Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 3

Proposed move of info from this article to: International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising
Shouldn't the first part of the Arms traffic in Gaddafi's situation be moved too International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising? Them Nashi boys are no arm dealers (as for as we know) and past arm deals so nothing about today. Besides the Dassault Mirage F1's who are now used to by Muammar Gaddafi are not Russian. Seems unfair to single Russia out and not mention France and other countries who supplied him with weapons... —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  • Talk to me!  01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick problems with the map
I noticed "Al Aziziyah" is partly cut off and the city of Zawiyah says "Az Zawiyah". It seems in all of the press reports I've read the Az part is left off, so I think it should be taken off the label for clarity and uniformity. This earlier version of the map seems to look less cutoff than the current map.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Zurf a reliable source?
I don't wish to decry the efforts of another editor, but can aircraft.zurf.info be considered a reliable Source? I've noticed a number of references citing this website, but most don't seem to reflect the content I find at http://aircraft.zurf.info/article/libyan-air-force-during-revolt. Also, these edits are made by User:AircraftZurf, which makes me a little suspicious that this may be, to some degree, WP:OR. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! It seems the sZurf site wasn't loading properly in my browser, and I can now see a bit more information through the scrolling timeline, but the references would surely be better linked to the original sources quoted by Zurf, rather than just to Zurf itself? Lynbarn (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BinJawad color
There's been heavy fighting reported in and around BinJawad, I think the colour should be changed to yellow

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8371550/Fierce-fighting-rages-around-Bin-Jawad.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.172.117 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to AVAAZ.org
I have removed notion on AVAAZ petition, due to no independent sources prooving notability of this fact are given.--Abiyoyo (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is the organization's website itself. It is not claiming any external facts, only internal ones. For example it is like BBC claiming they have sent reports to tripoli rather than BBC claiming CNN has sent reporters. Internal not External information.Zenithfel (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, i have no doubts about the facts. The doubt is about the notability of the fact. Any statement can be included in an article, if it is covered in neutral unaffiliated relible sources. The website itself is obviously affiliated. We cannot mention all the websites on this topic - only those, which are notable enough - i.e. mentioned in other relible and notable sources (like well-known media, scientific publications, etc.) If, e.g. BBC will write or say about AVAAZ - ok. But for now it seems to be one of many initiatives with uncler notability. BBC or CNN are relible sources, AVAAZ is not.--Abiyoyo (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok then how about we write this: AVAAZ.org established a petition on their site calling for the establishment of a no fly zone by the UN, and claim that over 750,000 have signed so far. Zenithfel (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I write: 'Mr. John Doe says, that Qaddafi is a martian and have started a petition to send Qadaafi back home to Mars' and give a link to John Doe's website - is it ok to include such a text into an article? I guess, no. Because the queston is 'who is John Doe?' and 'is his opinion important enough?' The answer is: if this opinion is mentioned in reliable sources, it should be mentioned in an article. If it is not - then the fact of his opinon or his activites is not notable enough and should not be mentioned.--Abiyoyo (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in Al-Jazeera's live blog 8 March, 4:35pm: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-8 This is not John Doe. Avaaz.org is an organization notable enough to be mentioned by a major network as well as to have its own fairly sizable Wiki article.  140.247.239.247 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fallschirmjäger
Just wanted to let you know that Fallschirmjäger is singular and plural. No need for the additional S in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.45.152 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume Fallschirmjager is the singular then? =p Ich verstehe nicht warum Deutsch hat ACHT Pluralformen. Es ist gar nicht schön! (Ich bin Deutsch 002 Student). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Fallschirmjager" doesn't exist. The German inclination is very difficult, I agree (being a German native speaker). "Fallschirmjäger" is both, singular and plural. There is no difference between both forms. We have "Mann : Männer" (man : men), but don't mix this with "Jäger"! That's another paradigm. The English had all these forms, but after the Battle of Hastings in 1066 they lost them, due to the French speaking Normans.;) Don't read Petrie about pots, read Gardiner about grammar!--90.187.90.194 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, just like der Gürtel, -. Lol, the only plural grammar rules I have memorised are that typically a word in the feminine with an -e ending will have an -n ending, and that -in (Freundin etc) endings will have an nen. Yet I am still an A-Student 'cause I get everything else. o/ Really? I am not going to even attempt Old English then. Nein, Petrie war ein ganz fantastischer Archäologe und ich studiere Archäologie. Treffpunkt Deutsch ist am besten, weil ich Amerikaner bin. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to continue the conversation directly (andreas.j.g.frank@gmx.net), because we are going out of topic now. You've got the grammar now! I beg your pardon for the bad joke about Petrie, but I read Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar last term (I graduated in Ancient History etc. and are reading for my Ph.D. now).--2.201.202.142 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, fair enough, although it is best when putting an email to spell it out (so bots don't get you) and to put it on the talk page. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A Swiss attack
In Gaddafi's personal perception he defends his country against a Swiss expedition force. The Switzerland sent their troops in, to divide Libya, as an answer to Gaddafi's proposal to do so with their home-country. The Cyrenaica may be added to Egypt, Tripolitania to Tunisia and the Fezzan to Algeria. --2.201.173.236 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow.Praghmatic (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Look here: Libya–Switzerland relations--90.187.1.57 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gadaffi and the Swiss are like a proud household owner and crabgrass on the lawn!--99.135.150.55 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Now Gaddafi openly accuses the "Zionists" to destabilise his country. In European press there are accusations, that the Austrian Airforce is supporting the Gaddafi-regime: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20110220_OTS0056/verteidigungsministerium-widerlegt-internet-geruechte-um-einsatz-der-c-130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.107.144 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm.... I assume the Swiss invasion of Libya is purely a Gaddafi conspiracy theory to detract from the actual events taking place. If we have a reliable source mentioning it, then we can include it in the article. Probably it is better over at Libya–Switzerland relations though.  {Heroeswithmetaphors   talk}  19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When was the last time the Swiss invaded anyone? No one is alive to remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But Swiss mercenaries fought all over the world.--90.186.236.247 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Swiss mercenaries have fought all over the world, despite the nation being neutral as a whole for about 300 years.Wipsenade (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But they were talking about Switzerland as a nation state. Sure we can say Madagascar or New Zealand invaded someone if a mercenary was from their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think countries are usually responsible for the actions of their private citizens. As an official representative of the Zionist conspiracy btw, I would like to say we had nothing to do with this one :p (about as serious a source as any other on this topic) TheArchaeologist 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the U.S. has a Neutrality Act, and also there have been times when "unaffiliated" invaders have brought back trouble - e.g. the Bay of Pigs Invasion. When you take away any right from private citizens, whether it is the right to free speech or the right to be a mercenary, it makes the government formally responsible any time that it is allowed. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We do not? If you follow through that link you'll see the last Neutrality Act was repealed in 1941. All that is irrelevant of course without a credible source saying that this whole thing is any sort of attack on Gadhafi by any government, Swiss or not. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not what I just read at Neutrality Act of 1794. Sorry, didn't think to disambiguate. Wnt (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I'll be damned, following the link to the US Code, it's indeed still in effect, even if it is usually ignored. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it really an overseas plot?
Could this aspect be covered in more detail? Is there really a plot to take him out?

Col Gadhafi has traditionally blamed Islamists, tribal rivals and the USA, until the Lockerbie bombing alienated him with most of Europe (Italy, a few Swiss bankers, the UK's Labour party and Scotland's SNP party being the only exceptions). During both the Gulf Wars, he condemned Saddam Hussien, but then refused to help the Coalition forces. He has also slammed Hosni Mubarak's sons, Iran, Zionists and the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt toppled its government last month. Now he blames the Swiss.

Has he so annoyed the world that he public enemy number 1 or is he finally cracking up? Either way it is an important issue. Wipsenade (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally cracking up? He has been a crack pot for many years. Gadhafi and his son blamed anyone they could think of in their speeches. They blamed:
 * 1.Halucunagenic drugs distributed by foreign spies
 * 2.Zionists
 * 3.Americans
 * 4.Europeans
 * 5.Itallians
 * 6.The Turks
 * 7.Alcohol

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * :-)Wipsenade (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have been pretty shocked if he didn't blame us Jews for this (we are ofc planning to steal their oil and make their children into matzah). We can't actually put that he's a crackpot without a documented psychological examination suggesting it though. :p TheArchaeologist 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Of course there is no evidence about foreign involvement. But e.g. Castro says so. Any foreign support for the protesters, either from Egypt, from Turkey or anywhere else, would give him the impression he is right. It would be very interesting, if there is any medical research about his mental state.--2.201.170.22 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

His accusations of foreign involvement cant be taken seriously. He has blamed so many sources and is now blaming Al-Qaeda. Several of the supposed foreign influences would never co-oporate just to bring him down(USA and Al-Qaeda...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.217.172 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He said he was hated for having a beard and blamed El-Queada in the Hour Long Speach.Wipsenade (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In an interview he had with the BBC he blamed drug crazed youth and people on hallucinogenic drugs supplied by El-Queada for the protests and denied there were any outside Bengazi.


 * All jokes aside, we can agree that Gadhafi is not a reliable source for information on this whole thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, he's not a trustworthy (or even sane) source!Wipsenade (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But still better than delirious Al-Jazeera 8)))))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.161.241 (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

news - needs sources
currently al jazeera english tv.

italy evacuation in libya + berlusconi initially support/silent on gadafi, then concern on violence + libya airtstrikes, 250 killed in tripoli + 9 libyan diplomats resign (incl. india) and deputy at un calls for gaddafi to go (al zaquratha + miszuratha struck) + venezuela denied gaddafi is there + tunisian military on high alert as tunisians working in libya flee + lost touch with tunisian ambassador in triploi + brits evacauted + embassy staff in ukjoin protesters but not ambassador, libyan flag raised replaced with "independence glag" + airspace closed + +reports of 2 planes of mercenaries arriving + clinton: "end unacceptable bloodshed" + state tv showing pro-gaddafi rallies + witness tells al jaz mostly "young men" + turkey struggling to evacaute --> planes turn back as benghazi air traffic not being monitored (some out by road) + 200 people protests outside istanbul consulate + sent 2 catamarans to take 300 passengers back + erdogan cautioned party members against any criticism on concern... + us ambassador not present as left a few weeks ago after wikileaks scandal broke + 2 senior usa-based diplomats of libya resign saying theyre joining the "popular revolution" + ambassador to us condemns events but not resign + UN staff of libya write to current head of the sec council (brazil) to hold an aemertgency discussion one vents + ban ki moon "outraged" after first statements that was mor emoderate + some army officers call for the removal of gadafi + qatar pm. spoke out against the libyan reaction + arab league meeting in egypt tomorrow + malta refused libyan ambassador request to speak to 2 pilots + staff at malta embassy joining protests + pilots said more likely to go to malta because of peace treaty with italy-libya that could repatriate them + eu evacuees landing in mata + austrian/ portuguese flew out citizens + + landline and wireless comm. disrupted + [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/arab-stock-markets-fall-as-commodities-leap-2011-02-21 + gaddafi says hes in tripli + same chants as egypt and tunisia reported + solidarity protets (uk and us) + closed door un meeting on tues + embassy in malaysia fully behind protesters + +  +  +  + planes not given permission to land in tripoli to evacuate + tunisians in benghazzi have no access out + "i will die as a martyt" gaddafi + interior minister resigns and calls on army to turn -- just after gaddafi praises him + peru breaks diplomatic relations + chile "extreme concern" + brazil "take notice to preserve security and free circulation of foreigners" + nicaragua "waging a great battle for unity of nation" "at difficult times loyalty put to test" + venezuela chavez no comment yet --> state "hope people can..." + fidel castro: "wait and see to ensure + usa pushing nato to invade" + libyan pilot escaped to swiss saying he knowingly carried mercenaries to his home city of benghazi (possibly mauritanian, black africans) + holland also getting its people out + navi pillay human rights cheif calls for inquiry into attacks + dubai, baghdad, byc, dc, london solidarty protests + john kerry to reimpose sanctions + students concerns scholarship revoked if at anti-govt protests + russia warning of future instability and "fanatics" in power libyan naval vessel in malta waters -- reason unkwnon + malta refused leave for its forces + unhcr 300000 could flee + us cant evacuate by air so offered to pay for boat rieds to malta with priority to those on medical condition then first come first serve + 2 planes to be sent to libya at some point to get 1000s of tunisians out + >> Berlusconi's `Slavish' Courtship of Qaddafi to Befriend Libya Haunts Italy + senior aide Youssef Sawani to saif resigns + oil price up as gaddafi may order sabotage of pipelines + libyan ties to juventus + 1 pilot ejected from aircraft rather than bomb + >> CANADA STOCKS-TSX ends flat as Libya crisis buffets markets + ban ki moon -> peaceful transition, navi pillay --> no fly zone + au deplores + largest ever turkish evacaution and request more help, 25000 citizens there + western cityMisuratah won by protesters + india to evacuate 18000 to tunisia and egypt, waiting for air and sea clearance + eu interior ministers meet in rome to coordinate + >> VIX Posts Biggest Two-Day Increase Since May as S&P 500 Tumbles + amnesty for waeapons sezied offered + +  + red crescent wanrs pf "catastrophic exodus" of libyans. (press tv) + > \Oil Approaches $120 on Libya Crisis; Goldman Sees ‘Upside Risk’ + ]\[ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/oil-rises-0-4-to-97-66-a-barrel-in-new-york-reversing-earlier-losses.html >? Oil Drops a Second Day as Supply Assurances Ease Libya Concern] + +  + +  + greeks evacauted + china sends naval ship from piracy duties to protest evacuating ships + germany calls for ?? and ?? + >> 'Gaddafi mirrors US, EU imperialism'>> 'Gaddafi using mercs to attack people'> Gaddafi may seek asylum in Africa + + >> Gaddafi mercenaries kill Palestinian + >> Countries and companies scramble to get citizens out of Libya>> Libya: What happens after we stop watching these revolutions against Col Gaddafi?

Rename Article from "uprising" to "Civil War" or "Revolution?"
Collected here are several recent threads on renaming the article from "2011 Libyan Uprising" to something stronger like "2011 Libyan Revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War".

"Uprising" vs "Civil War" vs "Revolution"
At the time of start of the discussions above about the words "Uprising" to describe the conflict, that word ("Uprising") was appropriate. After another few days, it certainly looks to me like it is now very much a civil war or revolution, and the name of the article should be changed to reflect that. Sanpitch (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until we're sure. Also I think it only counts as a revolution if the old goverment (i.e. Gaddafi) is overthrown. THat's the description I got from a high school history book so I may be wrong 95.146.61.170 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As always we should wait for most of the holy sources to start doing so first as that is where we get our info from. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on! The Libyan opposition controls all of the country except Tripoli, according to Al Jazeera and the NY Times.  That sounds like a revolution to me!  I added an appeal for a name change to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sanpitch (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a bit of motivation for the move to "2011 Libyan Revolution" see this google trends link showing that "Libyan Revolution" is searched for more often than "Libyan uprising". Sanpitch (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well when the news sources start calling it such, then we can start thinking about doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are a few news sources calling it revolution or revolt: Al Jazeera, MSNBC, CBC, the Telegraph, Tehran Times, NPR, Toronto Star. How many examples would you like? "Revolution" seems to be the word that is used most commonly in the mainstream media.  We should do the same.  Sanpitch (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about BBC, CNN, New York Times and the Jerusalem Post (alright the last one isn't necessary), but once they have picked that up then we can start doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Voila: here is the BBC, CNN, and New York Times. Also the threads below suggesting "Civil War" or "Revolution" are evidence that the time to make the change is *now*.  Sanpitch (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, very good, now all we need is consistency and one use being favoured over another by the majority of the sources. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "2011 Libyan Revolution"
As of 27 February, the uprising has turned into a fully-fledged revolution. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * citation needed TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to 2011 Libyan civil war now?
With four articles made for battles and the country divided does the title civil war fit more so now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Only when the lion's share of the major sources start calling it a civil war. Can we maybe put a redirect on 2011 Libyan Civil War in the meantime? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the 2011 Libyan Civil War redirect. Sanpitch (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, "uprising" is vague. It would have been better if at the closure of the move discussion, when "revolt" and "uprising" had both received support, the former had been chosen.  Perhaps that should be revisited.  It's particularly embarrassing that readers are supposed to understand, via the legend accompanying the region-wide map in 2010–2011 MENA protests HTK, the label "uprising."  That is a very weak term (in English it need mean no more than "major protests," which is how Oman is labeled) to compare what is different in Libya, where the government has lost control over much of the country. Wareh (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I hate to disagree with a fellow waffle-lover and right-coaster, but I don't think that uprising is a weak term given the most famous uses such as Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Easter Rising, I would say that most people think of something very bloody. It might usually make people think of something that failed badly, but there they are. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you'll see from the threads above, the only person (in the recent threads) who is in favor of keeping the terminology "uprising" is TheARchaeologist, while several have stated the obvious, that the name of the article should be changed by replacing "uprising" with "Revolt" or "Revolution" or "Civil War". I gave links above showing that the media consistently uses the words "revolution" and "revolt".  Here is a link to a Google Insights page showing that the term "Libyan Revolution" is used dramatically more than the terms "Libyan uprising" or "Libyan revolt", so I suggest that the name be changed to "Libyan Revolution".  The discussion above about moving from "protest" to "uprising" suggests waiting until it is clear what has happened; It's clear to me, it's revolution. Sanpitch (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by the sources, and I didn't say I was in favour of keeping it, I was and still am in favour of using whatever term most of the sources use as we are supposed to and which is in fact the "obvious." =) If most of the sources are calling it a revolution then by all means I agree it should be changed. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I must admit that my only reason for the first post in this section was in reply to his apparent characterisation of an uprising (at least from the way I saw it) as something light was that I felt it did not do justice to either the Irish in the Easter Rising or the Warsaw Uprising, not that that was in any way his intention. I just wanted to point out historical usage. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If sources now call it a revolution, then we should call it a revolution. bobrayner (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I brought up the map because I think the classificatory implications of these labels have to be taken into account. I support "revolt" because it clearly means a revolution in progress (and partially successful), thus showing that Libya has not completely experienced a revolution as a state on the one hand, and on the other hand that it is not simply experiencing protests or cabinet reshuffles.  By the way, I don't dispute that uprising can have the right meaning; I just think by using it we're being more poetic but less clear. P.S. I see the discussion below over "civil war" as wasted (oppose "Civil War"); it is a spreading revolt and progress towards revolution, and only if and when things get badly bogged down with indecisive battles, etc., do I think we will be ready to label it "civil war." Wareh (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think revolts and revolutions don't have much to do with each other (i keep challenging you on definitions; it's annoying I know, sorry) except when a revolt gets big enough that the revolting peasants/slaves/city (in the historical context) overwhelm the authority they are revolting against and throw off the offending authority. I don't think many think that revolt = revolution in progress, even though the beginning of the words are the same. Again though, most of the sources must also be using the term revolt for it to be the best choice. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm willing to accept that I simply personally find it more opaque, and in any case we're in agreement that the usage of WP:RS is the real arbiter. I only framed it this way because it seemed above that "uprising" and "revolt" were the two usage-supported alternatives being taken seriously as replacements for "protests" (even if that was true, things are moving swiftly, and we'd need to recanvass intelligently). I still feel that an uprising sounds more likely to get crushed than a revolt, which in turn better accords with something like your legions proclaiming their independence from you and claiming to represent the authentic government of the nation.  But I could be wrong about that too. Wareh (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uprising does indeed have the conotation of a rebellion of some sort being crushed (though many historical revolts didn't fair too well either). Revolt actually does kind of work here as I would consider a revolt to typically be a city or what have you rising up against a central gov, or in this case, a good portion of the cities. Ofc as we bot agree, that's irrelevant because what matters is what the sources think it is. If they could just overthrow the swine (I know it's not gonna be easy) then we could all agree on Revolution! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If most do, then yes, by all means we should. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - what if the most popular term used "by a majority of sources" fluctuates from day-to-day? We don't move the article every day to keep up. As long as the name is not inappropriate (as "protests" would be now), and people can find the article easily, that's what matters.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good point however we should remember that most modern mass media typically operates using herd mentality and they usually copy each other for many things. So if more people are using one thing, more are going to go with it until someone with influence in this area decides X sounds better and then they run with it. It's not going to be often though. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

support It should be renamed civil war because there is two sides that are fighting for control of the country. That is a civil war. How can it not be? Seriously. Matthurricane
 * Not all violent uprisings and revolutions are civil wars.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. It's a civil war now. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is fairly simple per WP:V and WP:AT. Provide multiple high quality sources (BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and alike) that show it now is widely referred to as a civil war, and we should move it. What wiki editors "think" is should be called is entirely irrelevent. Wiki follows external sources, not POV by wiki editors. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see? That's what I've been saying this whole time. =p Too lazy to look up the actual link in wiki's rules for it though. Thanks! =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 08:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did come across articles from major media that talked about a civil-war in Libya. I don't feel like digging them up though :/. I'll let others do it :p. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, but just Libyan Civil War, no need for the year--78.3.220.211 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think Libyan Civil War would be the best name now. — Nightstallion 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose Not yet, what's the hurry? We lose nothing by retaining the current title until the majority of sources refer to it as a civil war. Sources are currently saying things like "...could push Libya into civil war", "As the propensity for civil war heightens in Libya...", "A near civil war in Libya", "The ...country is spiraling into civil war", "Libya, now on the brink of civil war", "close to the outbreak of a civil war". It's not our role to make history by contradicting these sources and renaming the article too soon. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - 2011 libyan uprising/s is better --fwiw. the journalist John Simpson travelling in the middle of Libya, just said on BBC that he would not describe what he has seen/is seeing as a civil war.Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per 62.107.209.191 and Pontificalibus. The current title is by far the most appropriate of the discussed options at present. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons outlined above. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wait two weeks. These naming discussions tend to overshadow more important business, and you can't have a proper civil war in under two weeks. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose At the moment, the WP:COMMONNAME is not civil war. Most are saying civil war is possible but I am not seeing many stating that the events currently constitute civil war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Its been 14 days, at the moment, its just an uprising - an effective one, but just an uprising nonetheless. IF if drags out for a considerable time, where we actually see cities start to be retaken by Ghaddafi-loyal forces, we can call it a civil war. However, at the moment, Uprising is more appropriate, and I expect the next step will actually be to re-name it to "revolution". Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support with reservations Clearly, this uprising fits the criteria of a civil war, as it has escalated beyond just a mere uprising, and an opposition government has been formed while Qadaffi is still in power (thus meaning two governments fighting for control over the same country). However, it is probably a good idea to wait until sources start referring to it as a 'civil war' rather than a revolt, uprising, or revolution. ANd the only reason they probably arent calling it a civil war now, is because oil prices would probably go even more nuts if they called it that, instead of a 'revolt' or an 'uprising' which sound less serious and more contained.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support What is going on in Libya right now fits every description of a civil war I've heard of. Sixer Fixer (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I support a change from 'uprising' to 'revolt' or 'revolution'. Sanpitch (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Media dont call it civil war? They're just waiting for naming it in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.69.206 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - just check out the Wikipedia definitions themselves on the terms Revolution and Civil War. In a nutshell -

Revolution - "(1) Complete change from one constitution to another, or (2) Modification of an existing constitution." Neither of those has happened, so it's not necessarily a revolution, at least to stay consistent within the definitions of the term currently expressed here at this site.

Civil War - "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources." - Now that's a very close description of what's happening. If one of the two were to be used, Civil War would be closer as far accuracy, insofar as remaining consistent with the defintions of the two terms currently expressed here at Wikipedia.

And just to throw uprising in there - "Rebellion, or uprising, is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience and mass nonviolent resistance, to violent and organized attempts to destroy an established authority such as a government. Those who participate in rebellions are known as 'rebels'." - That, currently, is the closest consistent definition. Allstargeneral (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - I would say that revolution is a process involving elements of voilences or protests compare Russian Octoberrevolution. That is, Libya could be seen as a revolution in progress.

Also the use of heavy weapons including tanks and warplanes is something that resebles war. In the end the clashes migth have already passed 1.000 battle death (per year), which according to Baylis et al (Globalization of World Politics 2008 p.214) is one criteria for war. Compare this to "high-intensity".


 * Oppose - Neither side themselves are yet calling it a civil war, in fact Gadaffi seems to be saying it is all over now, so until one or both sides are regularly calling it a civil war, Wikipedia should maintain the status quo. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation on the ground is rapidly deteriorating, my opposition to the change is now weakening... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - Some news channels have started calling it a "war" or "civil war", and it's clear now that this is going to drag on for a while. This is now full-scale military operations fighting each other in a splintered country. bob rulz (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please cite your source. =) Also can we maybe have just one renaming topic? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * CNN: "Young, inexperienced go to war": http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/06/wedeman.libya.young.cnn?hpt=T2
 * MSNBC: "Fight for Libya puts civil war on path to Tripoli": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41938600#41938600
 * Alright, so that's all I can find at the moment. That's at least two sources supporting calling this a "war" though. I think it should be changed sooner rather than later. There's no point in waiting. bob rulz (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - Many newsmedia have now started to call it a Civil War.

CNN: "The development comes as Libya enters its fourth week of bloody clashes Tuesday and there was little doubt that the situation had turned into all-out civil war.": http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/08/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1#

National Post: "Libya’s peaceful Day of Rage has lurched into civil war and the regional ramifications are immense": http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/08/goodspeed-analysis-libyas-civil-war-could-destabilize-africa/

The Telegraph: Libya: civil war breaks out as Gaddafi mounts rearguard fight - Forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi made good on threats to trigger a civil war in Libya on Wednesday night ...": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil War?

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus for a move, at this time. Note however that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for the page to remain at it's current title, either. This is probably one of those pages where the title will be in flux for a while, pending what actually occurs in Libya. Please keep in mind that the page can still be moved. If anyone feels strongly enough that a page move is required now, feel free to start another RM (if I might be bold enough to offer a suggestion, what about 2011 Libyan conflict?) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising → Libyan Civil War — Libya is currently divided between government and opposition-run areas. Thousands of civilians equipped with firearms and defecting military and police forces are engaged in open battles with forces loyal to Gaddafi, including mercenaries. There are real battles taking place across the country, as seen in the infobox. These have been hundreds of deaths on both sides. I think that this is no longer simply an uprising, but a real war. The time has come to at least discuss whether it should be named "Libyan Civil War".-- RM ( Be my friend ) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support:


 * —L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —Grashoofd (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —Kudzu1 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —Mkaksone (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —Sixer Fixer (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —Joe routt (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Aeranis (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Gabe896 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —Sanpitch (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ---Jojhutton (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ---Holden_yo (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Grant_Bud support Civil war is preferred for the following reasons: 1) clear sides identified 2) clear territorial demarcation and 'front lines'. 3) 1000 battle deaths if not already passed, likely to be passed.
 * _Nhajivandi (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC) This is clearly no longer a Uprising. There are 2 governments now in Libya controlling different sides of the country. Plus the opposition has formed a government, an army that is well equipped, and there are battles going on with battle lines drawn with heavy deaths on either side. Judging by this, this uprising has now turned into a civil war.
 * —71.84.57.130 (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -Novus Orator This fits the definition of a Civil War: Two organized governments claiming to represent one country and in open conflict with each other.
 * ---Thegunkid (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC) CNN has been running banners Declaring CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA, and France has recognized the National Council so clearly this is one
 * 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -Tsdek I think this particulalrly pertinent in light of recognition by some European nations of the authority of the Benghazi Regime. —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC).
 * 97.101.225.53 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Two different forces under two different leaders in one country claiming sovreignty fighting for that country is the definition of a civil war. The events in Libya are part of a civil war.
 * Pretty obviously a civil war now. France has recognized the rebel government/council. Publicus 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - As said in the comment section, multipe news outlets and the red cross are now calling it a civil war. Ularevalo98 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The penny has dropped as far as the ICRC is concerned. If that's not depositive, what is? kencf0618 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -Agree with Ularevalo98, news channels and the red cross have declared the conflict a civil war. Four weeks ago, it was an uprising, just like Egypt and Tunisia. But with the fall of Zawiya, Libya has been split in two with continuous fighting on both sides.Wayne Paine (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no question at this point that the conflict in Libya can be classified as a civil war.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "The International Committee of the Red Cross said that Libya had now descended into civil war"
 * I fail to see how it could be considered anything less at this point. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With continuous fighting in Libyan cities and two officially recognized governments, it is pretty much a civil war now. Onyxqk (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Already turned into a civil war -- from  Andyso  ( talk page ) 06:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Gaddafi is retaining his territory in the west and the opposition is retaining its territory in the east, it has become two governments of the same country warring against each other. It's the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya versus the Libyan Republic, therefore it's a civil war.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Herr X (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)yepp http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9418922.stm
 * I support the change. Don't try to be metaphorical and say "It's Gaddafi vs the REAL people of Libya". It's technically still a civil war. So think about that before you oppose it for a completely moronic reason. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 83.201.18.93 (talk), a former editor who pops up from time to time, 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Al Ameer son (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -Osa osa 5 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC); prefers "2011 Libyan Rebellion"
 * Simpson H (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lihaas (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

EDITORS: Rather than just adding an entry in the support or oppose lists above, please be aware this is NOT a VOTE, and make your reasoned comments and contribution to the CONSENSUS below. Lynbarn (talk)

Comment: I believe the previous polls suggested that we should wait a bit longer until more WP:RS calls it a civil war. Maybe we can wait a few more days and see. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: From a Google search it looks like most of the (non-Indian) sources are chomping at the bit to call it a civil war. They are saying it's on the brink of a civil war or is descending into civil war etc. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, which is why we should wait a bit. It'd make out lives much easier if just give the media some time. Although

ultimately, the term "civil-war" may not necessarily be that widely used depending on how quickly the conflict is resolved. In this case, I think the situation can still drag on for a few more weeks at least, given the relative strength of Gadaffi's forces (at least according to Western media). Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is excactly what they were doing 4 days ago, there has been no change, so let's wait another 4 days and see what they are doing then. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment We don't have enough information to call it a civil war. The only time I recall the term being used was by the Gaddafis themselves who threatened Libya could enter into one and by Hilary Clinton who said she feared the situation could turn into a civil war if Gaddafi didn't leave. Therefore civil war is only a possibility. The people of Tripoli are not going to war against the people of Benghazi. According to the reports of many reliable news sources, the people of Tripoli actually support the rebellion and I think we might be jumping the gun to go ahead and rename the article. I echo the above comments: the best solution is to wait and see how the sources dub it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Support It is not an uprising. That uprising happened and failed, and now it is settled into civil war. Uprising = protests tending to get out of hand [ie. what we had]. Civil war = two teams with guns attempting to solely rule the terrain of the same named country [ie. what we HAVE]. There's more google hits for 'Libyan civil war' (19.3 million) than for '2011 Libyan uprising' (18 million). It's very much an insult to Libyan people suffering from this war to belittle their suffering as the result of only an 'uprising' and not a war. Would you look the bereaved in the eye, and belittle the circumstances in such a way?114.31.207.18 (talk) Comment Once again all, let's reiterate that it is not our job to reach such conclusions like what this thing in Libya is ourselves but that of the sources. I think everyone should look at WP:synth, if the sources ain't saying it, then we should not be saying it in the article. We only go by what the sources are saying, we do not reach our own conclusions etc. See WP:Source. Can everyone please read these and then see if they still want to support the idea when most of the sources (except one or two in India last I checked) are not saying it? These are two of the three core principles of this Wiki and should be respected as such. Re: Nightstallion, we can indeed help it if the MSM is "reluctant to call it a civil war", we do the same because without sources it is just us reaching our own conclusions about what is going on rather than the sources and presenting it to the world as fact. WP:Common, we use the name it is commonly being called. Even if everyone is thinking oh it's a civil war (which I am), it's what they're saying that matters. Regardless of what WP:Duck says, we should respect the common name being used and wp:source and wp:synth. When the sources finally start calling it a civil war then we should do this. Until then, what we think and want to call it does not matter. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose. We should follow suit with whatever term the mainstream media uses. This can change over the following days, but during the past week, this has clearly been "Libyan uprising". Check google news. "Libyan uprising": 1,600 hits, "Libyan civil war": 53 hits (and some of these include "fears over Libyan civil war" and similar). That's as clear as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the moment, the WP:COMMONNAME is not civil war. Most are saying civil war is possible, on the brink or near but I am not seeing many stating that the events currently constitute a civil war. To jump the gun would make this a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this a formal move request, or just feeling opinions? If it's formal request than the mover should list it at WP:RM.Labattblueboy (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the majority of sources are not calling it a civil war at this time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Those above who have voted without leaving any comments might like to read WP:VOTE. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. We can't help it if the mainstream media are reluctant to call it a civil war, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we should call it a duck, per the IP user above... — Nightstallion 13:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry, that's not how it works. We didn't move Gaddafi to mad dog, or George W. Bush to miserable failure now, did we? WP:UCN is very clear on this. --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edging towards support but not quite there yet. The IP user's argument (114.31) and Nightstallion's are close to compelling, but I'd need to see a little more evidence this doesn't just fade out in a roll of tanks and loyalist forces within the week. "Civil war" implies more than a brief firecracker. If the opposing forces continue to hold their own and the war continues, then yes. But so far it has only become capable of description as "civil war" in the last few days. Waiting to see if that continues or ends quickly. FT2 (Talk 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per Nightstallion.EkoGraf (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose- just watching BBC News 24 - and the main title behind all the news from Libya is still, Libya Uprising - just because you agree with nightstallion, ekograf, don't mean you have to spell suppport the same too, Sayerslle (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very funny. ;p (Corrected my typo.) — Nightstallion 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops well pardon for such an error. I just copypasted his word because it felt easier that way. Hehe. :P But please show some civility.EkoGraf (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support See also WP:DUCK, you have battles, you have two sides, you have cities and towns not under government control but under a newly formed government, what else do you need here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sheesh, why do people keep invoking WP:DUCK, which is about on-wiki user conduct, in a debate on content? We do have actual guidelines on content, you know. In this case, at WP:Article title. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support...A civil war is when two sides fight for control of a country, right. Appears to be what is occurring.--Matthurricane (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Libya is on the brink of a civil war. So far, it is mostly skirmishes and people running around aimlessly with Kalashnikovs. How about we let other people decide when to call it a civil war, seeing that we are an encyclopedia project, supposedly all based on secondary references. So far the "civil war" to "uprising" ratio according to google news is about 6:1,660 or 0.4%. Please come back once this ratio can be argued to approach 50%. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state". Although the rebels have (especially in Benghazi) been organising themselves, I don't think they are really organised enough to call this a civil war. There doesn't seem to be any structural connection or even communication between the rebels at Benghazi and Zawiya. Right now I think it's still mostly relatively minor skirmishes between spontaneously formed groups of gunmen (perhaps formed on the spot during an attack) and organised government forces. Therefore calling this a civil war is still premature. A strong argument is also that most news organisations also keep calling just an uprising. Nanobear (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Oppose Jumping the gun a bit here.  Most news sources are talking about Libya being "on the brink of a civil war".  However, such terminology tends to be determined after the event, rather than before it.  If everything gets sorted in the next two or three weeks, history will undoubtedly refer to the Libyan uprising or Libyan revolution; if it drags on for months (or even years), it will probably be referred to as the Libyan civil war.  I'm finding it hard to think of examples anywhere else referred to as a civil war that lasted less than a few weeks!  Let's wait and see what happens.  Skinsmoke (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2011

Weak Support The death toll is at least 1000 on each side, the rebels have taken control of most of the country and have gathered many weapons and explosives. I really don't think that Gaddafi is going to step down any time soon, so the fighting will probably continue. Still though, it does seem a bit early to call it a civil war, lets wait a week or two and see what happens. Gabe896 (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm inclined to support a change in article title to civil war on the grounds that the pro-Ghadafi forces have been successful enough to withstand the initial wave of revolution. Look to historical examples to find the October Revolution took less than a week to complete, as did the July Revolution and the February Revolutions in France. The fact there there are two organized camps, pro and anti governmen who are in armed conflict against each other should be basis enough to change the article title. Sixer Fixer (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Support The military's split, militias formed, an opposition government is being created, there have been several battles. If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is. Joe routt (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The lead says the situation is on the brink of a civil war. It may indeed get there but let's not try to predict the future. –CWenger (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "civil war looms," "moving towards civil war,' etc means NOT YET a civil war.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support The country is now both geographically and politically divided. Large numbers of both civilians and army-defectors have joined rebel forces. There have been pitched battles involving heavy weaponry by both sides. I think it is now safe to call this a Civil War MCQknight (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (MWT)
 * Support Major news outlets have begun to refer to the events in Libya explicitly as a civil war. See: The Daily Telegraph ("Libya's bloody civil war"), Boston Globe ("Burgeoning civil war"). I think that more fighting is inevitable, as is more organization on the part of the rebels, so it's only a matter of time before the majority of MSM sources start using civil war.  As it stands, enough reputable sources are using it that I don't think we would be editorializing.--Aeranis (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12660095), CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/06/libya.html) and the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/05/libya-civil-war-gaddafi-zawiyah) are now referring to it as a civil war.174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - As Brian Dell stated: "civil war looms," "moving towards civil war,' etc means NOT YET a civil war. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The current name isn't appropriate either, it should be named Libyan revolt. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to find other sources for that. First two only use the word "civil war" once. First saying "there is a real risk of prolonged civil war" (i.e., risk but not there yet), second: "been sliding toward a civil war" (i.e., not there yet). Final simply notes that "savage fighting casts civil war shadow" and "fear is beginning to turn into a civil war" (i.e., on the way but not there yet). Hardly indisputable sources for a move. That said, I don't care where this page is placed. Just please find indisputable sources so it follows WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME. 212.10.94.137 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn, I logged on just to respond to that one. Oh well, nice work anyway. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Real risk of a prolonged civil war" implies that said civil war is occuring, the question being over how long it will last not if it is occuring. The Guardian had an interactive map earlier that was titled "The Civil War begins" (link can be seen here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/libya-rebels-civil-war-gaddafi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487), but has since been re-named to "unrest" again. Heres one from the Telegraph from Feb 23 that says "civil war breaks out" in the headline (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.html). That means we have BBC and the Telegaph saying it, I don't personally think thats enough, but a couple headliners would be174.114.87.236 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know it has been said before, but seeing that people still add themself to the list in the beginning of this proposed move, please note editorial decisions on wiki are by consensus; not vote . 212.10.94.137 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - Per what I said, and a bit more: While I personally think it's a civil war, we don't have the sources saying so and has people like dab and myself and others have been trying to say, that is what really matters. What the sources say. I ask people once again to please read WP:SYNTH and WP:SOURCE as it appears that some might not have read it. They are not very long at all and they will help you wiki a lot better when you want to. Wiki has rules and it has central rules. It's good to break laws and rules when they're unjust or silly, but you should always respect the central rules as they are there for a reason and give the whole thing structure (unless they are unjust and silly, but these aren't as far as I can see). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per at this time.  Will Support when the sources change.  Right now, whether the uprising has formally become a civil war or not seems mostly uncertain in secondary sources.  We should call it a civil war as soon as the balance of sources supports that classification.  WikiDao    &#9775;  17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think the uprising military forces are organised enough for this to amount to a civil war yet. Rwendland (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - There ARE "two organized forces in the same state." I don't know how much worse it would have to get for you people to consider it a civil war. Macarion (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BBC's John Simpson: "It is a mistake to see this campaign as an outright civil war." Nanobear (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Situation has deteriorated dramatically. This is no longer an uprising. Both sides are fully weaponized and both sides are engaged in outright war. The rebel forces have even announced their own government. I think it is now tome to move this page. Holden yo (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Libyan Civil War (2011)The article needs to be renamed to Libyan Civil War (2011), major news sources are now calling this a civil war (which it has been for some time) see [] for an example. UPI calls it a civil war as well [], there are a massive number of sources calling it one. There are now two governments that claim to be sole legitimate ruler of Libya. That is the very definition of civil war. Daily Record[], The Telegraph [], and LA Times [] also call it civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This is obviously more of an internal military conflict now than protests. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if reputable source is found - It seems like rebel governmental and military forces are rapidly being organized along more conventional lines. Organization would turn this from being just an uprising to an outright civil war.  If a reputable source calls this a civil war, renaming would definitely be appropriate.--Witan (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: As of 7 March, there are 69 Google news hits for "Libyan civil war" and 2400 hits for "Libyan uprising" . In terms of results only within the last 24 hours, 2,124 hits for "Libyan uprising"  and 66 hits for "Libyan civil war" . In terms of plain English language google search results, 245,000 hits for "Libyan civil war"  and 585,000 hits for  for "Libyan uprising". If only evaluating the last 24 hours (respecting that events are quickly changing) there are 67,800 hits for "Libyan uprising"  and 18,600 hits for "Libyan civil war" . --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although some editors in some news outlets are dubbing this a civil war, there doesn't seem to be any consensus among the major news networks. International media aside, I don't believe what is happening in Libya fits the civil war category... yet. Right now it appears it is the people of Libya in the east and west (Misrata, Zawiya and smaller towns as well as Tripoli to an extent) versus what's left of the Gaddafi regime including die-hard loyalists, but also thousands of non-Libyan mercenaries. This still appears to be a popular uprising. It has succeeded wholly in the east and partially in the west due to the fact Gaddafi harshly suppressed the revolt in Tripoli during the first week of the uprising. Analysts say there's a good chance that Libya might slip into civil war, but I repeat what I had said earlier: let's wait and see. There shouldn't be a rush to rename the article and it is clear that a consensus among us hasn't been established. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rwendland. A civil war implies two adherents to opposite ideologies fighting each other. What's happening is an uprising by all means. The forces supporting Gaddafi are only die-hard regime loyalists and mercenaries. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose At this point, "uprising" is by far the most common term used for the series of skirmishes per Google News. Wikipedia should follow the terminology used by mainstream news sources in titling an article about a current event, and not make jumps based on the original research or intuition of editors. In the future it might be called a civil war by most news media and we can move it to that title then. Edison (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Reuters is starting to call this a civil war already at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-libya-faultlines-idUSTRE7273Q720110308 . Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another Reuters source calling the conflict a civil war is here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-nigeria-opec-output-idUSTRE7271KB20110308 . Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just about one or two or even a dozen sources using a term, but which term is the most widely used. We're going by WP:COMMON. According to the others, uprising is still the most widely used. I am too lazy to check myself, but will assume good faith, etc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a change to 'revolution' or 'civil war' instead of 'uprising' for reasons that have been listed ad nauseum above by myself and others. As a side note, it has been interesting to me to watch this debate.  I never really understood how conservative Wikipedia editors were w.r.t. changes. It isn't always nice to watch the sausage be made, but in this case it was educational. Sanpitch (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note As of today CNN and BBC have started calling it a civil war. See these sources from CNN and BBC - check video.EkoGraf (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would call it "2011 Libyan Rebellion" because it is clearly a rebellion against Ghaddafi rule. On the other hand, I would not call it a civil war, because civil wars are wars between groups of people of the same nation. However, it is not Libyans against Libyans, it is actually Libyans against Ghaddafi's government. Therefore, "rebellion" suits it a lot better than civil war. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought Gaddafi's government were also Libyans? :) EkoGraf (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not forget the mercenaries :) But seriously, when I said Libyans I meant the people not the government. It would have been more suitable to call it a civil war if for example the war was between the Libyan tribes. However, what we are seeing is a unite popular movement (or rebellion) against Gadaffi's regime. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: It very clearly fits with the most common definitions of the term "Civil War". Gaddafi still have his loyalists and supporters, including a significant proportion of the army. It doesnt make sense to reject the term "civil war" purely due to the fact that the regime is viewed as unpopular. I can see no reason to fence-sit on the issue any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.T kire (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support, if tentatively. The head of the ICRC has called it a civil war; Arab media outlets (in Arabic, which I speak) prefer "revolution," but that is arguably because that term plays better in the Arab street. As to the point that it's more a rebellion than a civil war, the two are not mutually exclusive; even though actual support for Qaddafi is rather low, he still has enough in the way of military strength to render his lack of support a moot point. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support CNN is calling it a civil war 70.179.36.58 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Merriam-Webster definition of civil war: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.189.38 (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose civil war is not what it is commonly referred to (as of today). --Fjmustak (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support All the signs are that the conflict is escalating and isn't going to end particularly quickly, one news report says that a Red Cross spokesperson called it a civil war. If we don't move it now, we will probably be re-considering the move in a couple of weeks. PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose vehemently. The expression "Civil War" looks like a fad, a further dramatization by the media & professional commentators, eager for fresh headlines & fast new developments. This is not yet a civil war, in any of the established senses of the word. It remains, at least to date, a broad popular uprising, of Libyans united across conventional interests & demarcations, against a regime no longer deemed legitimate. The only opponents to this uprising are the very closest geographical or interest-based associates of this regime, or those so manipulated. If the title is changed, what is more likely to happen in a couple of weeks, is that it be changed back. --nielspeterqm (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A considerable majority of people in tripoli and the western cities would like to rise up against Gaddafi's rule but are obviously intimidated into not doing so, A civil war would mean schisms and factions within the civilian population, which tips overwhelmingly to the anti-gaddafi side, many of the loyalists are paid citizens, paid mercenaries, and army factions which are owned my members of Gaddafi's family and close friends, I would oppose calling it a 'civil war', rather a 'Rebellion' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.175.94 (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) ''

Support, as noted the Red Cross is calling it a civil war, it fits the definition of a civil war as there are two organised factions within one country. The Libyan National Council has been fully recognised by France, and other countries are likely to follow. &#x2014;Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.20.124 (talk) on 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Trouble is that while the Wikipedia article name still has it as an uprising, the Military Conflict article infobox already calls it a civil war, without deferring much to the article naming discussion here. All this would make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, if some start calling something a grown duck while it's still (yet) a duckling. Furthermore, have Stratfor begun calling it a civil war yet or not?By the way, the above supporting comment was added by an unsigned entity, but SineBot hasn't had a run about it.-Mardus (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Red cross calling it a Civil War Plumber (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * google news now has a ratio of "Libyan civil war" vs. "Libyan uprising" of 92:2,420, or about 4% over the past 24 hours. This is up from below 0.5% a few days ago. This illustrates that Libya is actually still exactly on the brink of what is termed "civil war" in common parlance. "Libyan uprising" is still the most common term by far, but at least "civil war" is gradually becoming an alternative term worth mentioning. --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CNN international has called it a civil war now and does not use the term uprising or revolt.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Google results for Libyan Civil war is 12,300,000. Google results for Libyan Revolution is 9,020,000. Google results for libyan uprising is 7,150,000 (last). Al Jazeera which is the number one media outlet in the world for news about the Middle East is calling it a revolution. Al Jazeera is also comparing the revolutions occuring in the Middle East to the American Revolution. What is happening in Libya is a war. It no longer is a "protest" or "uprising."JoeC 3rd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Oppose for the moment, though I wouldn't be surprised if we moved this way tomorrow or even today. Actually, if you use quotation marks as we well should ("Libyan Civil War" and "Libyan Uprising" as search terms), uprising edges out civil war 589K to 346K, and revolution edges out both with 671K (although we should keep in mind that also includes the revolution in which Gaddafi took control). In news, using quotes and a week setting, revolution overshadows the other two, but I don't see how we can call it a revolution when a revolution is such only when it succeeds. Al Jazeera, contrary to what JoeC 3rd says, is still using the term uprising for Libya and revolution only for Tunisia and Egypt. 140.247.239.247 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I think at the moment it is not in 'full scale' civil war yet and the uprising may well be crushed as Gadaffi's forces gain momentum. However if the same state continues then it's only a matter of time before every news station etc. is calling it a civil war. I say just keep the current title for the time being and see if the uprising escalates even further. On a side note the BBC is still calling it an 'Uprising'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.33.149 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support. Its clear that we have wo different sides with flag, weapons and leadership fighting in the battlefield with certain cities controled by them. Its definitely a civil war as the events of the last few days saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsakiropoulos Dimitris (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This is clearly a non-international armed conflict; the standard definition of Civil War. There are two obvious sides vying for control of the country.  Furthermore, each side has an armed faction of sorts. Not to mention the fact that France has recognized the transitional government as the true government of Libya.  In 1861, the Confederate States were never recognized as a legitimate government, yet that conflict is called the American Civil War; not the "Confederate Uprising."  If this is not a civil war, what is it? It is clearly more advanced than a simple uprising; the opposition forces have a form of government.  Furthermore, the fact that "Libyan Uprising" is a more popular term to search for in Google is irrelevant.  What the westernized population of the world search for in Google makes no difference to the situation in Libya.  It is the circumstances and events of the situation that should be examined to determine if it is a civil war or not.  The pop cultural terms surrounding it are not important.  More people search for "United States" not "United States of America."  That doesn't mean it's a different country.  The search reaches the same result.  Hence, if you search for "Libyan Uprising" or "Libyan Revolution" it is still the Libyan Civil War.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspiringprof (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note From today the Red Cross has started calling it a civil war[].EkoGraf (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the media has recognized that the current situation is more than an uprising since citizen are up in arms against the regime. Most media outlets arec alling it civil war. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per everyone else who is supporting pretty much. The uprising phase has ended and this is clearly a civil war. Gaddafi has support among some people. No one can say how much. How long does it have to go on to be called a civil war? The shortest war in the world was hours long. Or how many people have to die because there has been more deaths than other conflicts elevated to war status. As someone mentioned, the template used is one for civil war. '''<font color="###008000">NeoJustin (<font color="###000000">Talk page ) 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Major media sources have started calling this a 'Civil War'. The situation also appears to be both major and violent enough to be declared one. SashaJohn (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As events continue to unfold I renew my support to rename this as "Libyan Civil War".--Witan (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: As of 10 March, there are 99 Google news hits for "Libyan civil war" and 2600 hits for "Libyan uprising" . In terms of results only within the last 24 hours, 2,070 hits for "Libyan uprising"  and 91 hits for "Libyan civil war" . In terms of plain English language google search results, 342,000 hits for "Libyan civil war"  and 600,000 hits for  for "Libyan uprising". If only evaluating the last 24 hours (respecting that events are quickly changing) there are 47,400 hits for "Libyan uprising"  and 13,200 hits for "Libyan civil war" . Not a whole lot of difference over 7 March. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google results only go so far. Many other factors come into play.  In this case, the fact that France (and Portugal, I believe) has recognized the opposition government leads me to believe that it is now definitely time to rename this as a civil war.--Witan (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a fair comment if the search results were straight google hits. They are in fact news hits, English only hits and last 24 hour hits, all of which show the same conclusion. I don't know of too many cases where the WP:COMMONNAME is not the article title, and I don't see this event being any different. There is certainly neutral point of view issues in utilizing a different method, particularly when relying on the position of a state with a vested economic interest. The simple fact of the matter is most sources are still referring to this as an uprising, including the principal on-the-ground reporting agency, Al Jazeera.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It still is not an end all be all. Whether the article should be renamed is based on the relative strengths of the arguments for each side, not on who has more Google hits.--Witan (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * it's not about relative arguments, it's about common name and "names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject" (WP:NAME) is how titles are selected. If you have can demonstrate a better way of establishing common name right now that utilizing detailed aggregate news hit results, I'm all ears.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Protests do not have armed combatants on both sides. They do not have a split military killing opposition from both sides. Legitimate governments facing "protests" do not call for "rivers of blood" or order the execution of anyone who does not support the government, including dissenting members of the military, many of which have already been carried out. While the wording used by the media varies widely, the objective facts of a country that is only partially controlled by its purported government cannot be considered united as one country. These "protesters" have overtaken the second largest city as well as other cities in the eastern half of the country. This has been documented on U.S. TV by CNN, which has aired footage of reporters openly driving through Benghazi and Tobruk, showing a complete withdrawal of the government in these areas, including footage from a destroyed police department. Additionally, while firing on protesters does not a civil war make, the bombing and firings carried out by military loyalists with helicopters and snipers combined with the promises of more severe military attacks on the people of his own country by Khaddafi strongly imply a de-facto declaration of civil war.  98.109.93.163 (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose.Unless this uprising survive for few months & Khaddafi still become Libya leader,yes.

11 March break
Comment The Arab League is now recognizing the rebels as the only legitimate gov't of Libya and says it wants to hold talks with them, and for all those people who care about google hits, "Libyan Civil War" now has 21.6 million to "Libyan Uprising" having 18.3 million. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * comment -- guys, you are making a mess of things. The situation changes as this poll is ongoing. You need to re-evaluate the situation every couple of days. A poll that goes on for weeks becomes completely meaningless. As of 11 March, it is becoming arguable to move this article. This hasn't been the case on 9 March, so it is completely meaningless to count votes stretching back to 3 March. I don't see how there can be so many opinions and so little regard for doing research in these questions. Labattblueboy is doing right by trying to use google, but we need to approach this with finer tools than just general web searches. As of today, I estimate about 30% of sources on google news prefer "civil war in Libya" as the term for the conflict Please check out and understand these links before forming an opinion on some a priori consideration like "WP:DUCK". This figure was below 1% a week ago. So yes, "civil war in Libya" is now a notable alternative term for the conflict even though "Libyan uprising" still remains prevalent. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support calling this what it is, the Libyan Civil War, as the Red Cross itself acknowledges.SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Wikipedia should stay clear of providing its own qualification of events. As long as the majority of media worldwide does not use the term "civil war" it can not be our job to promote it. --Edoe (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 *  Support at this time for reasons already given by others. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems to now be mainly a few people pushing for an international community to put them into power. If it were a real civil war, there would be at least some fighting in Tripoli. Maybe I will change my mind again as it develops, but for now, its not widespread enough to be a civil war, in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. This conflict technically meets the definition of both an uprising and a civil war; they are not mutually exclusive. The deciding factor is what the sources say, and so far "uprising" is more widely used than "civil war".--Henohenomoheji (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * comment-- Very soon that probably will change as the reality on the ground changes--protests will peter out, the rebels will bring up trained soldiers--so it will be appropriate to change the name in, perhaps, three or four days. Remember that we aren't supposed to draw conclusions, just synthesize those found our sources.--Henohenomoheji (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a question of a majority of media worldwide--which includes many sources which have an interest in not describing it as a civil war--but about getting the title right, i.e. about calling a spade a spade. Given the circumstances--two rival governments claiming to be the legitimate government of a country with armed forces, however irregular, fighting one another in what are easily described as battles for territory, as well as well-defined fronts along which fighting is occurring--and the support of a large number of sources declaring that this is, in fact, a civil war, it would be irresponsible not to describe it as such. As long as we have a good number--not necessarily a majority--of reliable sources behind us, it is not original research but simply recognition of facts any fool could see. Lockesdonkey (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually is is a matter of the majority. Even if Glenn Beck could see it, it doesn't matter, you're copying the sources, not coming to your own conclusions by recognising facts and what not. There's a structure to it mate. Please read the rest of the rules and stop citing rules about User conduct. That is what WP:DUCK is actually about, though it is terribly ambiguous, as well as WP:SPADE, which you could have linked, but is actually straight-forward in saying that it is talking about user conduct. I also would recommend against using the term as 'spade' in this context (and in general life if you're an American) as it is often considered to be a racial slur when not talking about a digging instrument, and this is an African country, North African yes, but still. See: Spade (Disambiguation). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 14:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose,While it seems to be heading towards civil war, uprising is still more appropriate, esp. as the rebels may be crushed within a week or two. I prefer keeping 'uprising' until a supermajority of sources say it is a civil war-- WP shouldn't be at the lead of classifying these things, we should be portraying the common perception (with notable conflicting views).Marktaff (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportI have heard many sources call it a civil war now. There IS combat. There are deaths. An uprising is more like what happened in Egypt, where there were just mass protests. The situation has clearly escalated far beyond that. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support for the renaming to Libyan civil war. A country with two governments striving for power, engaging in heavily-armed combat against each other and conquering towns - this is an all-out civil war. "Uprising" does not fit the situation at all. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: For the same reason as TaalVerbeteraar.--Life in General (Talk) 15:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support — It's my opinion that neglecting to call the conflict a civil war does not express neutrality. --thejoewoods (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: As other users had pointed upwards, a country with two declared governments, with two armies, with two controlled zones, etc...and while the two forces are military clashing in several towns of the territory since a few weeks ago, is clearly a case of civil war. I agree also with thejoewoods on the neutrality issue.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: The movement has clearly moved beyond 'uprising' as many others have effectively argued above. Sanpitch (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per TaalVerbetereaar's comment. JaneStillman (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: yes, I do think this is now the time because of the international recognition of the rebels and simultaneous increasingly rhetoric "disowning" Gaddafi's status. Care is needed, though; the term "rebels" is still so widely used, so I don't think it would be reasonable to call them anything other that "Gaddafi's forces" and "the rebels". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose wiki[pedia doesnt create news, its pov and not in th e least bit WP:COMMONNAME at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment CNN and the ICRC, amongst others, already use the name "civil war" so it's not us creating the news. Regarding your second point: I would argue that *not* calling it a civil war would be POV. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support When both sides control territory, are engaged in warfare and pretend to be legitime governments of a country or a nation, then it is a civil war. --88.196.30.49 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support There are tribes with the Gaddafi and obviously his army is Libyans - so civil war is probably a good term. --Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Request for closure This move discussion has been going on for 10 days now I am requesting a closure be made here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The premise of your request is questionable given this section began three days ago with a plea to 're-evaluate the situation every couple of days' and discard previous votes. That said, Hugo Chávez (who is actually less pro-Gaddafi than anti-US) is the latest to call it a civil war and coverage has decidedly shifted in that direction. Gonfaloniere (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe he was referring the section above that had the tag on it rather than this subsection. That section actually has been running for quite some time. Also, we don't use opinion pieces mate, as they're opinion pieces. They're not written to take out bias, but to show the writer's apparent thoughts on the matter. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 14:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They're quite valid in discussing what various sources have called something. In any case, it quotes The New York Times as saying "No one seems to know what to call this conflict -- a revolution, a civil war or, in a translation of what some call it in Arabic, ‘the events,’ a shorthand for confusing violence." That line seemed emblematic of the need to 'wait and see'. Gonfaloniere (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that actually is a very good quote and is good for this whole discussion, but I think you may have misconstrued what I meant. I mean in the use of actual editing. The difference between a regular article and an opinion piece in something like a newspaper is that the article is the view of the paper as a whole (and the paper approves it as such), whereas the opinion piece is just the opinion of one journalist whose views are not endorsed by the paper, only published by it. It's basically like me feeling this is a civil war and saying so, but I am not really a reliable source now am I? I think for other stuff you can use certain things that are basically opinion etc. Like people's views on things. Or am I incorrect on all this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Marktaff. The situation is only a few weeks old and represents an uprising rather than a civil war. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support by every single definition in wikipedia's Civil war article, what is happening in Libya is a Civil war. It needs to be marked as such for consistency.--130.228.251.10 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So when is somebody going to be WP:BOLD and actually effectuate the move to Libyan Civil War? The 'supports' overwhelmingly outnumber the 'opposes' here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is here exactly? Which part of the section? This whole thing is a disaster area and confused mess. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Here' is the "11 March break" section. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmmmhmmm, and where is the discussion tag for this subsection (like the one in the main part of the section)? Also, has it been open for seven days? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support; for reasons already given above. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The amount of soldiers still left with Gaddaffi was 10,000-12,000 in late feb, surely less than 10,000 by now. With 10,000-20,000 government officials and soldiers and about 10,000 supporters, the regime makes up 30-40K out of 6.5 million, in other words .46 - .60% of the population, not really enough for it to be called a civil war. Zenithfel (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I support it. I'm not going to oppose it and say "It's not a civil war, it's the people of Libya vs a Foreigner" or be metaphorical like some morons on Twitter (I get it, they're in Libya, but be more realistic). It is a civil war. It is two opposing forces, located in Libya, part of Libya, all or most of them Libyans.. It's not just Gaddafi and his army.. He actually has some supporters. He's supported by a large amount of people. Also, CNN is already using the terms "Libyan Civil War". Just saying someone else already seems to be doing it. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It is by definition a civil war and it is not a war of independence. Also, uprising makes it seem like the Anti-Gaddafi side is the good one(which they are, but that is not Wikipedia's cup-of-tea). -- Some Dude With AUserName (talk with me!) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SYNTH. It's gonna keep getting posted until people read it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It seems to have moved past an uprising. The question is whether it is a civil war or a revolution. It seems like a civil war is more protracted than a revolution, which is more like a quick overthrow or the aftermath. Also, I have seen some sources that suggest this is more of a rebellion to split the country into its original constituent parts, and the opposition forces are just tribes of Barqah/Cyrenaica. But, on the other hand, they claim Tripoli as their capital and there are surely people in the western areas that support them.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support- With the current change of events and the pro Quaddafi counter-offensive, this can hardly be classified as just an uprising. "Civil war" appears to be a logical discription of the situation. 77.52.79.172 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see top message about WP:SYNTH etc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Use as an example?
Any way that this could be linked as an example of how consensus things should not be done? I mean we've had voting (WP:VOTE), original research (WP:OR, synthesis WP:SYNTH, ignoring of WP:COMMONNAME and many other wikirules after being posted innumerable times. As noted by the Knowledgekid87, it's been for a while. I find it kind of funny (as in amusing) and it's no one's fault this is so messy, but I think it could make a good example for people to learn from. Hopefully by the time it is settled (apparently in favour of Civil War), that's going to be the common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was this move discussion was premature, and that things were (and still are) moving at a fast pace so references change in a hurry. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there you go, yet another reason. The Wiki guys make those essay thingees, this could be added to one about jumping the gun and not doing stuff that violates several rules. I think most people ignored or did not care when we put the rules there for them to read. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that bad. Maybe we should archive all of the now irrelevant voting near the top for the sake of easier reading?  Everything after the March 11th break seems to be in protocol and orderly.  --thejoewoods (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, after rereading WP:VOTE, you're completely right. I'm in favour of archiving the entire thing and starting a discussion for the sake of consensus. --thejoewoods (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am in favour of that as well, but people could point out that I happen to be on the oppose side at the moment and so I am not disinterested. =p Hmm, you know I hear "you're right" said to me in various ways all the time. I wonder sometimes if it will give me an ego. =p Always nice to be wrong every so often ofc. I still think that this should be put in an essay. Where is someone significantly less lazy than I who is able to do that? I think the papers will start calling it a civil war soon so maybe it is the right time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant "completely right in that this was handled improperly as per Wikipedia policy." There is still much to be said about the common name of the conflict, but in the proper forum. :P  --thejoewoods (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I know what you meant, I was just saying. =p I put something up in the Policy forum about the improper use of WP:DUCK. See: |Policy discussion on the topic Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

March 15 TLDNR
Obviously a voting system is not going to work here - the situation changes day by day, so we need to reassess regularly or come up with a stance. In Medicine articles we generally use the scientific name, having common names or the popular names redirecting to this. This makes the Wikipedia article more neutral, leaving arguments about the name for other arenas ( usually discussed in article as 'commonly known as' in lead). To this end I checked out WPs article on Civil War. Summarizing definition of civil war from the article -
 * 'a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies'
 * 'one side of a civil war is the state'
 * The intensity at which a civil disturbance becomes a civil war is contested by academics.
 * Some political scientists define a civil war as having more than 1000 casualties,
 * while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side
 * The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character"
 * 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."

As you can seee this uprising satisfies the criteria for civil war, although it is interesting that the geneva convention does not use the term, probably because it is so evocative. If we are to accept using civil war as an article title, surely we must use the above criteria. If we take the line of the geneva convention, then we need to come up with another term. Whatever happens we should have a guideline for future uprisings/ revolts etc to aoid this protracted process of voting. Some clear definitions of when an article should be renamed ... or maybe a single title that covers all stages, using redirects to allow for changes in popular perception? Lee&there4;V (talk  • <font color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 13:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this will get more complicated just found a quote elsewhere 'From their point of view, the wars were not "civil" because the state itself was illegitimate. Therefore, only when the state is seen as a strictly legal entity can the war or conflict be seen as "civil."' Lee&there4;V (talk  • <font color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the new WP:DUCK
WP:DUCK has now been modified to show that it refers to internal stuff only, not content. (felt this needed a baby section as it has been so central to the debate) As well, and in reply to the subsection stuff, going by WP's article for what constitutes a civil war is in violation of WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. Thanks! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Im just using the WP article for quick reference, if we look deeper into it then it is using its own reliable sources, what I am suggesting is that we flesh out a definition using these sources. The Libyan uprising is an event separate from the likes of CNN, BBC, Gaddafi state television, all of which are reporting on it in there own way. MEdia coverage is horrendously full of POV, so in situations like this we need to dig deeper. I'm a fair fan of the International Crisis Groups reports for neutrality for example. Lee&there4;V (talk  • <font color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case look at WP:COMMONNAME part of WP:TITLE. =p Doesn't really matter if we feel the coverage is biased (hard for it to not be against Gadaffi, and good luck finding more neutral coverage), it's the most common name used by all the sources, which is why it was picked. I am getting different things though, some people saying that civil war is now most used by sources, and others are saying uprising. You must abide by the rules. No free thought allowed. ._. (just kidding) Also look at WP:POVTITLE if you have concerns about a title representing a certain point of view. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made above about archiving the entire conversation and starting over for a consensus, so many people have chimed in over the last few days its impossible to know whats really going on. The situation has changed a lot in that time as well, and continues to. That said, I seriously doubt we will actually find any consensus on this which is somewhat unfair as I get the sense that the majority of people favour changing the name. Oh well, what can ya do. People have cited a lot about common name and the like, but the reality is that this incident does not have any sort of common name, and any common name we would ascribe to it would be very biased in terms of western media sources. Thus my food for thought is this: the current name isn't the common name, any future name won't be the common name. We need to use some other criteria to decide the name of this article.174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love for this discussion to be closed, as it has been going on for almost 2 weeks now, nobody can close this but an admin though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that eventuality of a biased title is covered in WP:POVTITLE, there's like an essay for everything here. :p I do agree it constitutes a civil war (going badly for our boys atm), but I don't support the change of name unless it becomes the common name. There will be a common name soon, it's how the media works, independent thought in journalism is long dead (with a few anecdotes here and there).


 * You mean to tell me that of all the tons of people who have commented here, not one is an admin? Is there like some sort of admin signal we can set up? Like a template that one of them could spot? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think they are at fault here, as I see this move request has been backlogged along with move requests dating back to the beginning of the year, it needs attention though as this is a huge topic in the news now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll blame who I please dammit! =p Ah, that makes sense. I was wondering what they were talking about with all this "Great Backlog" Business. Indeed, this and the impending irradiation of Japan (which has even more people editing it believe it or not) are the two biggest stories. And no, I am not making a joke with regard to the irradiation thing, it's what I think will sadly happen. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper Move?
Under move requests this is listed as 2011 Libyan uprising → page = Talk:2011 Libyan uprising is this right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? Like move from 2011 Libyan Uprising to this talk page? That can't be right, or am I misunderstanding this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted about this on the admin noticeboard but have yet to get a response reguarding this mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an admin and only commenting on the weird listing at WP:RM. I'm pretty confident this was caused by the move header that was added, as now I have removed it it is being listed correctly.  Obviously this should not really be casuing the bot problems so have dropped the bot owner a line. Dpmuk (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


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

Rename to 2011 Libyan Civil War Following Announcement By National Transitional Council
Today the National Transitional Council has declared their selves to be "sole representative all over Libya", for all purposes this now qualifies as a Civil War according to the definition of the Wikipedia article, that is ''A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state, [...]. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, further more, The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict.'', this has been exceeded six fold

Therefore it should be accepted that this is now definitively a civil war, and the title of the article changed to Libyan Civil War to accurately reflect this, ignoring the use of the year in parentheses as to my knowledge, this is Libya's first and currently only civil war, with the year in the title being redundant --98.194.17.255 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. It had been said at least a hundred times that the editor must go based on the conclusions of the sources for article content, not their own conclusions. It is your job to decide what from the sources should be included and in what manner, and how good the source itself is. It is not your responsibility to come to your own conclusions about what is going on unless the source clearly says it, or to take 2+2 (material from different sources) and make it equal 4 (a conclusion based on that material from the different sources). That is the responsibility of the source and the source alone. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we make a faq about this? Otherwise we'll just be explaining the same thing over and over again. Our article titles are decided by plain English common usage, not by any official definition, be it the National Transitional Council or any other.

If you google 'civil war in Libya', you will find lots of phrases such as "nascent civil war in Libya", "threat of civil war in Libya", all written by journalists during the past two days. What is a "civil war" in plain English? It is a conflict such as the one we see in Libya today that goes on for a substantial period of time. What is a "substantial period of time"? That's a subjective judgement, of course, but usually more than a year, or at least more than a couple of months. Kindly compare our articles on the Satsuma Rebellion (January to September 1879) with Chilean Civil War (January to September 1891). It seems that a conflict shorter than a couple of months is not usually termed a "civil war". Since this conflict is barely a month old, naming the article "civil war" will seem to imply the prediction that it is going to continue for at least another couple of months. This is why journalists are reluctant to call it a "civil war" without qualification. Wikipedia simply follows common usage, and as long as people are reluctant to call it a civil war, so should we be. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This has been discussed numerous times before, and one of the discussions (just two sections above), is ongoing. Starting a second discussion won't change anything. Valid arguments, for or against the move, should be placed under the earlier, but ongoing, discussion (here: Talk:2011 Libyan uprising). 212.10.94.137 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Libyan Civil War
The article needs to be renamed to Libyan Civil War (2011), major news sources are now calling this a civil war (which it has been for some time) see [] for an example.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Comment Why have we opened this discussion again? It is currently being discussed in an above thread which has yet to be closed? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I already cast my support vote upstairs in the other discussion where it seems we have a deadlock of 12 against 12, however with the media such as CNN now calling it a civil war I would say it's a done deal now.EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. BBC's John Simpson: "It is a mistake to see this campaign as an outright civil war." Nanobear (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * UPI calls it a civil war as well [], there are a massive number of sources calling it one. There are now two governments that claim to be sole legitimate ruler of Libya. That is the very definition of civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Daily Record[], The Telegraph [], and LA Times [] also call it civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the information i am presenting here was not available when the discussion was opened above. Many of the opposers above cited that no news sources called it the Libyan Civil War. Today many of them have.XavierGreen (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This is obviously more of an internal military conflict now than protests. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose but will support if Gaddafi doesn't leave within a day or two – We need to give this another day or two.  suggests it is still unclear whether the balance of sources consider it a civil war now or not.  That balance is what we need to report here.  We should rename the article when the issue becomes more clearly supported by the majority of reliable sources and not before.  I'd say that should happen in a day or two - Gaddafi is either going to flee by then or is going to stay and try to fight it out.  WikiDao    &#9775;  00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two governments that claim to be soveriegn fighting with each other for control of the country if this isnt civil war than there is no such thing. It doesnt matter how long the violance goes on for (there is no definition of a civil war that requires a certain amount of time to have past before it becomes a civil war).XavierGreen (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not for any of us to say when it becomes a civil war. It is for reliable sources to say when it has become a civil war.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we do not have to be on the leading edge of this thing, we just have to have reliable sources and a consensus about what those sources say.  So far the consensus is that they mostly say that it's not clear whether it is a "civil war" yet or not.  But it is clearly still considered an "uprising" as is and ought to be indicated by our title -- for now.  WikiDao    &#9775;  02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another consideration is Civil war which says the academic criteria is "1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict". Where reliable sources do not show a consensus, we could refer to this definition. Have there been 1000 deaths? Rwendland (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CommentI'm 174.114.87.236 (talk) from above, apparently the page has been protected for some reason. Anyways, google hits don't determine Wikipedia page titles, and neither does consensus in the media. When is there ever any consensus on contentious topics in the media? The question is if there is an authoritive, verifiable source that we can all agree would back up the change on here. Clearly that consensus doens't exist yet, but it is worth noting that there is no common name being given to this "occurance" shall we call it within the media, for some its an uprising, for some its a civil war, for some its a just rebels and pro-gaddafi forces. But the article does have to be named something, and clearly the Libyan case is quite different from the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt (which wikipedia is now calling revolutions, but which began as uprisings in name here). If a successful uprising is named a revolution, then what shall we call an uprising which cannot be decisively defeated or won by either side? I believe that is the textbook definition of a civl war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietminh (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Just looked down the Google News headlines on Libya: BBC "Libya revolt", CBC "Libyan rebels", NYT "at War With Rebels", ABC "Rebel forces", FT "rebel fighters" and "Libyan conflict", VoA "Libyan rebels". In the first 100 or so stories only one BBC story uses the "civil war" words speculatively in "Spectre of prolonged civil war looms for Libya". I don't see the consensus anywhere near calling it a civil war yet. Rwendland (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment We are just going by whichever is used more than others. It actually would be interesting to see if, as suggested up top, we did change the title and all the new sources suddenly called it a Civil War. Might not be exact correlation, but would be interesting to not nonetheless. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Revolution / Civil War
The title for this article should be civil war or revolution. Why? There is a war going on. You have two opposing armies. One army is under the control of the current government of Moammar Gadhafi and the other army is controlled by the rebels. The armies are battling over territory (cities, army installations, etc...) and soldiers are being killed in battle. The people of Libya are being killed.

The rebel council has declared their independence. They have stated they are the legitimate government of Libya. They have asked the nations of the world to recognize them as the legitimate government of Libya. They are coordinating the movements of the army. Aljazeera English is calling it a civil war. These events are the definition of civil war or revolution.

The American war for independence was a revolutionary war not when they were given independence by England after the battle of Yorktown but after the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Americans declared their independence. The American Civil War was a civil war not when Lee surrendered to Grant or when Jefferson Davis was captured by Union troops but when the southern states declared their independence and shooting started at Fort Sumter.

This article should have been called Libyan civil war or revolutionary war at least two weeks ago. It is no longer an uprising and the description should be changed. Remember there is a war going on for control of Libya. JoeC 3rd (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. On CNN they are now calling it a civil war on TV. I think it is now safe to say this is an all out civil war. The time to wait to change the article's title is over. Two organized forces are fighting each other. When you have airstrikes, heavy machine gun fire, and tanks it is generally a war. Also, when someone is attacking a city and someone else is defending it, it is clearly a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.225.132 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note, the requested move discussion is an above section. To maintain the integrity of the discussion, comments should be posted there.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a good point that we do not yet know whether it is to be called the "2011 Libyan Revolution" or the "2011 Libyan Civil War". Wikipedia is not news and not a crystal ball.  Whatever else it may turn out to be, it is certainly an uprising.  That's what we should call it for now.  In the future, we should perhaps rename the article to whatever reliable sources end up calling it.  WikiDao    &#9775;  23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can someone maybe put a little note up top directing people to the Civil war topic? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I opposed this two weeks ago, because it was not clear how long it would take to overthrow Ghadaffi. However, now that it is very clear that this will drag out at least until foreign nations get involved, I agree we should title it 2011 Libyan Revolution. I also believe we need to create a new page for the Libyan Republic. Ghaddafi has not shown the power to take back any parts of East Libya, which means, at very least, Eastern Libya will become a new country if Ghaddafi cannot be toppled. I will create the page, but I want support first for Libyan Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dating the Map
The main map at the top of this page is naturally subject to constant change as the situation is in such an unpredictable state of flux. I suggest the last time it is edited, somebody writes the date they made the edit under the map as it can go out of date quite quickly and lead to confustion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArinArshavin (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea! —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  • Talk to me!  00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote under the explanation what the symbols on the map mean (that can be described in one word... but I forgot which word...) the date and hour of the last update of the map on Wikipedia Commons. —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  • Talk to me!  00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Its called a key and thanks. ArinArshavin (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

so far, the map has been updated at least daily, and there hasn't to my knowledge been any problem with the map being out of date. So this is rather like a solution looking for a problem. In fact, if you are proposing to manually keep track of map updates here in the article, you are creating the problem of these updates on the map updates being out of date. Thus, the article now says "Last map update: 8 March 2011 at 15:36", while the current map was in fact updated 9 March 2011 at 11:51. I hope you see the problem. This is quite apart from the complete irrelevancy of the hour and minute of the actual upload, if anything, the date given should be that of the last report taken into account in the current map. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Beware WP:Recentism here. In fact, we should start thinking about having a separate figure for how the map looked right after the rebellion broke out. Wnt (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya is under Gaddafi's control. :) Change the map immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That smiley is a bit... unnerving, but you should probably put your message on the talk page of the map. Then it will be changed more immediately. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)