours (basically the time since Gaddafi was killed) Google reports more new results for "Libyan Revolution" than for "Libyan Civil War". --JHP (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Google nets 29.8 million for Libyan civil war, and only 16 million for Libyan revolution.Jeancey (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all moot discussion right now. Please, if you want to rename it, make a move request.  Right now all of the discussion is useless, unless the request is made officially and the discussion happens there Jeancey (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the past discussions I have seen have the reliable sources factor involved, someone could start a move request jamming this unavoidable discussion front and center, or we can wait until the war is declared over and see what history books write about the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jeancy, who do you think you are? the owner of Wikipedia? I didn't feel like making a full bureaucratic move request, it's a pretty obvious thing that what happened in Libya is a revolution, have you ever thought about the fact we don't need to wait for what CNN would call it but what the scholars and academia would call it? (and yes I don't have the sources, I will get them eventually) but IT IS a revolution whether CNN, MSNBC or FAUX news wants to call it like that or not. I am tired of every time one wants to make a change or an addition to an article there is some "editor" asking you to do some kind of regulatory-mandatory-guideline oriented procedure. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:V and WP:TRUTH. If you don't like the procedures here, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. You'd be better off on a place with single authorship, like a blog. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep name As if a civil war somehow will feel more romantic by being renamed on Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop Voting All of you should go and read the Wikipedia Policy on choosing article titles here: WP:TITLE. We do not arbitrarily choose when/what the name of the article gets changed to, and we CANNOT use our own personal opinions to determine what is the proper name for the article (that would be Original Research through and through). This entire discussion, like numerous, and I do mean numerous before it, is entirely fruitless. According to Wikipedia policy we ought to name the article the most common name WP:COMMONNAME, under that section the point is stressed that "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". So the entire debate over whether this qualifies as a civil war or a revolution is utterly pointless, because it will not bear any weight on the future name of the article. We should follow the most common name provided in english language, reliable sources. If you want to argue for a move, then I would start looking for what exactly that is. But before you do that, I will stress that the situation is far too fluid to be debating this, and as a person who took part in all of the initial RM's on this article I can assure you that any Requested move is going to come solidly down on a 50/50 split and it will be a giant waste of everyone's time. Be patient and wait, the historical name for this conflict will emerge sooner rather than later given recent events. Once that happens, we'll have consensus and the article can be moved without all the hypotheticals and pointless debate. Vietminh (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's just leave the title where it is for now, and discuss this in a few days/weeks/months - or whenever there is general consensus (and not just on this site) - as to what the conflict should be called.  DCI talk 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep. It had started as a revolution but it clearly became a Civil war mid way through. It would be stupid to rename it back however I am for dropping the 2011 part out of the title Nhajivandi (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

First, the “fact” that GADDAFI is dead is not yet verified. (Yes, I think it’s true, but I also “think” there will be a colony on the moon someday; That doesn’t make it true.) Second, the conflict is not yet over; Assuming he is dead, the NTC still isn’t a government, it’s a loose coalition of militias and other factions, each with their agenda, and as such there is not only a possibility but in fact a probability of further violence (such as occurred in Somalia after their “revolution” that still isn’t over). As such, of the time being, keep the name and location, await events, and THEN let’s do whatever has to be done that that point.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rename and move "2011 Libyan Revolution"
The English version of "Revolution" defines as revolution as a "fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time." This is clearly the case for Libya. The former leader has been deposed and killed, the former regime has been replaced with a caretaker government, and many international actors have recognized that caretaker government as the sole legitimate governing authority for Libya. Had Gaddafi remained in power and his regime survived, then I believe "civil war" would have been appropriate. However, with this fundamental change in Libya, "revolution" best describes the events. See examples like the American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and the Tunisian Revolution. In summary, I support the proposed change. Rougher07 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see why the decision is ours. Currently Civil War is used my the majority of the media, and as someone mentioned above, describing the conflict as a revolution and NAMING it as a revolution are two different things. People are naming it as a civil war, but describing it as a revolution.  It is a question of squares and rectangles. A civil war IS a revolution, but a revolution isn't necessarily a civil war.  This conflict fits a civil war, mainly due to the organization of the military conflict.  I don't see a reason to change it unless the majority of the media begins using revolution. Jeancey (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per 7 sections above.--  R a f y  talk 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per every other time someone brings this up and it fails.-- JOJ Hutton  21:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There have also been alot of attempts to change the name to Revolution on the Arab Spring page, even though the link leads here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per over-discussion of this articles title. Come back in a year. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The majority of reliable sources are calling this a civil war, civil wars dont always end in revolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per WP:COMMON and WP:SYNTH. The reasoning for the move is based wholly on synthesised info. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 24 Tishrei 5772 21:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally I think revolution is better for a lot of reasons, but if wiki policy goes by the most common name, a change is probably unwarranted at this time, and other arguments are irrelevant. But some of the stuff in opposition seems like sophistry, like the "description" vs "name" thing. For one thing, the current article title (lower-case) indicates a description of the conflict rather than a proper name. Also, things are named based on their descriptions (if it's the Libyan Civil War, that's because it's a war of the civil variety taking place in Libya. Why is it called the White House?). Hazydan (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The civil war is a description. So is revolution.  The difference in name vs description is that the media says THE libyan civil war, and describes it as A revolution.  The indicates a singular name, while a indicates a description of the general conflict. Hopefully that made sense. Jeancey (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno...still sounds like petty semantics rather than a logical argument, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, it's probably irrelevant to the overall issue, so meh. Hazydan (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing to add to everything said above.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per my comments in other sections.  DCI talk 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per majority of reliable sources.-- В и к и  T   22:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support- I think the term Civil War is confusing b/c it implies that there was a victory of the government or that not much changed. I think that this is a revolution by any objective terms regardless of the way it is called in the media. I do understand the resistance to change the name though given the lack of proper recognition in the media... Fshoutofdawater (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is the fundamental part of our article titling policy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A civil war doesn't imply a government victory. See Spanish Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Ivorian Civil War...--  R a f y  talk 11:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. This discussion has been had numerous times. A civil war is a civil war, it doesn't have to mean the government wins if it's called that. That's simply flawed logic. EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see why to change to Revolution; it is clearly civil war, two groups in same country fight one against other and one side take government.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per discussion above, the facts described in the article and the reports of the media. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per discussion above. --Ave César Filito (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently mass media still refer to the conflict as a civil war. Although the NTC forces succeeded in overthrowing Gaddafis government, which is technically a revolution, the country had to go through civil war first to succeed in said revolution. Think of the Spanish civil war, the nationalist overthrow the republican government, but that is referred to as civil war rather than revolution. --user:Kspence92
 * Oppose Vast majority of media refers it as civil war, not to mention it was an armed conflict and war between two Libyan belligerents that claiming representation for Libya, which lasted 8 months. Just because the old (Gaddafi) regime lost the war, it doesn't mean it has to be called "revolution". Nozdref (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from most media still preferring the current name, this was a conflict between two fractions in the same country, with one of them supported by foreign sources. That's the definition of civil war. Kostja (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The definition of Civil War is: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country". That fit the situation in Libya for the past several months. Dusty777 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Any chance we can call this settled now? It's pretty clear what the overwhelming consensus is. Jeancey (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support it's pretty clear it's a revolution, somehow this section is filled with idiots who think they know what they're talking about it. It's a very basic case of a revolution. This is driving me nuts here. A civil war ends with the status quo. Not with a new regime. Rab777hp (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement "a civil war ends with the status quo" is, of course, nonsense. Examples: Spanish Civil War, English Civil War, Second Ivorian Civil War. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NYTimes Sources
I've run into this for a while, and it's really bugging me. For some reason, most of the New York Times links have been tagged "Registration Required" but I have NEVER found this to be true. Every time I clink on the link (and I do it EVERY time I see it) and I can view the entire article in question. I'm not signed up for any New York Times affiliated organization or anything. Why are these there? Is registration required for some people? And if not, who added all these tags? Thanks for clearing up an issue thats been really bothering me! Jeancey (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of article views per IP is restricted. There is a well known hack to override this.--  R a f y  talk 22:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, then it's not really Registration Required then? I don't think that applies here. The odds that someone who isn't normally looking at the NYT and isn't registered is going to look at so many articles that they would be blocked is quite slim I would think. Jeancey (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Revolution again

 * Issue was resolved at Talk:Arab Spring that related to this article and what I was talking about here, I do not see the need to continue my discussion here as it is turning into what is already above which was closed in a Snow closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors and Ip's over at Talk:Arab Spring that continie to push for the name Revolution for the conflict, the most recent being someone who put forward 4 reliable sources with the name Revolution down in it. I would like some input here on what should be done here as this article links from the Article Arab Spring. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I stand by my view that the outcome of a civil war does not suddenly make it a 'revolution'. This has clearly been a civil war: a country with 2 competing governments, conquering land and cities on one another. That it ended in regime change does not change it having been a civil war. Many other civil wars resulted in a regime change (e.g. Spanish Civil War, English Civil War) but we don't call those 'revolutions' either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's big different between civil war and revolution. The French Revoulution has needed a war against absolute monarchy. It took six month to fall of monarchy. Civil wars tooks many years while the revolution took only 1 day to 8 months. 82.95.238.33 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The discussion just closed as SNOW. --Magioladitis (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Can we seriously get a topic ban on this for now? This can not seriously be brought up every two days, especially when it gets little or no support. I'm all for the whole consensus changes, but this is ridiculous.-- JOJ Hutton  17:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Knowledgekid87, may I tell you one thing that you don't even know what the hell you are asking. Your question is wrong. Nothing should be done at this article, but something should done at that this article, especially the current situation in Libya. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The current situation in Libya is that the civil war is over, I think that is something we can all agree on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The current situation in Libya is that NATO/NTC _declared_ the war is over. The other side has neither been eliminated nor has given up on its cause. Please take into account the numerous confirmed reports of hundred-vehicles-big convoys running across southern Libya all September. These convoys and the people in them did not simply vaporize. Also NTC requesting NATO bombing missions to continue does not sound very supportive of the "War is Over" POV.
 * Basically, we know that anti-Gaddafi forces (note, far from all of them swore allegiance to NTC) control most (if not all) relevant Libyan cities. However what is happening _between_ these cities on 99% of Libya's territory is anyone's guess. NATO might have a rough idea, hence the bombing extension request, but that is about it.94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what are you waiting for? Change the colour now! Everybody in the Arab Spring section already proposed to change that, except users like you. If you agree that the civil war ended then how is make sense to place the word 'Civil War' in the Arab Spring's Summary of protests by country section? We agree that this title must remain 2011 Libyan Civil War, but I don't agree if you place the word civil war at that Arab Spring's Libyan situation. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny you mention that, since User:Jagged 85 took it upon himself to edit this article and the timeline article to say the civil war is ongoing. I think it might have been based on a misreading of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's appearance at the Rixos Hotel from around this time two months ago. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Massacres section need cleansweep and updating
A massacre is generally accepted to be the mass killing of people WITHOUT ARMED FIGHTING AROUND, OR AFTER THE ARMED FIGHTING STOPPED. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre) So large numbers of civilian casualties during fighting, although often a war crime, are NOT automatically a massacre, as long as there was shooting from two sides. As a consequence, this Massacre- section needs a lot of work.

Proposal to take out: The paragraph citing Amnesty, because the cited reports nowhere name or suggest massacres, and only speculate about 'may even have been killed'

The directly following paragraphs I propose also to be taken out, because they do not relate to massacres, except, indirectly, to the February 20 massacre of unarmed demonstrators on the Green Square, by Ghaddafi forces. This Feb 20-massacre merits a strongly worded paragraph, there are now much better, first hand sources for that massacre.

Also the paragraph about the International Fed Hum Ri should be considred to throw out, as it is almost only speculative, based on few resources that are now considered doubtful, and it is largely proven wrong by events in the field.

The last alinea (Gaddafi continued these tactics..) also apparently refers to mass casualties DURING fighting, so in this form it doesn't belong under this header. Also the following chapter (Execution of own soldiers) I propose to be deleted, as research on Youtube video's shatters the believeworthyness of the initial report about where and by whom these soldiers were killed (http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/al-baida-massacre-further-behind-scenes.html) Doubt has further increased because the only source attributing this 'massacre' to the Ghaddafi side (Int Fed Human Rights) has failed to substantiate or even stand by their initial report in spite of such requests from several media. They even don't mention the report on their own web-site.

There have, on top of the Green Square massacre, been several massacres during this war that do deserve a paragraph each under this header: -Time reported that at february 18, 15 suspected mercenaries were hanged by rebels in front of the court house of Al Baida, after they had surrendered; -The massacre of 70 Chadian oil workers and several Sudanese by attackers from the rebel side, reported by BBCnews.com at 25 february 2011; -The 50 + prisoners of the Khamis-brigade in southern Tripoly, massacred at august 23rd 2011(likely under responsibility of Ghaddafi's son Khamis)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJw-IKKbzpg), -The mid-October massacre of handcuffed soldiers and civilians in Mahari hotel, Sirte, which literally bears the signature of rebel brigades (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/middleeast/libyas-interim-leaders-to-investigate-qaddafi-killing.html?_r=1&hpw), and (if credible reports appear) the as yet unverified reports of more groups of bodies in Sirte, seemingly killed by rebel brigades after the fighting stopped.

Also, maybe Ghaddafi-forces massacred people on at least one occasion in their offensive in the Western Mountains, but from the conflicting reports, to me it is unclear if this was deliberately shooting of non-fighting civilians or not.

(I strongly desire that the list of massacres ends here.) Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 25 October 2011
Footnote 99 erroneously refers to an Amnesty International report. The quote about Western media is actually from the report by the International Crisis Group mentioned in the quoted Independent story. Please correct. The ICG report is here, with the relevant section on p. 4: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/107%20-%20Popular%20Protest%20in%20North%20Africa%20and%20the%20Middle%20East%20V%20-%20Making%20Sense%20of%20Libya.pdf.

193.65.255.1 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan Revolution
I've just come back from Libya and nobody there(not even the imprisoned Gaddfi loyalists) refer to the revolution as a civil war. some of them even felt insulted that I had defiled there revolution with such a name. it has become very clear that the events in Libya will not go down in history as a civil war but only as a revolution since it is ultimately the country's inhabitants who will right its history. I've noticed you were quick to call the events in Egypt and Tunisia a revolution (although they are not really as the system has more or less stayed the same) but yet you called them revolutions because it's inhabitants referred to it as that. Surely you should now do the same for the Libya (the first genuine revolution of the Arab spring so far as it very broad social-economic support and completely eradicated the old system much as the French,american and Russian revolutions did) as you did for Egypt and Tunisia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you published anything that can be cited that they call it a revolution and not a civil war? Jeancey (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that Egypt and Tunisia wasn't called civil wars because there was no war? It doesn't matter what Libyans call it - Wikipedia is written from a neutral perspective, not from the perspective of revolutionary romantics.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not a journalist, I'M a student who has an interest in history, and I decided to visit all three successful Arab spring nations before going back to to university Libya was by far the most interesting (from an historical perspective). it was the only true revolution. It almost felt like being in post revolutionary France or Russia.
 * Okay well you can have your sources published and put into a reliable source then, wikipedia goes by Reliable sources and right now the majority of them refer to the conflict as a civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "It almost felt like being in post revolutionary France or Russia." Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I presume you did not bother(were allowed) to visit Bani Walid, Sirte or even Brega for the matter... 94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, as a Journalist, do you understand the difference between "there" and "their", or "write" and "right"? The phrase "... it is ultimately the country's inhabitants who will right its history" does have an interesting nuance though! :) regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The groups that were privileged under the old system now suffer, and the groups that were disadvantaged before the fall of the regime are ascendant. Same as it ever was. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why has this been closed?
Ok yes Gadaffi is dead but his son and other high ranking officials is still at large, what's to say further clashes between merceneries and insurgents wont happen? What's to say the scenes in Tripoli won't repeat themselves elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SPECULATION. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 24 Tishrei 5772 20:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When it’s OVER, treat it as over. ¿DO you want explain in a year’s time why you “declared” the war over, only to have a counter-coup 3 weeks later topple the interim government before the new government even takes over? (Or, worse, explain why you declared it over, only to have a full-fledged civil war break out afterwards, as happened in Somalia). I don’t.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Date in name
Curious, why is "2011" in the article's title? The article only mentions one other civil war in the country's history — Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795, which likely would be better entitled "Tripolitanian Civil War..." and is a redlink anyway. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't originally named civil war. Originally it was likely protests or uprising, which more likely to happen and thus need a year. When it was renamed to civil war, the 2011 stayed. Jeancey (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we still need the year? Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to put a move request in, go for it. It's not really hurting things as it is though. Jeancey (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The date remains as there was more than one Civil war in Libya's history, please see the archives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know much about the Civil War of 1791-1795 other than this reference that another editor found pointing it out as a civil war in Libya. This reaised the question of when the name Libya came into use (As opposed to Italian Libya, ect...) which was up for debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Neutrality is Disputed
Too bad. A lot of NTC photos and illustrations in this article. I think most of the Wikipedian editors are pro-rebel Libyans. Remember that neutrality is important!! P.S I am not a pro-Gaddafi! But can we add some of the pro gaddafi images too? [User:Muhammad Mukhriz|Muhammad Mukhriz]] (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Disputing the religion of hatred is not allowed here. You should have noticed over the past half a year. Maybe, if you murder a couple Libyans, you will understand how dangerous truth can be. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I Agree! Just note that the great number of references is from the media from countries directly involved in conflict on rebels side. Thus, neutrality is heavily disputed. E.g. do you remember how Al Jazeera reported about protest on Green square in Tripoli, which was actually fake and staged in Qatar. Even NTC admitted it was fake. Al Jazeera cannot be held as reliable source after this stunt, and many references are coming from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.221.2 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 3 November 2011
Please add to: Commanders and Leaders Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Prime Minister of Turkey)

Please add to table: Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya Turkey 300 Million USD July 2011 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html)

Starcrescent (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The table was updated. Do you have also a reference for the Infobox statement? mabdul 12:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Time to rename page to the Libyan Revolution
All the major British news channels (BBC, Sky news, ITV news and channel 4 news) now only use the term revolution as well as major Arab news channels(Aljazeera, Alarabiya etc). Most British and Arab newspapers also now only use the term revolution. Expets on conflicts such as Michael Ignatieff openly states its not a civil war on his article on the CBC website and experts on Libya itself such as Jason Pack never useses the term civil war on his article in the Gaudian. The term "Civil war" is very deciving, it gives the imprssion that almost half the population supported Gaddafi, when according to the BBC's latest video on libya; 20% of libyans were loyal to Gaddafi. I know 20% is still a signicant minorty but bear in mind 25% of americans were were still loyal to king George III during the American Revolution and anywhere between 20%-35% of the french public were still loyal to louis XVI during the french revolution; just because the entire population doesnt support the opposition doesn't make it any less of a Revoluton. Various world leaders only use the term Revolution (Obama, Cameron, Erdoğan etc) even the Chairmen of the NTC Mustafa Abdul Jalil stated its not a civil war in his latest interview with CNN. The term 'civil war' is no longer widly used in arab or european newspapers, the term also gives the false impresson that the conflict in libya was along tribal lines, but as you probably already know tribes had a small role in the Libyan Revolution. So it is now time to rename this page to the Libyan Revolution.

Also when you do rename this page to The Libyan Revolution will you create a seperate page for the transition or will you put the transition and conflict together under the Libyan Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense, there is nothing in the definition of the term 'civil war' that suggests that it is a war between two halves of a population.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh Good Lord, not this again. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So when are you going to rename the article? I've provided you with enough evidence if you look at all European and Arab articles on Libya from late august onwards the term 'Revolution' is much more wildly used than the term 'civil war', especially in AP and AFP articles which both stated back in September they would no longer use the term 'rebels' to describe the opposition but instead usethe terms 'former rebels' or 'revolutionaris', showing their acknoledgment of the Libyan Revolution. Libyans aren't going to celebrate febuary 17th as the start of a civil war but as the start of their revolution. There is no longer an excuse to continue to use the term 'civil war': the old system is completly gone, the revolt clearly had popular support, i've provided you with more than enough reliable sources above; Now is the time to rename this article 'The Libyan Revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is completely irrelevant what Libyans will celebrate on February 17th. Wikipedia is not a parade. It's an encyclopedia.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The person has a good point. Why aren't you changing the page to The Libyan Revolution? He/she appears to have given good solid points which none of you are actually answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij (talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good Grief, Again!!! Isn't there an FAQ that we can point to now?-- JOJ Hutton  02:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Give it some time, there was a recent debate on the matter which 17 or so editors opposed the idea of a name change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Libyan+"civil war" ~6600
 * Libyan+revolution ~5000
 * Also the term Libyan+revolution does not only apply to the armed conflict which this article covers. :)--  R a f y  talk 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That might not work anyway, because the coup in 1969 is sometimes referred to as a revolution. And there has been more than one civil war in Libya's history. Jeancey (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have a point for the revolution part but I doubt you'll find any news articles mentioning another Libyan civil war.--  R a f y  talk 20:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we wait a year or so for things to settle down a bit and then see what the RS consensus name is. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A year or so? This is ridiculous, in historical terms this was a fairly quick revolution that ousted the government, not a protracted civil war. Under this wacky logic, we should change the name of the American Revolution page to the First American Civil War. 109.158.139.188 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The American Revolution was people identifying themselves as british against people identifying themselves as american, thus a revolution NOT a civil war. This was people identifying themselves as Libyan against people identifying themselves as Libyan, thus civil war.  That is the major difference between the two. Jeancey (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely true. The American Revolution was as much about american fighting american as it was about american fighting British. Many Americans joined the red coat loyalist army (thats why it's usally called a loyalist army). Americans were among the feicest units of the loyalist army. The fact that there was a mass migration of american loyalists to Canada once the revolution was over shows how much support the king still enjoyed in America. Similar thing with the french revolution (frenchmen were fighting other frenchmen) yet few historians call the French Revolution the French civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I mildly support the renaming of the article from 2011 Libyan civil war to 2011 Libyan Revolution, or at the very least major alterations to the current article if the title is to remain 2011 Libyan Civil war. The main reason being is that the current article seems much to skewed towards the revolutionaries/rebels for it to be the titled civil war. For example all the pictures seem to be that of the opposition supporters, non of Qaddafi militias or supporters, and text of the article seems better suited for explaining an uprising than a civil war. A true civil war article is meant to explain how Libyan society and Libyan families were divided(the old brother against brother expression) the only problem is, this does not seem to apply to the Libyan case, in fact they seem more united throughout this conflict then they've ever been throughout there history, (and will likely never be that united again). If the BBC figure is correct in that 20% of Libyans were loyal to Qaddafi (which is conveniently the same percentage of Libyans who either had links or were involved in Qaddafi's security apparatus and militias) then this truly was the case of the people against the state, which in my opinion seems more like a Revolution rather than a civil war. Another change you must make if you want to keep the title 2011 Libyan Civil war is the date in which it started. The official start of civil wars throughout history is the start of the first battle, which was Zawiya on the 24th Febuary 2011 prior to this you can not legitimacy call it a civil war as there were no two opposing armies facing each other prior to this it was security forces against mostly unarmed protesters, that's why I think the 1st battle of Benghazi should be renamed the 'Storming of the Katiba' as it would better express the event that really kicked off the libyan Revolution/civil war. So either you have rename the article 2011 Libyan Revolution, or keep the current title and make serious alternations so the event seems more like an actual civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim74 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 November 2011‎ (UTC)


 * I'm a little late to comment on this one, but 188.*, you said you'd provided plenty of evidence but you haven't actually provided any yet. All we have is what you've said, which we can't use. We need actual sources, actual references to start making any kind of decision of this nature. Please provide those, if you can. I checked the BBC, Sky, ITV Channel 4 news websites and none of their recent articles mention either term, so they certainly aren't predominantly 'revolution' at the moment. I also checked Aljazeera's English-language website, which uses neither term in any recent articles, and Alarabiya which uses neither term but does use 'revolt' in one article. This is, at cursory glance, not consistent with your assertion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some samples from the British media:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15500682

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15557403

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412220

news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16094625

blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/where-were-the-women-in-libyas-revolution/18208

www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-not-the-only-victim-of-libya-s-revolution

Here are some samples of articles that further prove my point:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/post-gaddafi-libya-local?INTCMP=SRCH

www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/libya-women-idUSL6E7M41OY20111104

Also if you go on to Aljazeera or Alarabiya and type in Libya on their search engines you’ll the term Revolution is used far more than the term 'civil war' in most of their articles. This is also true for highly rated British and American newspapers (e.g. Wall street journal, Financial times, New york times, The Telegraph etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed a copy of the link. Also, most of those are opinion pieces. Jeancey (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to review all of these sources, but some of the random ones I clicked on aren't valid. This one doesn't claim a revolution, its only mention is a quote from Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the head of the NTC. This one only mentions the word in the title, and as such isn't sufficient. Remember, you can't just search for the terms 'Libya' and 'revolution' and assume the references support the term without reviewing them. I'll take a look at the other sources when I have some time, but these two at least aren't usable to support this kind of claim. Opinion pieces are also typically frowned on in situations where definitive usage is needed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. For the umpth time. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Libya #1 in Africa on UNDP Human Development Index
According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155. — http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.127.89 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * just as a note... Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Indonesia, India and Afghanistan are not in Africa... Jeancey (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he meant those as the global rankings. This point is addressed in the article though, I believe. Gaddafi used vast amounts of money to quell unrest and his programs to enhance quality of life in the country were at least in part motivated by a desire to deflect attention and maintain his ability to pull the strings of the government. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "his programs to enhance quality of life in the country were at least in part motivated by a desire to deflect attention and maintain his ability to pull the strings of the government." You mean like he was shamelessly doing what ANY government is supposed to do. Caring for its society. Shame on him for refusing our great visions that only the enforcement of poverty with wealth transfered to us is the right way to rule a country African country. Had he done that, he could have stayed in power. Stupid guy, wasn't he? 46.13.56.75 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He cared to the extent that it secured him power. When his people rose up against him, his 'care' very rapidly dissipated, he leveled insults against them, attacked them and killed them. It's clear that his objective was to maintain control, not to support the will of his people. So no, it's absolutely not what 'any government is supposed to do'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Khamis Gaddafi is listed dead?
Even the link provided states that it's unconfirmed, and its only source was a facebook account of al-Rai network, but as i remember, al-Rai later said it was hacked by someone; also that info published on the hacked page was retelling of the already refuted old news about Khamis killed in one airstrike alongside Abdulla Senoussi (who's definitely alive and well and later seen in Niger). There were also other mentions of Khamis long after that supposed date of his death. I will try to find some specific links, but in any case, should the people there be presented as dead based on such a weak proof which isn't sure being a proof itself? 77.45.171.127 (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there are quite a few sources. And it wasn't Sensussi who was killed, it was his son.  He was claimed killed by the rebels at the end of august.  No one has heard or seen anything of him since, and a pro gaddafi TV network released a video mourning his death.  I don't think anyone is claiming he isn't dead at this point. In case you are curious, here is one news report claiming his death shortly after the fact: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032801/Khamis-Gaddafi-killed-Rebels-took-vengeance-despite-car-armoured-like-tank.html and here is the pro gaddafi tv video also claiming he died http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thURLSzjiIE Jeancey (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually all these sources (including both of your links) are based on the same rebel claim about his death in airstrike near Tarhouna. And no, they were talking back then about al-Senoussi himself, not his son. And i remember there were also reports about him being in Sirte in late september accompanied with this vid, and about him receiving treatment outside of Libya and then coordinating october attacks in Tripoli on his return. 95.32.187.220 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no way to date that video... Unless you can provide a recent reliable source claiming he is still alive, I don't think there's any reason to change it. Jeancey (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not even mentioning that Khamis was captain and not general. In case of Khamis we are also not using youtube as a source but RS such as this. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan revolution
I have created a new article titled 2011 Libyan revolution. Unlike the attempts to rename the present article, the new article does not concern the armed conflict, but the social and political changes entailed by the civil war. Adding new events the present article does not seem consistent with the fact that the lede describes the conflict in past tense.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the term "2011 Libyan revolution" is occasionally seen as synonymous with "2011 Libyan civil war." Maybe the title of the new article should be "Social and Political Changes of the 2011 Libyan civil war" or something along those lines. Otherwise people looking for this article will find that one instead.  Does that make sense? Jeancey (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've inserted a hatnote to clarify the distinction.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned with how much of this is due directly to the civil war, and how much is simply politics in post gaddafi libya. Of course there are going to be political changes, but to what extent is it DUE to the civil war and how much of it is simply politics. Jeancey (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of WP:VERIFIABILITY. If WP:RELIABLE sources trace changes to the overthrow of Gadaffi, then we must assume it is so.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen zero reliable sources that advocate such a distinction. Unless you can produce a number of sources that split the events into a distinct "civil war" and "revolution", the entire article is essentially pure unencyclopaedic WP:SYNTH and should be deleted. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really going to dignify that with a comment, beyond stating that revolution and civil war by definition are distinct concepts. WP:SYNTH is the combination of supported facts to draw an unsupported conclusion, while the article draws no conclusions at all.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat neutral on this. There are other precedents for this in Wikipedia and I think Anders is acting in good faith. I'd like to see if a distinct article can be created up to scratch before putting the boot into this idea, but I wonder if a user draft might be a better idea for now, to demonstrate if there really is enough material to go on. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

On balance, I agree with Anders' view and with his article, but Lothar is also right. Reliable sources have not referred to the revolution as the wider changes around which the civil war forms a central part, and it would be SYNTH to write as if that were the case. However, in my view Anders makes a decisive point: there are a huge amount of social, economic and political changes about to happen. What are we going to do: put them all onto a 'post civil-war' section on this article? :( There is a point where practicality trumps many other things: it just won't be possible to describe the wider background and future changes all on this article.  And Techno's right: accepting SYNTH and that such precedent hasn't been applied to Libya by reliable sources yet, there is indeed that precedent that a revolution and civil war can be separated.  Take American Revolution and American Revolutionary War.  In my mind, my only dispute is whether to trump other people's views and remove the PROP-DELETE template from Anders' article: I don't want my view to trump consensus.  We at least have 6 days to clarify our position.  So, to conclude, I support Anders' idea, and I'm willing to offer my help to improve the article yet further. I really do think this is achievable and a good idea. Redverton (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Attaching the non-military events to the term "2011 Libyan revolution" is SYNTH. "Revolution" is a loaded word to begin with; what's more, many sources use "revolution" to describe the war. The parallel to America does not work: 1) there has been over two centuries worth of sources devoted to the topic; here we have less than a year and 2) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It is not for us to judge any so-called "precedents"; we are not historians, we just write an online reference work.
 * Re "a huge amount of social, economic and political changes about to happen": this borders on WP:CRYSTAL. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully support the idea and here are some samples of reliable sources that could only really work under the title 2011 Libyan Revolution: Women’s role in the revolution and how relationships between men and women within Libya society have changed:

[ List of links mirrored at Talk:2011 Libyan revolution --Anders Feder (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ]

As I said they are only samples many more articles were written on each of these subject during the course of the armed revolution which would mean you would have to look back on article dating from February to August it’s going to be a lot of work but I’m sure many of the editors working on 2011 Libyan civil war will help you. it would also probably be a good idea to include the NTC road map to democray as well. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge As the article seems to me to just an attempt to skirt the consensus on this page. There are reliable sources calling the Battle of Antietam, the Battle of Sharpsburg, but we don't go around creating separate articles for it now do we?-- JOJ Hutton  14:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)\
 * I agree with the above statement, creating such an article does in effect skirt the consensus on this page (or lack thereof, it doesn't really matter). It does not matter that the textbook definition of a civil war or a revolution is different, that is not grounds for creating a different article. These articles are on the same conflict, whatever it may be named, this is a textbook case of WP:CONTENTFORK. The 2011 Libyan Revolution page should be made into a redirect to 2011 Libyan civil war, and all relevant content merged into this page or into a separate article if there is support/justification for that. Vietminh (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a single source saying Libya is still at war?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with the above statements, and I suggest that if there is really a lot of political and social changes as a direct result to the civil war that there could be a separate article created to deal with that specific topic. Jeancey (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Haven't you heard? The "revolution" is over!  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've displayed multiple sources that say the "revolution" is over. There is no consensus for using "Libyan revolution" to describe social changes as opposed to the war. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So your sources suggest a revolution did happen? If not, how can it be over?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple: according to many sources, "revolution"=armed conflict="civil war". Your own personal definition of "revolution" is irrelevant. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to which source is "revolution"=armed conflict="civil war"? Just stick to the facts, there is no need for personal attacks.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources provided above all use "revolution" to describe the conflict. Last I checked, social changes alone do not leave "rubble"; you need projectiles and explosives for that. Your use of "revolution" to describe the non-military events is not a consensus view in the sources. Hell, the war is known on the Arabic wiki as the "Revolution of 17 February". Your splitting is misleading to readers.
 * As a side note, I have no idea where the hatnote "For the armed conflict leading to the revolution" and the "following the overthrow and killing of Muammar Gaddafi in the 2011 Libyan civil war" part of the lead came from. It directly contradicts the first part of the first section (not to mention a truckload of sources) which states "The revolution began in January 2011".
 * The article you are making should not be titled as is. Splitting "revolution" from "civil war" is just WP:SYNTH, as no such clear distinction has been established. You want to write about the political, economic, and social changes associated with the war? That's fine, but attaching the loaded word "revolution" to them without regard for any consensus (or lack thereof) in reliable sources is just not acceptable. Sorry for being snippy, but really. It has been established on several occasions here that no such dichotomy could be readily made. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't I? Just look at the sources I provided. These sources use "revolution" to describe the conflict that other sources (including us here Wikipedia) use "civil war" for. That is what "revolution"=armed conflict="civil war" was shorthand for. Sorry if I was not clear enough. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?--Anders Feder (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. There was a conflict in Libya earlier this year. Some sources called it a "revolution", others called it a "civil war". I am drawing no conclusions here. 2011 Libyan revolution and 2011 Libyan civil war are two names for the same conflict. Now please stop distracting from the issue at hand: the misleadingly-titled, self-contradictory, content-fork article currently occupying 2011 Libyan revolution. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only one distracting from the issue at hand: that 1) there is no source for your claim that "Libyan revolution" and "Libyan civil war" are "two names for the same conflict" and 2) there is no source to suggest that the events now taking place are part of a civil war.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Would a name change help at all? I was thinking along the lines of 2011 Libyan social revolution or just Libyan social revolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Revolution" is a loaded word. I'd stay away from it unless you can present sources to back it up. A name change would be a good idea; I cannot accept the article titled as is. If we're going with the dominant "after Gaddafi" personality of the article, I'd go with Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A little late to the conversation but I was just thinking if the term Revolution is such a "loaded" word, then why were you so quick to use the term for the events in Tunisia and Egypt? Yes they both saw mass protests which saw the resignation of their Presidents which could be labelled as successful uprisings. But neither nation witnessed any of the massive social, cultural or even political changes of their society(that Iran and the eastern bloc nations witnessed)that would require it to be a revolution. It could be argued that what happened in Egypt and Tunisia was no more a Revolution than Nixon's' resignation after protest and the threat of impeachment in USA was a revolution.

As for Libya their were many reliable sources written during the 8 month conflict that were about the revival of art, free media, music, civil society, education system, Berber culture and wider Libyan culture as well as the radical change of women role within Libyan society and a massive return of former Libyan exiles. If you look back on articles written on these subjects most of them use the term revolution and it wouldn't make sense to put them under Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war as the events happened during the 8 month uprising. Libya not only witnessed massive social and cultural change but it also witnessed the complete overhaul of the old political order allowing it to start from scratch(unlike Egypt and Tunisia). If Revolution is not too "loaded" a word for Tunisia or Egypt then it's certainly not too "loaded" for Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Qatar
The Qatari army chief confirmed today that several hundred Qatari soldiers fought alongside Libyans against Gaddafi. Should we add Qatar above NATO as a combatant in the infobox? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This article even gives his words as "hundreds in every region" of Libya. Anyway, thats definitely goes way over "enforcing the UNSC resolution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.186.101 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. That's why I propose to put Qatar above the fold as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Were they fighting under Qatari government colours, or were they fighting as foreign volunteers in a manner similar to the Escadrille de Lafayette in World War I? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They were identified during Operation Mermaid Dawn as "special forces", an elite division of the Qatar Army, if I'm not mistaken. And the guy who made this announcement is the chief of staff of the Qatar Armed Forces. I have to think these were Qatari soldiers, not comparable to the Lafayette Escadrille or the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not talking about that bunch of guys in Bab al-Aziziya with Qatari flags, are you? Those were just militiamen, couldnt even aim, didnt cover their corners, etc. No way those guys were ever in the army. As for this statement it surprises me, I mean seriously - if it was true why would in all hell just announced that Qatar was deliberately breaching UN resolution big time. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I noted a couple of months ago, there's a legal case to be made that since Qatar hasn't recognized Gaddafi's government since late March, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya referenced in the UN resolution ceased to exist under Qatari law and thus Qatar had no obligation under the resolution not to aid its ally, Libya (the NTC). -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on, Qatar should not be put in the belligerent list! All of this is just based on speculation, it's clear from references that a lot of countries participated with secret forces to the combat, that doesn't mean they played a significant role! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.157.229.188 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even without the ground forces, Qatari jets played a huge roll in enforcing the No-fly zone, which is one of the main reasons they are on the list. Jeancey (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Qatar should not be a belligerent, the "boots on the ground" were military advisors and trainers, giving them aid with tactics and communications supervising their operations, they were not involved in frontline fighting as far as i can see putting them in line with all the other nations that did the same but are not listed as belligerents.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/26/173833.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why "2011" Civil War?
Were there other Civil Wars, or like wars in Libya that would require that we disambiguate this Civil war from another? I couldn't find one doing a quick search, but others may have different thoughts. Couldn't we just drop the "2011" and call the page "Libyan Civil War"?-- JOJ Hutton  23:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed so many times I have lost count. Look through the rest of this page and the archives; you'll find plenty of discussion on this. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Humor me. I watch the page, and I read and take part in the discussions. I havn't seen this particular discussion. Lots on "Civil War" vs. "Revolution". Even one on "2011 Civil War" vs. "Civil War of 2011". I just looked one up back in May, and it looked like there was some support to drop "2011". Don't know why they didn't.-- JOJ Hutton  23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look harder next time. In Archive 7, Mike Selinker clearly explains the choice of including the "2011" in the title. You're welcome.- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that there was one in the 1700s. Jeancey (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Must mean the Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795, which I found as a red link at History of Libya and is not cited, nor was it called Libya at the time.-- JOJ Hutton  23:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its up for debate on when the name came along but this source: refers to it as Libya. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hard to argue or find fault with that source, although an argument could be made that it still wasn't called a "Libyan Civil War". But I won't won't. Think I'll leave it at that for now, but be advised that Libyan Civil War already links here, rather than to a disambiguation page of other wars in Libya, so really there's no real harm or linking problem with renaming the page.-- JOJ Hutton  15:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This source seems to support there having been multiple civil wars through Libya's history. I have no particular position on this suggested change though. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fighting still going on
There are many reports about clashes in Libya(Gaddafi loyalists,rival militias). I dont see why the death of Gaddafi should mark the end of the war. it is still going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.245.130 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaddafi's death didn't mark the end of the war, it was when the NTC announced the war was over, three days after Gaddafi's death. It's possible for sporadic fighting to continue after the official end of a war, such as in World War 2. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Useful source?
There's a recent article published in the LRB that may be of use to editors who have been working on this article, especially if people feel that the NTC's POV is getting too much uncritical acceptance. The article, from what I can tell (I'm hardly an expert on the subject), is thorough, well-researched, and critically aware. I've added it to the Further reading section, and here's the reference:

Hope that helps. Sindinero (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Following the precedents set by the vast majority of like pages (Chinese Civil War, American Civil War, English Civil War, Greek Civil War, etc.), shouldn't this be renamed Libyan Civil War? Dan Wang (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It you had added this at the bottom where it belongs, you'd have seen the recent discussion about that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

commanders
Shouldn't Barack Obama be listed as "commander-in-Cheif of The U.S. army" instead of President? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.115.5 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If no-one responds, I will just change it.142.22.115.5 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot because it is locked.142.22.115.5 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They are listed by their office, not by specific duties of that office. Jeancey (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and propaganda
this article talk about a "civil war" but the only side we talk of is the NTC !!!

This look like modern propaganda!!!

we cannot talk about a civil war talking only of one faction

It is non sense!!!

their lot of Kadhafi supporter in Lybia, why you don't show some pictures? propaganda i say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.94.173 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have any information covered by reliable sources, please feel free to provide them. If your sources come from Mathaba, please be aware that this has been determined to be an unreliable source. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is pure agit-prop, full of double standarts, only a little less biased than months ago. WP is loosin' credibility with this type of cr*p.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you see any problems, feel free to fix them yourself. Be sure to have your information backed up by reliable sources. You may have more luck doing this than vague comments on the talk page that don't point out any specific issues. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a little information for the above IP. A Revolutionary War is when one party identifys themselves as a different nation to the opposing party. A Civil War occurs when both parties identify themselves as the same nation. As is the case in the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Both forces (NTC and Gaddafi) indentify themselves as Libyan. OKelly (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is unacceptable to have only one side of the argument presented in a Wikipedia article, with only one reference (47) refuting some of the claims. Since it is very difficult to find reliable sources because of the extensive western propaganda, I have not been able to find much to support the other side. However, what I have found deserves to be included into the article. See testimonies by Dan Glazebrook (independent analyst), Lizzie Phelan (journalist), and Harpal Brar (politician and writer) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J3SU9qUAkSg#! Also, an interview with Lizzie Phelan by the New York Times: http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-york-times-interview-with-lizzie.html Nmenry (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, Lizzie Phelan has been discussed at the RSN and deemed a completely unreliable source. The problem with showing both sides is that the sources for the former government have become unreliable, due to consistently spread information that has been proven to be false.  If you can find sources that turn out to be reliable, by all means, please add them.  At the moment, however, there just doesn't seem to be reliable sources on the side of the former government. Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeancey, please link to where Lizzie Phelan has been "deemed a completely unreliable source" at the RSN. My search returned only two results, neither of which show any discussion of the reliability of her journalism. Thank you. Ricbep (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article is misleading: The Libyan Civil War ... was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government. Surely it would be both more accurate and more neutral to say something like The Libyan Civil War ... was an armed conflict between the government of the North African state of Libya and the United States, Great Britain, France, and the tribe of the former King of Libya.  This is amply supported by the record, and a reasonable summary. Son of eugene (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

War end?
I see with surprise that some users had put 23 October as finishing date of the Libyan War. Their argument is that the NTC declared the end of the war in that date. Ok, so following that argument, we can put a finish date on the Iraq War (ousting or execution of Saddam Hussein), for example, or the Afghan war (ousting of the Talibans). Making that difference seems to be a clear double standart, one more of the list. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The war is over. There aren't any reports of organized resistance, just a little infighting.  Why would you say the war isn't over? Jeancey (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We report what our sources report. If you have any sources saying the war is still ongoing, provide them. As I said in my edit summary, it's quite common for minor skirmishes to continue after the official end of a war, such as in World War 2 and almost every significant conflict of the last thousand years. The end of a war does not mean the end of any and all conflict. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I say is that for example, in 2002 the Afghan War could be considered ended. The Taliban had been ousted from power, there was an interim government (like in Libya now), and the US troops control the great majority of the country. In the Iraq War, we can say the same. Even in the Iraq case, some WP's (not the english one) put 2010 as end of the war, with the retirement of the last US combat troops. The thing is that, time later, insurgence erupted in both countries. Could that pass in Libya?. Perhaps, I dont know. But I think that we must had a equal measure with wars, taking a parameter for considering it ended, not like "...this one ended when the interim gov. says so, that one when the foreign troops left..." etc...Regards.HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The main difference, I would think, is that most sources agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are still ongoing wars. I haven't seen any sources that indicate the Libyan civil war is still ongoing so far, and most repeat the NTC-provided date. I'm certainly interested to see a few good sources saying the war is ongoing if they're out there. We'd need more than one to help counter the number of sources saying it's over. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this merits consideration, but NATO did withdraw Oct. 31, so that's another thing to consider. I'm not saying NATO's withdrawal date is the date of the end but I'm saying Libya's different than Iraq and Afghanistan as there is still a large foreign military presence in both. It's just something to consider. I'm fine with the 'official' date being considered the 'end' of the war, because the two skirmishes I read about (one in Tripoli and another with some tribes) did not merit "civil war" by any means. Throughout the whole thing we had a fairly coherent view of both sides, there were lines drawn, and those lines disappeared with the killing of Gaddafi and the announcement that the country was free. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The war ended. Three has not been a single skirmish between NTC forces and gaddafi forces since oct 23. Even if there was, that does not constitute an ongoing war. 100% of all Gaddafi forces commanders have been killed, captured, or left Libya. Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This war is of a completely different nature than that in Afghanistan or Iraq, so comparisons to those two are inappropriate. The primary actors on both sides were both Libyans, and one side was defeated. Lastly, I haven't seen a single source saying the war is still ongoing. --Yalens (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise I added as a note in the result section that there is still sporadic low-level fighting as of late November. It's properly sourced so it's not in dispute. EkoGraf (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 25 November 2011
I would like to object to calling the Libyan series of events beginning in February 18th a "civil war". Rather, I believe it should be called a "revolution", at least primarily so, and can be secondarily called a civil war. The definition of a civil war as stated by the Wikipedia article "Civil War" states that "The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory." The beginning of the Libyan revolution did not involve a "party". It was merely peaceful demonstrations calling for the ousting of the Muammar Qaddafi rule. These people were not in possession of a part of the national territory. In essence, the naming "Civil War" suggests a struggle for power, and this was not the case in Libya. Rather, it was simply a "Revolution" for the ousting of a regime labelled by international standards as a "brutal, unlawful" one.

Thank you

99.122.202.192 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're a little late with this request. There have been half a dozen requests like yours to change the title to revolution and each time an overwhelming majority of editors decided that the proper term is civil war and not revolution. So, no point in starting another discussion on this topic for a seventh time. EkoGraf (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per EkoGraf.  Puffin  Let's talk! 10:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this has already been dealt with but i have to say something, firstly, the party in revolt, which in the first week were just protesters, were actually in control. They had control Benghazi and everything east of it and set up local commitees, before the NTC was formed. They also had Misrata and Zawiya, all before the formation of the National Liberation Army. Plus the conflict dragged on for months with Gaddafi in control of most of the west and the rebels holding the east, therefor both sides held territory and as such is a civil war. (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Albania
Why Albania is removed from the NATO countries that have contributed? (http://www.balkanweb.com/TV/index.php?id_ansalive=10871&id_categoria=48) Irvi Hyka UTC 22:52 26 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.77.228 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

death count before intervention
What was the death count before foreign intervetion (19 Feb)? Why has no foregin action been taken in Syria? Chesdovi (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is, as of yet, no civil WAR in Syria. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 03:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Name
Why is this article called 2011 Libyan civil war and not just Libyan civil war? I can't find any other use of the term, so surely the year is unncessary as a disambiguation? 213.1.240.149 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Support for name change to Libyan Civil War from 2011 Libyan civil war
I agree with the above statement, there is no previous libyan civil war, so 2011 seems pointless, the 2011 part of the title came from the orgial name "2011 libyan protests", this was to disguingish it from previous libyan protests. Since there has been civil war in libya before 2011, it should jsut be Libyan civil war. Kspence92(talk) 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose We have had this pop up at least 5 times within the last few months. There are sources:, that support multiple civil wars in Libya's history, and wikipedia should not go against history here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting you mention that, since Greece is known to have multiple civil wars throughout its history, and yet by your logic, this supposedly goes against Greek history. --24.107.235.192 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One article talks about one civil war while the other covers two civil wars that happened back to back so the article title reflects on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm? So then you would agree that the Greek Civil War should be renamed to the 1946–1949 Greek civil war? --24.107.235.192 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - Only if there weren't any other Libyan Civil Wars in History. OKelly (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy procedural close - proposals like this one keep coming up again and again, while a quick peek in the Talk page archives shows that there's no consensus for such a move. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's probably the most notable civil war in Libyan history, at the very least, far more notable than the Tripolitanian Civil War (1791 - 1795) someone brought up way back when.48Lugur (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - As per above comments. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - For several reasons. There have been civil wars in the past, and in the future there might be some. The Greek Civil War is likely named as such because it was the first in recent memory, and thus, no one changed the name, despite the fact that there were others. In the future, if there was ANOTHER libyan civil war, this article would be confused with it, if the 2011 is dropped. What I have never understood, throughout all this, is why it MATTERS to anyone that it has 2011 in the name of the article... there is nothing wrong with being slightly more specific, so I don't get why so many people want to drop the 2011 from the name. Hopefully that all made sense. Jeancey (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

support - The Libya as a nation has never had a civil war in the past. There have been civil conflicts in Tripolitania in the 18th centaury as someone else mentioned, but that was not Libya. Libya did not exist at that point. If there is a future civil war the 2011 can be readded to this page, or indeed this page would just be renamed Second Libyan civil war. My main points is, a civil war has never occured in the Libyan nation since it came into existance, other than the one that jus occured, so why is the 2011 neccesary ? all news organisations and governments genreally jsut say Libyan civil war anyway. Most of us here don bother tacking on a 2011 when we speak of it do we ? we just say libyan civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Never has been one in the past in the nation of Libya. Goltak (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong support This is the first civil war, so this is a very clear support. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war - A previous civil war. I doubt anyone would ever get confused between the two, but, obviously, many people do not know about it. With the logic here we should rename that article First Libyan civil war and this one Second Libyan civil war - The latter of which would undoubtedly cause further confusion. As per above comments, there's no consensus for such a move, so it shouldn't be done. -  Royal Mate1  02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion May I also suggest, from reading the archives and such, adding a sort of FAQ section about the name of this article or other issues commonly reiterated here, as there seems to be some at the least.  Royal Mate1  02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there are valid arguements for both points here i must concede, however, the 1793 - 1795 Tripolitanian civil war was not a Libyan civil war, as Libya did not exist as a nation by that point, nor did the concept of Libya as a nation even exist. Tripolitania was a seperate country. Libya only came into existance as a real, unified country at independence in 1951, and the name Libya was created by the Italians in 1934, therefor, a libyan civil war cannot have occured before Libya existed. unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.211.205 (talk)


 * Reply Ottoman Tripolitania was indeed, in a political sense, not Libya today. But we would still refer to it as Libyan, no? We certainly wouldn't call it an Ottoman Civil War, even though it was. Regardless, there is no problem with the "2011" in the title. Libyan Civil War redirects here, and that is fine. So does Libyan Civil War (2011). Having the "2011" is not pointless because it describes the war. Most of the civil wars on Wikipedia follow this kind of title (see Chadian Civil War). See also History of Libya. No page moving is necessary because there is nothing wrong with the title. If the article's title was 2010 Libyan Civil War, then it would need to be moved. But renaming the article "just because" doesn't seem practical or worth the arguments here. With that, I also support a speedy procedural close.  Royal Mate1  20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Your comments are a red herring. The 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war is a separate issue. As far as the country of Libya is concerned, this is the first civil war, and the article should be named appropriately. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply My comments are not "a red herring". The article should not be "named appropriately" because there is no consensus, even if this is, as you see, the first real "Libyan civil war". Surely it shouldn't matter one way or the other if the article is named 2011 Libyan civil war or just Libyan civil war. The archives support this, and you may as well argue that it should be called the Libyan revolution. The fact that they are all redirects to the same page renders all of this discussion utterly worthless. Please stop insisting on changing the article's title. Perhaps you should actually take a look at the archives, maybe if I link Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 12, Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 12, and Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 10 you will understand? That's not even counting the numerous other discussions to rename it (generally to revolution). There will never be a full consensus to rename the article. Stop beating a dead horse. Perhaps if all of the focus towards renaming the article went into actually improving the article, it would have an A, GA, or FA class status right now. Please consider that.  Royal Mate1  02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support &mdash; There doesn't appear to have been any other civil wars in Libya's history.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - My biggest concern here isn't the exclusion of the date, it's the use of capitalization in a way that suggests the name is a proper noun. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view that it's anachronistic to think of the Tripolitanian civil war of the 1790s as a "Libyan civil war", but I just haven't seen a consensus among reliable sources that the common name of this conflict is the "Libyan Civil War". Let's not rush to designate a proper noun for this war; the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has been going on for over a decade, and there's still no popular name for it the way there is for the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Spanish Civil War, the Mexican-American War, or the War of the Roses. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Honestly, what other Libyan civil wars have take place when Libya was actually... well, Libya? What other Libyan civil wars match their weight of notability to this one? And as others have stated above me, the Tripolitanian civil war occurred long before Libya came into existence as a nation, so I find this whole "there's been more than one Libyan civil war" argument very unconvincing. --24.107.235.192 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - That isn't really the main argument, although I can see how it seems to be. The main argument in not renaming the article is that there is no consensus to make a move from 2011 Libyan civil war to Libyan civil war; should it not be Libyan Civil War? How about 2011 Libyan Civil War? Libyan revolution? Libyan Revolution? 2011 Libyan revolution? etc. Try to remember that Wikipedia works with a consensus here. There are good arguments for both sides, but there are too many sides to choose from. Degree in notability should not justify a name change/move either. Some may view the Tripolitanian civil war as not Libyan and others may. Like Kudzu has said, the exclusion of the date is not the only concern here. I don't see why the inclusion of the date is a problem anyway.  Royal  Mate1  08:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply To be honest, most here seem to have voted "Support", we should move it already. As previously stated, the other civil conflict was much before Libya existed as an nation. Goltak (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That goes against what is said in the sources provided though, the civil wars took place in Libya. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Actually, the other civil war did Not take place in the nation of Libya. This is the only one. Also, I agree with Goltak's comments above, and support a move. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply So, evidently, the Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus did not take place in Libya either? Or the other prehistoric petroglyphs on Jebel Uweinat? They occurred in whatever prehistoric government was around then. That doesn't seem logical. To me, anything that refers to the three historic regions of Libya (Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica) can be called Libyan. However, if a name change does happen, I would support Libyan Civil War and not Libyan civil war as is suggested here per other article titles and natural grammar rules. As of now, I'm going neutral. But saying that events did not occur in areas because there was a different government/nation is absurd.  Royal Mate1  21:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Again, your comments are a red herring. Your points are not related to the subject at hand. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Very odd to have a year attached to this article, as there is no other notable Libyan Civil War. Having a year attached to it suggests that there is one.-- JOJ Hutton  01:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support This is the first civil war in the nation state called Libya, that has had an impact on all Libyans. The Tripolitanian Civil war was not in the nation state of Libya, nor did it have an impact on all the people of the modern day state. (In the 1790s Tripolitania might not have even been considered part of Libya the region.) 106.71.170.41 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support per 48Lugur and 106.71.170.41. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose those who favor this suffer from presentism. Why is this war more important than the Tripolitanian Civil War?  It is because people here are so absorbed in the present they are not weighing things in the long run.  If a clear and unchallenged consensus emerges to use "Libyan Civil War" for this fight, than it is worth reconsidering.  However the media has not in general called this a civil war at all, and so we should stay with the more descriptive title for the time being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the Tripolitania War. 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war.  The article is minimal, but this is general a reflection of wikipedia's presentist bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply Sorry, why not label the "English Civil War" the "1642 English Civil War" as the Barons' Revolts and the War of the Roses were both beforehand. Why don't we change the title of the "Chinese Civil War" to the "1927 Chinese Civil War". It is simply a matter of relevance, impact, scope and context. In context the Tripolitanian Civil War was not a [b]Libyan[/b] civil war just as a dark age squabble in East Anglica is not The English Civil War 106.71.170.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC).

Support as per the Greek, English and Chinese examples. That 1790's Tripolitanian conflict that is mentioned did not take place in the modern Libyan state (In its territory, but not the state). It's like referring to a conflict within a particular Native American tribe or between nobles vying for the crown in one of the pre-Spanish Iberian kingdoms as the American Civil War or Spanish Civil War (respectively), or like IP 106.71.170.41 mentioned, medieval civil conflicts in one of the heptarchy kingdoms as the English Civil War. The inclusion of 2011 is simply needless - remember WP:COMMONNAME. As an alternative though (and to further complicate things), what about Libyan Civil War (2011) instead? --L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Why? There's no difference between Libyan civil war (2011) and 2011 Libyan civil war except that the current one is much more aesthetically pleasing than the (2011) one. I still don't really understand why it really matters that we are being more specific.  It will keep us from having to change it in the future should there be another civil war.  Honestly, I haven't read a SINGLE good reason why 2011 Libyan civil war is BAD.... just reasons why Libyan civil war is "good enough."  Why change it from something that's fine, to something that's just "good enough"? Jeancey (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I was kinda being sarcastic on that last one, actually. Since when does Wikipedia try to predict the future with article titles? It seems that an encyclopedia should be reactive in relation to events, not proactive. Going by that logic, maybe we should rename the "American Civil War" article to "1861-1865 American Civil War" or likewise for the English Civil War simply because there might be a future civil war. Unnecessary disambiguation.
 * Fine? well, if so many editors are raising concerns about the title, I think it would be fair to say that, just possibly, the current title may not be fine. I haven't seen a convincing reason on here yet as to why the title should remain as-is - just a bunch of crap about a civil conflict in pre-Libyan Tripolitania (which was actually nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, not the modern Libyan state). Furthermore, something you all seem to be ignoring is that historically Tripolitania only includes a small part of what is now Libya (which goes back to another editor's point about a dark ages civil war in East Anglia or wherever being termed an "English Civil War")--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - there have already been several proposals that failed to reach a consensus for move. As there's no additional facts raised, this proposal should also be closed with no move. 1exec1 (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I still cant understand the concerns for not changing the title. The 2011 exists to differentiate the 2011 Libyan civil war from any previous such conflict. The issue is, there is no previous such conflict in the history of the Libyan nation since it came into existance.

Besides, when you are looking for info on the conflict in Libya, most people dont type in 2011 libyan civil war, its just Libyan civil war they are looking for. Also ive yet to hear of any news organisation using the term 2011 Libyan civil war, its just Libyan civil war, or occasionally the libyan conflict.(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.248.120 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, I have removed the move notice due to clear lack of consensus needed for such a move. Jeancey (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support/Note There is a clear consensus to move. As such, I am restoring the tag, to give time for those who oppose the move to make their case. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There isn't really consensus to move. There is an equal number opposing as supporting, which means no consensus to change. Jeancey (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply That's not true, please review the above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I amend my statement. There does appear to be a slight majority in favor of renaming. Enough to keep the discussion open, though I'm not sure if enough to move. Jeancey (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support In the 1790s, there was no unified Libya or even a concept of it. Clearly this is the only conflict that could be thought of as a "Libyan Civil War". Putting the date ahead of it implies that there have been other civil wars in Libya since its' foundation as a nation-state. --Tocino 12:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I would add that, whilst I endorse the arguments previously forwarded concerning the status of 'Libya' as a nation-state, and the obscurity of earlier conflicts, changing from '2011 Libyan civil war' to 'Libyan civil war' is eminently commonsensical as far as the average user is concerned. The debate above seems to echo a lot of the humdrum over the '2010-11 Middle East and North Africa protests'. Again, it's a choice between logical reasoning and superficial accuracy against the need to be accessible, reflecting the needs of users. Yes, I agree, as far as chronology goes, '2011 Libyan civil war' makes a good deal of sense. But the thing is, nobody is going to type that into Google looking when looking for info. Plus, to make a couple of slightly distracting points, 'Libyan civil war' is a much cleaner, less cumbersome title, and, more importantly, does this matter terribly? So Wikipedia isn't consistent. That isn't what its here for.
 * Apologies if this polemic is too brashly worded; these name change discussions always have a habit of exasperating me. Laika   Talk: Laika  20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: While there may have been earlier, smaller, civil wars in Libya, this civil war is quite easily the largest and most prolific, to the extent that Libyan civil war simply redirects here. In addition, low-level fighting has been continuing into 2012, which has only been escalating this past week. I don't see any reason to put 2011 in the title. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note Viewing the above, there is a clear consensus for a move. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: As said above, Libyan civil war directly relates here, and there are no disambiguation pages. For this reason, and others said above, this article should be moved.--NovusLux (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: If it DOES get moved, please make sure it is moved to Libyan civil war, lower case civil war, not Libyan Civil War. It makes using the phrase in prose much, much easier, capitalization and grammar-wise. Jeancey (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

British casualty
On what grounds is the "1 [British] airman killed in traffic accident in Italy" included as a casualty or loss on the NTC/UN side? While an unfortunate loss, this death did not result from enemy action, take place in the Libyan theatre, or even involve a serviceman who was bound for Libya- he was merely delivering supplies to UK forces in Italy. Worldbeing (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not an causalty of war at all, just an accident while driving. Goltak (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He has been declared by the British MoD to have been a casualty of the NATO-led operation and by extension a casualty of the war. Numereous other war articles include in their death tolls non-combat deaths also, like the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, Afghan wars, etc. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Vengeance in Libya December 15, 2011 by Joshua Hammer; JANUARY 12, 2012 The New York Review of Books 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not over
no way is this over just because nato and its stooges decree so. Bani Walid was just retaken (and the terrorists dont have air support without which theyre just rabble rousers) and there are contant pro vs. anti-gaddafi fights and even intra-rebel fights as a DIRECT consequence of the uprising/civil war.(Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).
 * Please don't change things like that without consensus from the talk page. The WAR is over.  That doesn't mean the fighting has stopped. This is currently fighting is considered under the aftermath of the war, not the war itself.  The was is definitely over. Jeancey (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the war has ended, it is commonplace sadly for after the war has ended for there to be low-level insurgency battles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He thinks that BW was "retaken" by loyalists. . Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Name of Article
Sorry if I seem to be rehashing an old point but, why was the article title changed to Libyan civil war instead of Libyan Civil War? (i.e. Why was it not capitalized?) I noted what Jeancey said in the above discussion, but my question is this: What about such articles as the American Civil War or the English Civil War? Nearly every other article on a specific civil war is capitalized. If the argument can be made that it should be lower case, then I would expect that argument to include why it is different from all the other civil war articles on Wikipedia - or otherwise why the other articles should be changed. -Noha307 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'd have to agree with this argument for consistencies sake.-- JOJ Hutton  04:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Provide some reliable sources that support such a capitalisation and I'm sure you'll find no objections. Lothar von Richthofen (talk)
 * When closing the move request my reading of WP:CAPS was that we should use the uncapitalised form. It does seem that you are correct - World War II is capitalised as well - feel free to request this article is moved. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CAPS says to capitalise if it is a proper noun. I have seen very few reliable sources that treat "Libyan Civil War" as a proper noun; most just say "civil war in Libya" or similar nondescript constructions. On the other hand, wars like "American Civil War" and "English Civil War" are well-established in reliable sources as being distinct proper nouns. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is basically why I mentioned that in the discussion. I don't remember if the conversation I had was on this talk page, or on someone's user talk, but I definitely remember having this discussion before and the result was that because it isn't used in the sources as a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized. I specifically mentioned it because the move request was to Libyan Civil War originally, which according to the sources is incorrect. Jeancey (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some quick Google News searches support this. "libyan civil war" gets 74 results, the vast majority of which do not use the fully-capitalised form. See for example:
 * CBS News: "No sooner had the Libyan civil war ended than another erupted in Syria."
 * The Globe and Mail: "…NATO’s forceful entry into the Libyan civil war."
 * Reuters Africa: "The Libyan civil war might have given militant groups…", "The U.N. report on the impact of the Libyan civil war on countries of the Sahel region…"
 * "libya's civil war" gets 122 results, "civil war in libya" 56 results, and the all-inclusive "civil war" libya gets 3,420 results. If you look through these, you will find next to no RS support for the proper noun form. Wikipedia is based off of what secondary sources say; we should not create WP:NEOLOGISMs that are not found in them. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, thing is I've never really gone about requesting a move before. How would one go about doing such a thing? I assume I just need to put a discussion template or something on the talk page - but I'm not even really sure where I would find one of those. -Noha307 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Yes, you ARE rehashing an old point. By reading the relevant archive page you could've easily found out that the decision to write "civil war" instead of "Civil War" was well argumented. Therefore I oppose any further renaming of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must apologize to TaalVerbeteraar and Jeancy, when I read the discussion I cited above, I didn't notice Kudzu1's reply/comment. As far as the archived discussion goes, I didn't think to check for previous discussions when I started this section. That was my mistake. I also didn't realize how high emotions were running as a result of what I assume to be irritation at the discussion being reopened/started over again. The discussion below helped me realize that. However, I would like to remind TaalVerbeteraar that, without trying to sound accusatory, of WP:AGF. Sorry again for the irritation, the failure was on my part. -Noha307 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me for coming across a bit harsh. It's just that it seems as if no week can go by without someone trying to start the exact same discussion on. And it's been going on for ages. Some of my frustration crept into my earlier reply; it wasn't directed at you personally. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did the archives go?
Correct me if I am missing something huge here, but it seems to me that the (rather voluminous, as I recall) archives for this talkpage have gone missing. I find it more than likely that they got left behind under the 2011 prefix after the recent move. Can this be confirmed and/or rectified? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this what usually happens when pages are moved like this, I wonder?--A (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Libyan transition
So as not to repeat what has been stated before, here is the previous discussion. It is still unclear whether or not Libyan transition is the best way to call it, or if this kind of information might be able to fit inside another page that I do not yet know of. There seems to be several pages related to the aftermath of wars in Category:Aftermath of war so it seems that one related to this one would fit in with the rest.--A (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See Aftermath of the Libyan civil war. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well! Sorry for being a dunce here.--A (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Request Rename
Title of article should be renamed to 2011 Libyan Revolution. The date February 17th has been titled revolution day by many reliable sources:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-17/news/31072469_1_jay-carney-libya-moammar-gadhafi

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Libya+marks+revolution+leader+issues+warning/6174171/story.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/fireworks-as-libya-marks-revolution-day/story-e6frf7jx-1226274194216

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0218/1224311977150.html

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2012_pg4_1

http://main.omanobserver.om/node/83692

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9088242/Libyans-celebrate-first-anniversary-of-revolution.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/world/africa/libya-anniversary/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4082a108-597f-11e1-abf1-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_mideast/feed//product#axzz1mgy9IoLN

The term 'Civil war' is now very rarely, if ever, used. Furthermore their has never been a source that has quoted a Libyan (government official or otherwise) using the term 'civil war'. Just because Libya had an armed uprising doesn't make it less of a Revolution. Cuba also had an armed uprising in the 1950's yet the main title for that page on Wikipedia is the 'Cuban Revolution' not the 'Cuban Civil War'. it is now probably the right time to rename this article to [2011 Libyan Revolution] as the term Libyan civil war is becoming increasingly outdated term by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per every other time we've had this discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we really going to go through this again, somehow I knew this would pop up again. Oppose per the past discussions we have already had on this, yes you have sources but the Majority of sources refer to this as a civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Libyan Uprising
The Majority of reliable sources refer to the events in Libya as Libyan uprising (3,940) not Libyan civil war (3,030). Therefore we must rename this article from Libyan civil war to Libyan Uprising. The term 'civil war' is also very deceptive; it implies that there were to large armies from the start. When in fact during the first two weeks of the revolution it was mostly unarmed civilians against security forces, the new title of Libyan uprising would fit in far more in the wider context of the Arab spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain where you got those numbers (3,940 and 3,030). They contradict my own impression, which is that "Libyan uprising" seems to be falling out of use in the media in favour of "Libyan civil war". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go:

Libyan Uprising

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=libya&cp=15&gs_id=1r&xhr=t&q=libyan+uprising&pf=p&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=libyan+uprising&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c1b283e28ea2b583&biw=1366&bih=667

Libyan civil war

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=libyan%20uprising&cp=16&gs_id=1o&xhr=t&q=libyan+civil+war&pf=p&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=libyan+civil+war&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c1b283e28ea2b583&biw=1366&bih=667

I don’t know where you got that impression from, the term ‘Libyan civil war’ has never really been used by major news networks such as the BBC, CNN or Aljazeera; although it is commonly used by Russia Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To search for a phrase like "Libyan uprising" or "Libyan civil war", it's obligatory to include quotation marks. If you don't, Google simply searches for "Libyan" AND "uprising" and also finds articles that do not contain the specific phrase "Libyan uprising". Your results include articles about the Syrian uprising, in which passing reference is made to the Libyan civil war. If we *do* include quotation marks, the number of results for either of the two queries are approximately the same.


 * Furthermore, you are quite wrong in suggesting that major news networks do not use the term Libyan civil war. Indeed, the fact that — amongst others — CNN referred to the conflict as a civil war was a major consideration in the decision to move the article to its current title. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per chat after chat that has already been discussed about this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Support It no longer matters if you had this discussion before the fact is that the Majority of reliable sources are now referring to it as “Libyan Uprising” not “Libyan civil war”. Therefore we must change the main title of this article Libyan Uprising. It would be highly hypocritical of us not to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a fact that the majority of reliable sources refer to the conflict as such. The only 'proof' you presented for your claim thus far is an improper (b/c no quotation marks used) Google news query. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right and I apologize for my mistake. However it is a fact that when done the proper way the majority of reliable sources use the term “Libyan Revolution”(111) far more than either “Libyan uprising”(81) or “Libyan civil war” (73). Therefore I would like to change my rename request to change the title of this article from ‘Libyan civil war’ to “Libyan Revolution”. Considering that the ‘2011-2012 Yemeni uprising’ page was change to ‘2011-2012 Yemeni revolution’ for that exact reason, it only seems logical to change the Libyan tittle page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One problem is, that there were both a civilian uprising AND a civil war. Contrary to Egypt and Tunisia, in Libya the civilian uprising (unarmed protesters demanding real change) quickly became overshadowed by first the gunning down of unarmed protesters by security forces, then improvised arson and gun attacks against government targets, and a few days later whole sections of the state army turning against their line of command, joining opposition. And then all the militia's also formed and joined and took over much of the initiative. It resulted in front line battles, urban warfare and a number of mass killings from both sides.

One could argue to simply call it the 'Libyan war (of 2011), because Nato involvement was so crucial in crippling government supply lines and taking out tanks and airplanes. And in giving so many local fiefs the courage to start their own militia.

But as the current events show (many militia's still armed and active, refusing orders from any authority, doing their own arbitrary justice) the armed actors are indeed the main defining characteristic of the Libyan uprising. That would justify calling it a civil war. There WAS a libyan war, and because on the ground the majority of the armed opposition were improvised militia, it was a civil war.

The best way to do respect to it, is to clearly introduce the beginning of the civil war. We could rename the section "Uprising and civil war" into: "Uprising turning into civil war", which would necessitate some re-editing, because lots of peaceful protest continued while the civil war grew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We had this discussion year ago. Between now and than several cities were destroyed, full-scale military action was in place, White House, European Union, European states, Arab states, United Nations, ICRC, MSF and gazilion of other organization called it civil war. There is nothing more to discuss. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal RfC: Move moratorium

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

The result of the proposal was the article will be subject to a move moratorium for 6 months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A 6-month moratorium is proposed on new requested moves on this talkpage, inclusive of both capitalisation changes and new terms.

Consensus for this motion will be determined below by a discussion lasting no more than two weeks (starting 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) and ending on 1 April), and will judged and closed by an uninvolved administrator (to be found by neutrally-worded request at the administrator's noticeboard). If no or unfavourable consensus is judged, new move requests will be allowed as usual following the closure of the discussion. If consensus is judged to be in favour of the moratorium, it will begin immediately following the closure of the discussion.

For the duration of the moratorium, the article's name will remain at the status quo. Any and all attempted move requests will be closed immediately and permanently as no consensus without further discussion. A notice linking to the discussion result will be posted prominently at the top of the article to advise against initiating requested moves.

At the end of 6 months, the moratorium will expire, unless consensus is achieved for an extension. Expiration or extension of the moratorium will be decided by discussion, with the default result (i.e., no consensus) being expiration. Expiration will not, however, mean that the name will necessarily be changed, only that new requests will be allowed.

The move proposal in the section above will be frozen during the discussion period, as will any new ones proposed during said period. If the moratorium is not enacted, all frozen proposals will be reopened to discussion. If the moratorium is enacted, all frozen proposals will be immedately and permanently closed as no consensus.

Any proposed edits or amendments to this proposal may be discussed below. Participants are advised to look through the talkpage archives to familiarise themselves with the history of requested moves and naming discussions of this page.

List of past move discussions: 1–8 9–11  12  13  14  15  16 17 18 19 20 21–23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31–32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

NOTE: This is not a requested move. Discussion of preferred titles here is inappropriate.

Discussion

 * Support as proposer. We need to give some time to let a commonly-accepted name for the conflict come into currency among reliable sources before going around trying to conjure up our own neologisms. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This will only help, we have to wait for dust to settle down, country to stabilize and RS to establish their own consensus on the name of the conflict (yes, they do that). EllsworthSK (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Enough already, wait a bit and then have a discussion to rename, per WP:COMMONNAME currently the sources point to "Civil war" but this could change making a dozen move requests is not the answer until when or if that happens and can have a consensus on it in it's favor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support These discussions are getting tiring because it's just an endless rehashing of the same arguments. Maybe once the conflict has made it to the history books we can determine what the WP:COMMONNAME for it will be. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: This tendentious re-re-re-...-re-proposal is asking the other parent so many times that the kid is about to be strangled and quietly buried in the back yard. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment At this rate April 1st may be too soon, would April 8th be better for a lapse of time? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the painfully slow rate of feedback here, I'm not sure what even another week would do, but I have no objections. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since everyone who has responded thus far is in favour of the proposal, I fail to see why we would need another week of discussion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put in a request for closure at a noticeboard on 1 April; if an admin decides more time is needed, then we'll extend the discussion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This lengthy dispute has clearly been a huge drain of energy that could be focussed on the article itself. Hopefully the answer will be clearer in six month's time. Thom2002 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two weeks have now elapsed. I have requested closure at WP:AN. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.