Jump to content

Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

cleanup tag

The cleanup tag is for bullet points to be expanded into prose ... yes some points could be put together, but the list of events per city is easier to follow with points. Unless someone can think of another of representing the information? do we need the tag?86.138.62.95 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

the encyclopaedic prose on the egypt articel was bettert han bullet point articles. That is more suited to your twitter and facebooks than wikipedia.Lihaas (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage in lead

I think we need a section explaining about how hard it is to get hard facts from inside libya, with the indy media ban and government whitewash that anything is happening - this would clear up the somewhat vague nature of reported facts for readers. 86.138.62.95 (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistranslation

The translation "If Gaddafi falls, then there will be bigger catastrophes in the world." is wrong. What schwarzenberg really said is "If Gaddafi falls,(well) there are bigger catastrophes in the world (than that)." meaning "no big deal". the exact opposite of the (mis)translation above.

Well, you're free to make a correction to the article! Remember, Wikipedia is created by its users. Enjoy the experience! Alfons Åberg (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

519?

Where is the source? Chesdovi (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi

The naming of the Gaddafi articles are up for discussion, see Talk:Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi and Talk:Muammar al-Gaddafi

65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Official reaction (ambassadors stepping down...)

Someone deleted the list of officials who stepped down during the uprising. I think that they are a key element in making the regime weaker and withdrawing legitimacy. Is there a reason why they're deleted? Otherwise I would reintegrate them in the "reactions - domestic" section? Derjanosch (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Alfons Åberg (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Current solution looks good to me. Written text in the main article, list in the separate one. Derjanosch (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
ditto per Derjanosch, i moved as all the info is replicated (although we can have less here to just summarise that page.Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab League

  • Arab League Arab League - The Arab League's Secretary-General Amr Moussa stated initially that he was deeply concerned about the situation in Libya and urged for immediate stop of the violence. Later, after an emergency meeting on 22 February, the organization suspended Libya from taking part in council meetings and Moussa issued a statement condemning the "crimes against the current peaceful popular protests and demonstrations in several Libyan cities".[1][2] By the night of the 22nd, the Arab League’s secretary general, Amr Moussa, had said in an emergency Arab League summit in Cairo, that the Arab League suspended the Libyan delegation, according to Al Arabiya television[3].

They have kicked Libya out of the League!!! --Wipsenade (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

no, no, they suspended libya from discussions
also, w e can take out arabiya b/c al jazeera said so too.(Lihaas (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

Where is Gaddafi?

I heard reports yesterday, but this is the first WP:RS that says he has fled. Its the Daily Mail, so I would be hesitant still. But it is a bit odd his son is the one giving the speech...--Metallurgist (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera English is discussing the rumors right now. I think we should wait for some confirmation. He is allegedly in Venezuela. Ucucha 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree fully.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Many reliable sources are reporting about the rumors, however. We can easily, and probably should, add something saying (roughly): "Rumors are that Gaddafi has fled". Follow the sources, you know?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Is he dead?Wipsenade (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Not yet. Give it a few more days/hours, depending on how the protestors want it done. TheArchaeologist 16:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Libyan royalty

We have a response from Prince Idris al-Senussi of Libya but do we have a response(if he has even given one yet) from Muhammad as-Senussi who is the current heir to the Libyan throne? Spongie555 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, he said the Libyans will be victorious in their pwning of Gadaffi basically, among other things: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE71L28Q20110222 He doesn't immediately say anything about coming back to power, but it's probably in his mind somewhere. Ofc, that is just MY speculation alone. TheArchaeologist 17:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Background/early protests section

[1] lists protests, not background, which are a part of the protests even if different from FEB 2011 its still 2011 protests. See 2010-2011 Tunisian uprising.Lihaas (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of coastal city is not listed for the rundown of events on Feb. 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.182.235 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

teh eyewitnesses have said that, but im not sure about the RS.
also the image is nto sourced to anything either, it makes it WP:Synthesis then.(Lihaas (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
Sorry, what?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
eyewitnesses talk fo the demographics./
the image he mentions above is not sourced either. right now there isnt a source on the demographics except for an opinion piece which makes it pov/synthesis.(Lihaas (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

Capitalisation of 'Government of Libya'

Minor point I know but the edit which I just made to the capitalisation of the 'G' in 'Government of Libya' in the lead section was reverted back to lower-case. I am unsure why as 'Government of Libya' is a proper noun, being a unique entity. The current lower case is incorrect.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

i suppose youre right, we just used that in the past.(Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

Population Age Distribution Graph

That is a beautiful and helpful graph that shows the distribution of age by gender. This visual representation is an excellent way to quickly absorb a large amount of meaningful data. Would be great though if the x-axis were modified to show percentages rather than whole numbers - i.e. relative frequency instead of absolute frequency. Could someone who has the raw data please make this change? I think it will be a significant enhancement. Thank you so much. Kklipple (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient as-is. Some people prefer raw data in the form of whole numbers as opposed to percentages. With much work to be done on this article, this is probably a low priority should the consensus be to switch to relative frequency on this chart. Dmarquard (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian response

The state response for Egypt is a fatwa by a Sunni cleric and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Is this considered an official response on behalf of the state of Egypt? If not, it should be moved elsewhere. --Natural RX 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, responses are thought by the reader to be by those who are authorized to speak on behalf of their government. I don't believe the official position of Egypt is assassination. Recommend removal of this response or moved to another section ("Other responses" perhaps?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.203.19.1 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit says he has requested military planes from the defence ministry to bring Egyptians home. "Our main problem now is getting permits to land the planes in Libya, and this represents a huge problem...There are around 1.5 million Egyptians in Libya". He also commented on Saif allegation that Egyptian and Tunisian residing in Libya are behind the protests. Also the Egyptian army has warned Libya that it might intervene if Egyptian are harmed. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

actually that part above was pending an official reaction which would then put that under double asterisks.
but is there a source on Gheit? although that would beunder a different section im guessing.(Lihaas (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
Here's the source on Gheit. BTW, Ahmad Qaddaf El-Dam Arabic: أحمد قذاف الدم is in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Evacuations and reactions

The International reactions section has separate subsections for official statements from various nations, and for details on travel advisories and evacuations. Wouldn't it be more efficient to combine any evacuation plans for a country with the respective state reaction section? This would leave the evacuations subsection with just details regarding the airport itself. --Natural RX 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

i wasw using the model from the egypt protests page where we differentiated. but if you feel otherwise be bold to merge. Although i think it should at least be a double asteriskts as different from official statements.(Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
Done, but not to my satisfaction. If I have more time (which I don't have right now) I would like to eventually expand on any Libyan government response to what it is doing for foreign citizens (if anything), and expand on what kind of activities are occuring at the countries ports and airports. This could then be transformed into a different section that isn't under 'international responses'. --Natural RX 02:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
apparently permission to land in tripoli is being denied. Turkey had problems landing in Benghazzi and then decided to send catamarans. Tunisians in the west were evacuated but not in the east. the borders with egypt and tnisia are tight. most flights land in malta first. (like cyprus ws for gaza)(Lihaas (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
various sources from European governments (e.g. Germany, Austria, Netherlands) say that landing is possible, but there are issues on the ground. Normal aircrafts are handled normally. I added that yesterday, think someone cut all that together. Derjanosch (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS

We need this section to put in major events about these protests as they progress.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTNEWS
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thats also what the timeline is for. add there.(Lihaas (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

unsourced claim

in the "casualties" "section it reads: It has also been reported that in the city of Benghazi, 11 Libyan soldiers had been executed by their commanding officers for refusing to fire on protesters." the source cited mentions no such thing though, shall I remove it? or does the author have another source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.25.38 (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This was aired on Aljazeera, but I don't have a specific link. It should be possible to find though. Alfons Åberg (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The claim is not unsourced. Read the source - it says: "In Benghazi, reports say 11 solders were killed by their commanding officers for refusing to fire on protesters.". Alfons Åberg (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Umbrella

"but he carried an umbrella, which suggested to analysts that it was raining in the video" This made me laugh a little bit. Should this be removed? Because first of all, it would be strange that analysts would make this conclusion based on him holding an umbrella (couldn't it be also very sunny? or maybe he's performing a theater play). Second of all, the Reuters article referenced doesn't say anything about analysts, it only says he was holding an umbrella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podex (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

id support that trivia out.(Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

Is he turning in to Mary Poppins?Wipsenade (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is idiotic. Gaddafi said he was carrying an umbrella because it was raining. This may or may not have been an act of him pretending to be in Tripoli where it was raining at the time. Gaddafi was sitting in a car. He didn't need an umbrella, he was clearly making a point of carrying an umbrella. He is also a billionaire. I am sure he could have filmed his statement in some dry location instead of a banged-up car out in the rain if he wanted to. He was clearly acting. If you are going to quote "analysts", say whether they think he was acting because he wasn't even in Tripoli at the time, or whether he was in fact in Tripoli and just making a point by being filmed out in the rain. E.g. this: apparently, the backdrop was "outside Gaddafi's family house, bombed by the US under Reagan. It is in the middle of an army camp, and is now a kind of museum", thus indeed proving to the Libyan spectators that Gaddafi was in Tripoli. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Red link/sources/cite error

The international responses were cut off and nearly all sources are red 'Cite error' tags. Wipsenade (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT resolves this automatically, if you add the page to Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting or Category:Pages with broken reference names, although it might be quicker to do it manually. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lynx+vi

Being a long-time WP editor, I recently started using Lynx and VIM for editing and discovered a few caveats after some real-life usage, which are now noted in Wikipedia:Text editor support#Lynx (the most recent being line breakage). The reason I am making note of this, is that I might have accidentally saved a few sections with unintentional carriage return breaks. I was not aware of such program behaviour beforehand. -Mardus (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup - "Gaddafi"

could anyone clean up the many spellings of this personal name through the article as there's no consistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.45.71 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the original Arabic spelling is معمر القذافي. The first letter is ق, which is unianimously transcribed Q. Thus, a spelling with Q is supported by the original version. However, it appears that a spelling with G is more common in Western media. Wikipedia's article on him is called Muammar al-Gaddafi, although it also provides the alternative spelling "Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī". Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

He must be Muammar al-Qadhafi. This is the best transliteration to his name--41.235.103.247 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Split apart

Considering the lack of participation here, let alone the lack of support, I'm going to archive this and remove the "split" tag form the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
lack of participation, let alone support, indicates that this proposal will not succeed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is getting somewhat long, I suggest we split the article. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Split off timeline

I suggest that the timeline section be split into its own article, so that it can grow organically, as now it gets quite long in this article. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Too much fracturing of the content is bad for the article(s). You (or anyone, really) are more then welcome to cull out some of the trivia however. The whole section could use some copy editing to keep the perspective on the major events.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is mainly about the timeline. Wait until the protests calms down or ends and then we shall see if we need to spilt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Split off international reactions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{split|International reactions to the 2011 Libyan protests}}

I suggest that the international reactions be split off into its own article, as it is quite long, and the international reactions have less to do with the internal interactions of the protests than in other countries like Egypt. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

timeline can wait, this is generally the first go go. timeline is the essence of the article.
 Done add the page when and if consensus is given(Lihaas (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
Since you started the split process I had to finish it off - we can't leave the new article's content here as well or it will get edited differently. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 17 Protest?

need mention of this even if the page doesnt change. many pol. leaders are rhetorically calling it as such.(Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

Who? Also we need some reputable sauces (sources) for this mate. TheArchaeologist 16:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Do a Google search on the terms: "February 17th", and Libya, and you will get .25 million hits, all of which seem to be referring to this date as if it was expected to become some sort of major Libyan "Independence Day" just like the American 4th of July, or the Mexican Cinco de Mayo. At this earlier stage of the protests, I think that it is reasonable to call it the "February 17th Protest", as this seems to be the one date that the Libyans have agreed upon to refer to these protests by. I would suggest moving this page to this name, and if the protest turns into a successful revolt, then move it to the "February 17th Revolution" page. If it seems to have failed for some unexpected reason, then move it to the "February 17th Uprising" page. Scott P. (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Calling it "February 17th" anything is likely to be confusing as it implies the protests only happened on that day. Sure we can clarify this in the article, but the title needs to be unambiguous without further explanation. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

background

need to expand: for disenfranchisement (though im quite surprised) economically and the global tiffs like that with swiss and bulgaria recently (even if the latter is less relevant)(Lihaas (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).

Sorting out population density

It's a minor matter, but the map File:LibyanCivilWar.jpg of what territories are held contains a population density map which isn't very detailed. For example, it doesn't convey the extreme density of the Tripoli area relative to all else. Also, it has a digital watermark warning... So I wanted to make a new population density map, only to find out that Gadhafi has been excessively creative drawing and redrawing Districts of Libya. As a result, I was able to find km2 sizes for 15 of 22 of the modern districts in Libya, but the other 6 evade me. (Although, while Libya gives census information broken down by the 22 districts, it's a 2006 census and the redistricting was done in 2007...) I think I can make an SVG map using File:Lybian Shabiat 2007 with numbers.svg if I can get sizes for the other 6 districts - could someone fill in that data in the table at Libya? Thanks. Wnt (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To source or not to source (I'm confused)

The claim about 11 soldiers being executed by their commanders (under "Casualties") used to be sourced. I'm linking to two versions of the article:

Today, before noon

Afternoon

When I click from the old version above to the BBC source, I get an article called "Libya protests: Pressure mounts on isolated Gaddafi", which says: "In Benghazi, reports say 11 solders were killed by their commanding officers for refusing to fire on protesters.". When I click from the more recent version above, I get a different article which does not support the claim. How can that be? Is there a technical problem with Wikipedia's formatting? Alfons Åberg (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is people giving names to references such as "BBCNews" in this case. Of course there will be more than one BBC News article used as a source in the article. If two different references have the same name, it causes these problems. I will try and correct it. Reference names should be unambiguous, making use of elements from the url or title for example. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Done, but now I find the orginal source has been modified and no longer supports this claim. A look on google shows that another source that previously contained this claim has also been modified, so I don't think there are reliable sources supporting this claim right now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This claim reappears in this article, in which a doctor in Benghazi refers to nine body bags at his hospital that he has been told contain the charred bodies of soldiers that refused to fire on civilians: Fahim, Kareem. "In the Cradle of Libya’s Uprising, the Rebels Learn to Govern Themselves." New York Times. Feb. 24, 2011. Accessed Feb. 24, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/africa/25benghazi.html?hp Neumannk (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are people adding more bullets to the timeline of events?

There is a clear message asking people to turn the events into prose a few hours ago I saw that February 21 was in prose but now is in bullet form, why are people doing the opposite of what the message is asking? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't want to sound too much like an apologist here, but at this point I'd think that it's more important to simply get the breaking information into the article rather than to be overly concerned about its initial formatting. Write the rough draft before polishing it, you know? Not that what I'm saying here should be an excuse for people to just add a jumble of text items, willy-nilly; there needs to be a balance between getting things added and formatting it all well, is all. There's plenty of time to get the "final draft" ready... an infinite amount of time, really.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The raw data of fast-moving events needs to be processed; Wikipedia can't be encyclopedic immediately, like some modern Athena jumping full-grown from the forehead of Zeus, savvy? Wikipedia isn't journalism, but it is nonetheless the first draft of history. And the second. And the third. And the fourth. Und so weiter. kencf0618 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But the question wasn't about adding bullet points - as I read Knowledgekid87s report, it was about reversion of prose into bullet points, which is against the hatnotes. We should decide what format we want for definite - above was said copy style of Egyptian protests article, so why not agree to do that? 86.138.62.95 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a news organisation or social media, that is pov. its an encyclopaedia. something weve done all the recent protest pages.Lihaas (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I added them, saw them above, didn't see that there was a discussion going on about that. In such context I think that bullet points might be justified, since they add clarity and make it easier to read, particularly with a little "headline". Don't need them, but think that they make it easier to follow what's going on. Derjanosch (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lihaas. I think we need stop IPs from editing for awhile. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Geez... everyone just relax. Don't worry about this stuff to much; let's just work on the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, chill everyone. Process the info and put info as it comes, there is no rush. The actual news aspect is for Wikinews though, so it doesn't really matter if the article is behind by a few hours. :) TheArchaeologist 16:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Reply - because they want people to know what's happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfjkl1234 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's have a coupel of day's under a IP block to do a tidy up and then open it up. It should not be IP indeffblocked for ever, since it's not a mess like Egypt's page was.Wipsenade (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldnt mind if you want to request WP:Protest for 24-48 hours. adding a lot of nonsense.(Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).
Having had a fast look at the edits made within the last half day or so, blaming IP's is, quite simply, incorrect. Infact, some of the problems I resolved yesterday (I have a dynamic IP), broken references and alike, were mainly caused by registered users rather than IP's. If this changes and IP's start to present a serious problem compared to registered users, then yes, the article should be logged for IP's. That is not the case at present, however. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. People seem to have a knee jerk reaction towards semi-protection, but I'd put many of the IP edits here up against many of those by registered users. Pretty typical, in my experience. Thanks guys!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

flag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Several flag images shown on the news is not the red-black-green-with white crescent and star flag, instead they are red-black-green, where the black stripe is plain and unadorned. This should be added to the article, if someone could draw up such an image file. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, it's at File:Flag of Libya (2011 protests).svg. —Nightstallion 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It probably is home made. Due to the monarchist flag bring old and not easily avalible people must have made their own flags and it would be easier to make a flag of basic lines of colors from the old one then making the full version with the moon and star. Spongie555 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's sort of like the Ink Flag then, ha! TheArchaeologist 07:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)


on the "history of libya" the second flag of guadhafi is not there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Egypt_1972.svg <= this is this flag from 1972 to 1977, just before the green flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.23.10 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I saw our new infobox picture has File:Flag of Libya (2011 protests).svg as the flag to represent the protestors but i think it should be the File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg flag as it is widly used more by the protestors as shown in this photos in this news article and many other news sources, [2]. Spongie555 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole box was inserted without consensus and is rubbish. its highly dubious and pov to cite, the flag represents no official movement which means its WP:Synthesis.(Lihaas (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).
I agree with Lihaas(my comment came before the whole box was changed). Spongie555 (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
want t o rvt? its unanimous here?(Lihaas (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).
I think the infobox needs to stay, this has turned into a military conflict and the infobox reflects that.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Same thing happened while I was working on Egyptian protests. Some people don't understand the difference between what a civil war is and uprising, protest or a revolution. I agree with lihaas. someone beside me needs to address this issue. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There are at the moment two infoboxes. I am removing the one for the uprising, since this has pretty much developed into a proper armed conflict. Having two boxes describing the same event is IMO not useful. Gryffindor (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Battles.

I'm just curious, with this recent battle in Tobruk and with Opposition forces trying to take cities away from Gaddafi by force, do you think it would be fare to make Battle pages?

207.6.34.122 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

dont think its warranted. how much content can we get that would differ from here? good idea though. if it expands then yes. (though tripoli and benghazzi could be on to somthing..)(Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).
If there are pitched battles with a sufficent amount of detail to make an article, than i imagine it would be a good idea to make articles about them. I wouldnt expect any big assault to happen for a few days though, each side is in shambles at the moment and not really capable of launching dedicated assaults on each others positions.XavierGreen (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool idea? definitely. Realistic? not at all, unfortunately. Without media access at all (although, that may be changing?) there's no reliable means to create articles about the battles that surely are taking place. Apparently there was a small unit battle in Az Zawiyah today, for example. That was reported by the New York Times, so there's fairly reliable information that the battle actually occurred... but there are no details, and I wouldn't expect any details to become avaialble any time soon. So, unfortunately, "maybe later" seems to be an appropriate answer to this question.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. There are definitely battles occurring in Az Zawiyah and Misurata, but there is so little information emerging from Libya at the moment that there's not much of a point in separate articles. Ucucha 00:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an article on the Battle of Misurata by now. Ucucha 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

These "battles" hardly deserve the title of one. This is becouse the forces involved are very limited as well as the casualties sustained. I would regard them as skirmishes therefore would advise creating a skirmish article where all the skirmishes are outlined. I think that Tripolli will truly be a battle but untill now we have seen only skirmishes. Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Question on NPOV

Is it allowed by wikipedia policy to be openly pro-protesters of Democracy concerning this article?

I think it should be. --Athinker (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The way it works is WP:RS. Wikipedia is never pro-anything, but since the vast majority of our sources agree on their perspective on these events, things will sort themselves out automatically. It's the same with other criminal regimes. Wikipedia isn't "anti-Nazi", but since almost all our sources are (because no author in their right mind would take any other position), our articles turn out that way. It's the proper way to reflect the consensus in relevant literature. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In cases where many high quality sources support one version, and a minority support another, please also see WP:WEIGHT. Beyond publications by Gaddafi's own regime (his TV, newspapers, etc), which can be considered questionable for a whole range of reasons (self-published, unduly self-serving, questionable fact-checking, etc → WP:RS), the only pro-Gaddafi source I've seen has been the brief statement by Daniel Ortega, which strongly suggests the pro-Gaddafi view is a distinct minority, and therefore does not deserve much space as in this article (as I believe already is the case). But perhaps I'm just missing something. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the word "protests" is absurd at this point. It should read: revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to be pro- or anti- anything, regardless of sources. Wiki is not pro anything, we reflect what sources say, and do not put things in a way which suggests that Wiki is supporting them. In the Nazi example, for instance, wiki would not say "the nazi's were bad". It would state facts and describe how the nazis are viewed by historians, etc. Just to make sure it's clear that Wiki has no opinion. It has no facts of its own. It relies solely on a balanced representation of these things from other credible sources, given due weight. It's the difference between saying something like "The protestors are totally justified" (POV) and saying, "According to (credible source), Y% of the Libyan population supports the protestors". That doesn't functionally elminate bias, but it at least weeds out direct opinion. Then it is up for us as the editors to sort out whether the referenced bits are given due weight, etc. There's never a lack of bias, even in just a statement of facts, but this process helps minimize it.Jbower47 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It should read Libyan Civil War.Wipsenade (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Monarchist element

In addition to waving the old flag, I have read and seen pictures of protesters holding pictures of the late King Idriss, and read an Al-Jazeera article calling restoration "possible", so is there a monarchist element and should the article mention it?

--Simfan34 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article a photograph

That article, by my reading, specifically says that the revolters aren't monarchists, though. I'm a bit confused, here...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There definitately are some monarchists among the rebels, but they dont seem to be leading the movement and as far as i know neither of the two claimants to the throne has returned to libya as of yet, though one of them has said that he does intend to return. As for what his intentions are when he arrives, i have niether heard nor read anything about.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Both princes have made interviews for top news stations, Muhammed, [3] and Idris, [4]. Spongie555 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Doubtless there shall be a nod to the past, but the Libyan Pretenders shall, I suspect, devote themselves to charitable works in whatever new regime is set up. The current usage of the old, pre-Gadaffi royal flag is ipso facto anti-Gadaffi; he seized power in a coup in 1969, remember. Think Dubček; it'll be a new era's recognition of a past era before the past, so to speak. kencf0618 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I (no native speaker of English) understand this article, there are no comments given whatsoever by the protesters concerning the issue of monarchy or republic. They are anti-Gaddafi, that's it, and the old flag is mainly referred to as 'flag of independence'. I am sure that at the moment they are occupied by other things than discussing the question, if there should be a king or a president in post-Gaddafi Libya. (sorry for possible language mistakes)--Altaripensis (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Can we really come up with no one who has been driving forward protests, demonstrations, or offensives? I'm aware the opposition is largely spontaneous and lacks leadership on the national level, but individual officers who have mutinied could potentially be added here, or any protest leader with a citywide profile. I'm just surprised the section is left completely blank. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have some educated guesses, personally. however, it's not what we think that matters. What matters is what the sources (read: news reports, at the moment) are reporting... which, in terms of this particular topic, is nothing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Situation in the South-West

The map currently has no info on what's going there. Reports say that the Tuareg living there are fighting against Gaddafi, Ghat was shown as one of the cities with "protests" in early versions of this article and Awbari was said to have been attacked by Tuareg (though the lack of new info on this could mean they were repelled by pro-Gaddafi forces). --150.244.131.195 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but at this point all of the tribes living in or around the area have formally defected or informally broken ties with the regime. If the attacks had been repelled, then they should have been followed by a brutal crackdown. We know the gov't still holds Ghadamis in the West and Sabha in the central area, but there don't appear to be any reports at all from the areas south or east of there. This probably means that the authorities in the far southwest are ambiguous in their stance and the region is strategically irrelevant to the conflict, so the area is truly under the control of neither force.--Henohenomoheji (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Warfalla tribe

Just a quick note that I've started an article at Warfalla tribe. Anyone interested is more than welcome to help out.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Deeper analysis need : Economic motivation, Oil and resource curse, West/East division

I'm not familiar with Libya (my field of contribution is China), but those 3 directions seems quite central and to develop. Please, if you are familiar with those issues in Libya or have time to look for those needed background, please give an hand. Issues being:

  • the Socio-Economic situation - young, jobless, human right, activists.
  • the Oil industry, its profit's redistribution, and the resource curse,
  • the West/East division - videos/articles I watched show the capital (West) enthusiastic about Kadafi, and the East protesting, taking control of the streets, with military staying in their barracks. Is there some regionalism, clans, etc ?

This deep view is quite need. Help much more welcome ! 140.120.55.63 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I is about oil.15:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Requested move - 2011 Libyan uprising

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: Moving to 2011 Libyan uprising, which seems more supported than "revolt". Consensus is clear that "protests" is inaccurate by now. Ucucha 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


2011 Libyan protests → 2011 Libyan uprising — Contested move. New name based on recent events and discussion in the section above.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

oppose until we can see multiple and diverse sources calling it as suck,Lihaas (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the argument are in the previous discussion. A new one: "Muammar Gaddafi's son warns of civil war in state television address as regime tries to halt uprising" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/libya-defiant-protesters-feared-dead --93.137.16.98 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
oppose Too premature. If Gaddafi is overthrown, then Libyan Revolution of 2011. Otherwise, it'll might become a civil war even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.13.29 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
no-one requested Libyan Revolution of 2011 yet. You are out of touch --93.137.23.7 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I request a Libyan Revolution of 2011 :) Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm taking a bit of liberty here, based on my past experience in dealing "see other section", and refactoring this talk page a bit. The "previous discussion" is now in an archived sub-section, below:

This needs to be renamed the 2011 Libyan Uprising. In the East, the opposition flags are flying and protestors control most of the area.

I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree too. This is not a simple protest anymore.--Agitateur (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was about to do this. But, while I see that the redirect would be automatic, it looks like one should fix/alter the SORTKEYS if renaming a page. Does anyone know if leaving "Libyan Protest" sortkeys (etc.) in place and adding "Libyan Uprising" (etc.) keys would work?

I don't want to break any connections with other Arab/Libyan "Protest" pages unnecessarily. Praghmatic (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you define an uprising as a rebellion against authority, then all the Arab protests would be uprisings - including this one. I see, however, the logic in Praghmatic's statement though. Lawblogger18 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds are dead. As far as we know, the rebels aren't peaceful anymore, and thus is is closer to a Civil War.Ericl (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are as of yet no international bodies, governments or mass media describing the Libyan situation as a civil war. Therefore we at Wikipedia shouldn't, either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is way too premature. Wait until he steps down or die and then we will rename a Revolution‎. We did it for Egypt and Tunisia. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is way too premature, as we cannot say at the moment in which direction this is headed. Regime change? Civil war? Or beaten-down protest, and back to normal life? Until we have certainty about which direction this is going to take, a rename is not in order. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many unsuccessful uprisings. In Syria, Assad wiped out entire cities (in the 1970s I believe) to stop the Muslim Brotherhood there, and was successful. But those were uprisings too. There are more urgent things to worry about, and it does seem logically problematic since even Egypt is still listed under 'protests' in some contexts. So I won't press the point for now. But this is much more than a protest at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praghmatic (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The term protest is an euphemism for this situation--93.137.3.188 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

[Uprising flares in Libyan city http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122014259976293.html]--93.137.3.188 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Places are said under copntrol of protesters, with security forces locked or staying in their baracks. 140.120.55.63 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it's going to be Libyan Revolution soon. Gaddafi has apparently fled the country according to Libyan Diplomat on Al Jazeera 140.180.13.29 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong support - Hundreds of people have been massacred by their own government, 'protests' is simply an insult to their memory and their relatives. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support a hugely violent event in which people have taken over whole regions and converted parts of the military to their cause? Clearly beyond "protests". Cjs2111 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For those of you who may be new to Wikipedia (welcome!), Be sure to look at Wikipedia:Requested moves for help in understanding what's going on here. If anyone has any questions related to anything at all about all of this, feel free to ask.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Regardless, there are many examples from both yesterday's and today's news coverage which describe what is currently occurring in Libya as being much more then "protests". For examaple: the New York Times summary article from this morning opens with "A five-day-old uprising in Libya took control of its second-largest city of Benghazi and spread for the first time to the capital of Tripoli late on Sunday as the heir-apparent son of its strongman, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, warned Libyans in a televised speech that their oil-rich country would fall into civil war and even renewed Western “colonization” if they threw off his father’s 40-year-long rule." (incidentally, how's that for a run on sentence? Let's hear it for the newspaper editors! lol). Christian Science Monitor reported today: "Al Jazeera Arabic reported that most of the police in Benghazi, a Mediterranean city to the east of Tripoli that has been the heart of the revolt, are now siding with the protesters." There are plenty of other examples from last night and this morning where coverage describes a "revolt" or "uprising", as well. Google news is our friend. :)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    How about: "Tripoli descended into chaos in less than 24 hours as a six day old revolt suddenly spread from Benghazi across the country and into the capital on Sunday." from Qaddafi’s Grip on Power Seems to Ebb as Forces Retreat (New York times)?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia presents the facts, not composes them. It's more known as protests (around the whole world by all media coverage), not as uprising. Check google, check the news for god's sake. Userpd (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    Interesting, since that's exactly what I'm saying as well, except switch "protests" with "uprising" or "revolt"... or even, occasionally, "revolution", now. I even provided sources!
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but with a day or two wait to be sure I'd like to wait a day or two but this is becoming very serious very quickly. There are already public divisions in the administration (As seen with the UN diplomats), military defection/asylum cases and reported cases of aerial bombings.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yea, I'm not overly concerned with all of this. It's slightly disappointing that the process itself is needed, is all. Unless something crazy happens (which, seeing as how we're dealing with Libya here, I'll grant is something of a possibility...), we may be moving this to "2011 Libyan revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War" in the next day or so, regardless.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
we also need multiple and diverse sources to show its not a pov statenemtnLihaas (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? Please resort to the discussion on hand instead of resorting to NPAs. What you cited as guideline is exactly what i mentioned. We DONT vote, consensus is built with reason. And what reason did Wonder al give?Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Happy? -- Al™ 07:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are over 6,000,000 hits for "Libyan uprising" on google, and there were only 4.5 million earlier today.. This is not a protest anymore, and it is unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Also, even if one goes with "protests" rather than "uprising", the correct English for the opening sentence would be "The Libyan protests are" and not the current "The Libyan protests is". Mtsmallwood (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia is not social media or a caterer to google. but if you find the RS' and consensus then that would be reason enogh to change.
also chaned the lead. think it changed with the name change.Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Refer Wikitionary: Protest: A collective gesture of disapproval, sometimes violent. Uprising: a popular revolt that attempts to overthrow a government or its policies; an insurgency or insurrection. Now, with the eastern half of the country in control of the insurgency, or rebellion, or whatever the correct term is, I think we can say this is not a "protest".Mtsmallwood (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussion. There are as of yet no international bodies, governments or mass media describing the Libyan situation as an "uprising", "revolt", "civil war" or whatever. Therefore we at Wikipedia shouldn't, either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WTF - this is a situation in which 75% of the country has been taken over by rebels, the air force is bombing civilians, and hundreds are dead. I cannot find a media source that is actually still calling this event a "protest" as opposed to an "uprising"; proponents of the move have documented many instances of "uprising" and opponents have merely countered with unsubstantiated impressions. And in any case, a protest = people holding picket signs assembling somewhere. ONCE THERE IS VIOLENCE ON ANYWHERE NEAR THIS SCALE, THE EVENT HAS GONE WAY BEYOND A PROTEST. I'm beyond belief that the name of this page hasn't been changed every time I look back. Cjs2111 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I mistakenly coded this as a minor edit, my apologies, I was not seeking to avoid review by others. The unrest has clearly exceeded protests and is being referred to as an "uprising" in many different places.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - lets d it... Dinkytown talk 23:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Should defiantly be under uprising, see Al Jazeera for example. -- Al™ 03:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
8.4 million hits on Google for "Libyan uprising", up from 4.5 million yesterday, plus Al-Jazeera, plus, among many others, the Globe and Mail and The Economist.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this in the already existing section Requested move instead of starting a discussion of your own. Fragmenting the discussion will not help your cause. Thank you. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support name change to Libyan uprising. See posts above. Right now there are 12,100,000 Google hits for "2011 Libyan uprising". There are 52 million hits for "2011 Libyan protests" but this has gone well beyond a protest now. See definitions provided above.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: My perception is that there are, perhaps, many editors here to whom English is not their primary language. Of course, I may be mistaken, but I think that what I'm about to say here will be helpful to many who are native English speakers as well, so here it goes: to this American native English speaker, the word "protest" is fairly... "light". It doesn't seem very serious. Of course, I am American, so maybe that is coloring my views somewhat [seeing as how we have a "right to free speech" and all...]? "uprising", to me, describes some event where people take a tangible action against the government. "protest", to me, describes an event where people just voice their opinion that something or other "sucks". It therefore seems (blindingly) obvious to me, a native English speaker who happens to be an American, that "uprising" is a much better word choice then "protests". Hence, the proposal here for a name change.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, I don't know anything about that, but any description of this as "protests" is no longer accurate. Richard Engel, who is actually there, described it as "open revolt" and clearly stated that it had gone beyond protests, and it couldn't be called that any more. See my recent edit for quote and source.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I admit that I'm rather long-winded. Be that as it may, I stand by my position above, which (interestingly enough) seems to parallel your own. stating that what is presently occurring in Libya is some sort of "protest" is almost farcical, to me.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, Ohms law, if you don't mind me saying so, I think your arguments are rather POV, or even constitute original research. The wording protest "is almost farcical" to you, you say. However, the fact that some Americans take to the streets for the pettiest little legislation changes does not mean that the word "protest" itself cannot be used in reference to violent protest which is met by a violent government response. The idea that the word "protest" itself implies a low degree of severity or violence is simply ridiculous. BBC News calls it "Libyan protests", so do Al Jazeera English, MSNBC etc. etc. Let's keep to describing the facts instead of letting the connotations certain words have for us guide the naming of the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    The Economist calls it an uprising now too. See my recent edit for quote and sourcing.Mtsmallwood. .(talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC). Also, German Wikipedia is call this an Aufstand, which means uprising, and French wkipedia calls it a "revolte", which can mean either "revolt" or "uprising". So I don't think this is a matter of cultural bias. Mtsmallwood (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    You're probably correct in that there's no actual cultural bias involved here. That's simply the only explaination that I could dream up... although, in a way, there is a cultural bias here, it's simply not a national cultural bias. There's definitely a subset of the en.wikipedia culture that resists any sort of change, these days, regardless the logic inherent in the proposed change. It's sad, but that's simply somethign that we need to deal with these days. Obstructionists.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Keep in mind that this is a Talk page, as well. Stating that my opinion is "POV" or "original research" is... well, it's rather redundant. Pretty much everything on every talk page is someone's point of view and/or original research. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Aside from that, it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind that the relative severity of activities described by the word "protest" is less than that described by "uprising" or "revolt". Far from being ridiculous, I think that the level of support here indicated that my viewpoint here is more accurate.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait until the weekend. As an encyclopedia, we have the luxury of being a few days behind the curve. We should not push 'uprising' through, since there is so much in flux now. There could be serious counter-measures, or it could dissipate, or media blackout. Many things, and a name change during that time is not so wise. For many, it's already 'late', but on the scale of weeks and months, we are pretty much in line with where we can be sure fits. I say wait until there are more defections, international action, or massive demonstrations continuing through the week. Ocaasi (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I can see your point. However... in looking at what's actually occurring in Libya at the present... I wonder how anyone can describe what's currently occurring there as anyhting less then an "uprising"? Additionally, all reacent sources (within the last 24-32 hours) includes something similar to "uprising", "revolt", or "civil war" in it's reporting. Granted, anythign could happen, but the "we have plenty of time" argument cuts both ways. The preponderance of recent news reporting leans towards accepting this proposal, which is why I'm suggesting it.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
yep. im seeing a lot of such soruces saying so. very inclinced to change my vote.(Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

Strongly support name change to 2011 Libyan uprising A Foreign Affairs Minister (in this case Luxemburg's) calling the situaion to have evolved into a genocide, and that the international community should intervene is quite a big clue that this has become way more serious than a big protest. Most media sources, even here at Chile, are calling it an uprising. The Papo 5:23, 23 February 2011 (GMT -4)

Strongly support A quick Google search reveals that the BBC began referring to this event as an "uprising" as early as February 19th, Al-Jazeera began as early as the 20th, and CNN began as early as the 21st. As mentioned above, this event is now almost universally referred to as either an "uprising" or a "revolt". A quick glance at a dictionary and I believe "uprising" is the more appropriate term, despite their similarities.  Mokkan88  (?) 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Although things may come into focus as either a Revolution or Civil War in another week, clearly there's much, much more than protests going on at this time. Froo (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support as per Mokkan88, the sources are calling it an uprising, so it works. TheArchaeologist 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Support Numerous diverse and reliable sources refer to it as an uprising rather than some "protests", which it clearly is more than. Jakarta Globe, ITN, Wall Street Journal, YNet News. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Various sources are refering to it as an uprising, and even civil war. Protest seems far too restrictive. [5] [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.20.121 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The second one of those links clearly refers to it as a protest. --Slon02 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support At this time it is clear Qaddafi has completely lost control of significant portions of the country and will need to use massive force he may or may not have at his disposal to re-assert control. Even if suppressed today uprising would be an apt label for what is occurring.Neumannk (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I strongly support waiting until we see the result of this. Also, I did a quick search of Google news. I got far fewer relevant results searching for revolt and uprising than I did for protest. Examples include [7], [8], [9]. --Slon02 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Support As already said, whenever a tyrant decides to use warships and bombers against his own people and his army turns against him with most of the country in opposition hands it's obvious that the situation has progressed beyond anything remotely considered a "protest". Uprising or Revolt are both better than Protest, but the situation may quickly become a Revolution. Until that time comes, a name change is long overdue. JHanson712 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support renaming to uprising This is far beyond a protest now. Protesters don't take cities, change the flag, and fight troops loyal to a collapsing regime. Many sources are referring to the protesters as rebels, and even refer to battles the lose of control of cities by the Government. The Government lost control of areas of the countries, protests are staged inside said country. I understand it might seem premature to rename it to Civil War, because even though it gathers some characteristics, it's a bit early to say. However, it's far beyond "protests", and "uprising" seems to be what this situation most resembles. Sarejo (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above post, although I would argue that these events don't exhibit the characteristics necessary to distinguish it as a civil war. From what I've gathered, the opposition is vastly popular. I think it says something about Gaddafi's level of support given that he's relying both on foreign mercenaries and bribery to maintain support. Still, even that limited support seems to be waning given his response to the initial protests. I think uprising is a term which both accurately describes the current situation on the ground and will ultimately be used to label this conflict.  Mokkan88  (?) 06:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Support NBC Nightly News called it a "rebellion;" the word protests is now in violation of WP:NPV my minimizing the unrest. I would also support renaming the article to 2011 Libyan Unrest, if that's a suitable compromise. --137.165.165.167 (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support No matter what happens, whether there's a regime change or civil war or even if the whole thing is quashed, it still can be called an uprising. A lot of people use the terms cited by the outside world but the foreign media uses everything from "unrest" to "civil war" to describe the current situation. I think it's fair to say that the current situation has gone well past the point of simply being a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.30.163 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Support It's much more tha just protests, its an uprising that probably will become a revolution. Metron (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support It's what Aljazeera and CNN use too. There are so many more supports than opposes here now. Isn't it time to end vote and move acordingly? -Koppapa (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support When you measure deaths in the thousands, its no longer a protest, its a revolt; and soon (I promise) it will be a war. Jman8088 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Support Canadian sources are referring to the event as an uprising as well. [10] [11] Sixer Fixer (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Air strikes, navy barrages, fierce battles, mass executions, massacres: ¿protests? You must be joking!!! This is civil war/uprising. There are people here having problems handling words, grasping meanings. 186.137.214.62 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very Strongly Support the people are challanging their goverment in a direct manner that is the dictionary definition of an uprising "Uprising - 1.the action of rising up; specif., an outbreak against a government; revolt" and given the violence, deaths and scale of this event to simply call whats happening in Libya "Protests" is both ludicrous and disrespectfull of the Libyan peoples efforts and sacrifices.

Strongly Support No Protests in the article name any more. And many media, like Al Jazeera, use Libya Uprising--1j1z2 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2011


For those who still insist and prevail in calling it a "protest":

1- Pro-test etymologically means pro-testare: (latin) "to testify in favour of" implies expressing an opinion, taking a position. There are some who cannot understand that there is a land between a protest and a revolution which name is uprising/revolt/rebellion.

2- I suggest you to check out the "Warsaw Ghetto UPRISING" wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising and compare it to what is going on in Libya now. Perhaps our experts should consider seriously requesting the move of the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" to the "Warsaw Ghetto PROTEST". This should be done for the sake of CONSISTENCY. Come on!!!!186.137.214.62 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(UTC)

Support This has gone way above mere protests. We have street battles, battles for control of cities. Millitary units defecting and arm distributions to protesters as well as the creation of revolution comities in eastern Libya. I find it hard how one can still claim these are "protests" as of now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.25.38 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Seriously, this is no longer a series of protests. The article title needs to be updated. It isn't POV or OR in the slightest to make an observation. even if parts of the media is slow to change the way they refer to these events. John Smith's (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

STRONGLY Support Ad hoc governments are being established, military personnel are defecting, diplomats are resigning, government officials are fleeing - the people are taking control of the country. THIS IS AN UPRISING. Andalus7 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very Strongly Support In the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition article it's called Libyan uprising, so I think (apart from the reasons provided by everyone else before) we should change the name to keep consistency within the different articles. The Papo 21:34, 24 February 2011 (GMT -4)

Proposed move - 2011 Libyan civil war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As of right now, there is no support to consider moving to 2011 Libyan civil war. If this changes in the coming days it can always be reconsidered.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan protests → 2011 Libyan civil war - this is already a full scale civil war. [12] --78.0.243.9 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose There's a difference between when two factions fight against each other in a civil war, and the people rise up against a government. Franklinville (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It's more important to continue to improve the article rather than fighting about what it should be called. If it were to progress (which it hopefully won't) then we could move it later on, but it seems inaccurate at the moment AFAICT. SmartSE (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
easy oppose per Smartse anmd that the article is no where near sourced as such, a few people (the POV source gaddafi jr.) said so, but far from it. at any rate, a civil was i s determined in hindsight or when its well under way. and even pakistan is hardly called that.Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. It doesn't matter if we think it is a civil war or a protest. What matters is the wording external sources use, i.e. WP:V. Unless someone can provide reliable sources showing that this now generally is described as a civil war by external sources, it remains as protest. 212.10.74.76 (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, same as those above me.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:08, 22 February 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. [13] [14] 98.109.93.163 (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I think this is pretty one-sided in the protestor's favour (not that that is bad, but must maintain NPOV ofc.) and as per civil war, I don't think they're really an organised group in the opposition (though some are part of political parties), it's just Gadaffi + a couple thousand troops and mercs v. Everyone else and his goat at this point. TheArchaeologist 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Oppose. I think "revolt" is a more appropriate word given its definition (see section below). Dmarquard (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Based on Google results limited to the past week the leading phrase being used is "Libyan Revolt", with 530,000, with "Libyan Revolution" only having 24,000 to 28,000 results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.169.239 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Strong Oppose This is a revolt/uprising/revolution. It is not a war between two factions within Libya. The clashes are between Libyans and mercenaries. Andalus7 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move - 2011 Libyan revolt

2011 Libyan protests → 2011 Libyan revolt Calling this page "protests" is now glaringly inappropriate. It is clearly a revolt against the standing government. An armed revolt. So say Reuters "Analysis: Libyan revolt likely to leave deep scars on oil sector" Al Jazeera, "Crushing Libya's revolt - Inside Story " even youtube "Videos for libyan revolt" It's an accurate, neutral term for armed opposition to a government by it's own oppressed people. It becomes a revolution if the people win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The media seems to be split between 'revolt' and 'uprising', but 'protests' is a truly bizarre name for a event which has caused over 1,000 deaths.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Protest" will not be the ultimate name of these revolutionary activities. Still, this could ultimately be called any one of the following three things:
  1. A revolution,
  2. A civil war, or
  3. An uprising.
Traditionally successful movements of this type are called revolutions, failed movements of this type that are protracted are called civil wars, and failed shorter movements of this type are called uprisings. Let us stick with the name "Protest" until the outcome reveals itself more clearly.
Do a Google search on the terms: "February 17th" and Libya, and you'll get .25 million hits, all about these activities as far as I can see. It would seem that the Libyans themselves have already decided to name these activities after the date on which they were first called for, namely Feb. 17th.
Still, I think that this article needs to be moved to "February 17th Protest" soon. Scott P. (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't just refactor other's talk page comments to fit in with your agenda - this was the original move proposal and title of this section posted by User:I.Casaubon and you've made it look like they proposed something else. I'm changing the title back. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did the '17th' bit come from? raseaCtalk to me 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, that would be a bad move. It suggests the protests were only on one day. About google hits. "december 24th" Libya has as many as feb 17. -Koppapa (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would go for Libyan Revolt or Libyan Uprising Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree that 'protests' hardly describes the events currently taking place - indeed, the country may yet descend into civil war! However, there's no rush and I suggest that an appropriate term will emerge in due course. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
move to uprising with sources (plenty) which is similar to revolt and as a tiebreaker that has more precedence on wikipedia.
definately NOT a revolution, not yet nyaywas. its WP:Crystall Ball to suggest so. (even though im inclined to beleive hes got less tahn a week to go.(Lihaas (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).

Calling this page "protests" is now glaringly inappropriate. It is clearly a revolt against the standing government. An armed revolt. So say Reuters "Analysis: Libyan revolt likely to leave deep scars on oil sector" Al Jazeera, "Crushing Libya's revolt - Inside Story " even youtube "Videos for libyan revolt" It's an accurate, neutral term for armed opposition to a government by it's own oppressed people. It becomes a revolution if the people win.

Support. Verb: Refuse to acknowledge someone or something as having authority. Noun: An attempt to put an end to the authority of a person or body by rebelling. "Revolt" is an appropriate word for this article. I'm not sure the situation has matured to the point of an all-out civil war, but may in the future. Dmarquard (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support Based on Google results, limited to the past week, and using quotes to filter out irrelevant sites padding the results, the leading phrase being used is "Libyan Revolt", with 530,000 results, the second closest result is "Libyan protests" with 276,000 results, and third is "libyan revolution", with 193,000 results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.169.239 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. "Revolt" or "uprising" all the same with me. Calling it a "protest" is absurd. Look at the map -- almost every city outside of the capital is in the hands of the insurgents. Protest implies a function government to protest against. There is no longer such a government in most of the country. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. A protest, as defined on dictionary.com, is an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation. Revolt, as defined on dictionary.com, is the act of breaking away from or rising against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; casting off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government. It is obvious which defenition best fits Lybia's current state. In "normal" protests, citizens are not bombed, sniped, and shelled by their own government; 500+ people do not die in protests. The revolt should not be considered a revolution unless the government is overthrown. Lybian adversity has also passed the point of simple unrest. "2011 Lybian revolt" is the best proposed name change for the article. berries_and_cream_33 14:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support 'revolt' or 'uprising'. If a protest takes control of a territory or building, it has stepped beyond protest and will be known as such , whatever the outcome. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Calling it a protest is an insult at this point. It should be "revolt" or "uprising".TL565 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support revolt is best option, uprising is something where we have the whole nation rise up. There is still a part of the nation that supports Ghadafi. I support name-change to revolt. And later on to civil war if this continues for a week more since today there have been open armed clashes between the opposition and loyalists like in Miserta.EkoGraf (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support These were protests when they started, and could be a revolution when they're finished. It would be premature to call them a civil war in just nine days, but calling them protests with such massive bloodshed and armed combatants on both sides is absurd, when a tyrant calls for mass executions of peaceful protests, they are no longer protests. The current situation is a revolt, with a distinct coalition of Gaddafi loyalists in the military and police as well as mercenaries bombing and shooting randomly into crowds demanding the end to his regime. User:Rush8799 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.93.163 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Based on all credible news reports and analysis, this has clearly turned into a nation-wide revolt against Gaddafi's rule with major defections from the military, and the occupation of military bases, barracks and government buildings by the opposition. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for now. Then later to whatever Libyans call it; it may be a "revolution", a "civil war", but for now it's a revolt. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is not an uprising because Gaddafi started the armed conflict by ordering the military to fire on the protesters. This is the best title that is available now since "2011 Libyan civil war" was defeated above. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move - Libyan Revolution

By now, it is obvious that Gaddafi will not be in power for long. He only controls some of Tripoli. Most of his military is turning against him. I suggest that we postpone any changes until the almost certain fall of Gaddafi, and then rename it "2011 Libyan Revolution" (just like we did with Egypt). If Gaddafi miraculously manages to hold on to power, then we can consider a change.--RM (Be my friend) 00:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are about four name change proposals already lol. Please add your two cents in one of those. Though it won't be a revolution unless it is successful, and we do not change the name prematurely, but wait for the news sources to call it that. TheArchaeologist 00:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)
Agreed, unlikely to stay this way and "revolution" looks likely, but wait to see. No rush, as others have said. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Eventhough this looks likely based on the bast two cases of this sort of demonstrations, we can't comment on the future --Guerillero | My Talk 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh we can comment, speculate, plan and prepare. We just shouldn't let it get into the actual article. TheArchaeologist 04:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Let's maybe agree on definitions?

Sorry if the placement is crappy, but I am looking at these and thinking we need to agree on definitions for each form of citizen defiance/ disobedience w/e. and not just pick what we think sounds prettiest in some some case. Maybe it will help us reach a consensus more easily. So that's what counts as protests, what counts as an uprising (or just rising (eg. Easter Rising), a revolt, a revolution, and a civil war. The three most popular seem to be Uprising, Revolt and Revolution, some are going for Civil War and a few want to keep Protest. So want to give your thoughts? TheArchaeologist 06:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved this to a more approppiate place as it was mucking up the RMbot - let's keep the requested move header next to the tag next to the opening reasoning. Put this is the logical time/date place instead. Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move - Libyan crisis

Libyan crisis, or 2011 Libyan crisis, non-specific and general enough to be acceptable now, better than "protest" which is now ridiculous. 140.120.55.63 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I believe this is the most neutral and descriptive title. I agree that "protest" is now ridiculous. "Revolution" and "civil war" are premature. "Revolt" is somewhat POV (it focuses on the actions of the protesters, although the government actions against the protesters are actually what had the most consequences). Nanobear (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This seems as equally POV as "revolt". It might be a crisis for Gaddafi, but not for those opposing him - do lots of sources use this term? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
With +1000 killed, a whole country disrupted, it's a crisis for both sides. Yug (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. same as Nanobear. Revolution, coup, civil war need criteria which are not met. Yug (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, the more news comes out the more "protest" becomes outdated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Calling it a crisis depicts it to be some sort of negative problem. This is an uprising, there is a general consensus that this should be happening and that it is a transition period for the people to take power.
Strong Oppose Positive or negative isn't really important, crisis tends to refer to instability or uncertainty, so far the outcome appears certain. I believe uprising remains the most accurate term for this as yet. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move - 2011 Libyan unrest

A neutral non-specific catch-all term for all the happenings. Eeven (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. "Unrest" is a broad term that could encompass events beyond the scope of these protests. While the definition does apply, I think we should try for a more specific term. Dmarquard (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming need NOW

Please, rename this article now. 2011 Libyan "protests" is ridiculous now. Don't matter which of the current competiting names (see upper), but several are better, choice one good for now, that's temporary and will still be improvable. Yug (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to be renamed. Perhaps "revolt" is the most accurate description at this point. It may or may not devolve into a full-scale civil war[17], but it will be wise not to anticipate such a development prematurely in an article title. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The title has actually been ridiculous for days. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - this should be Libyan Revolt (or Libyan Uprising) Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest 2011 Libyan revolution once Gadhafi is ousted, as happened with the Tunisian and Egyptian articles. — MK (t/c) 14:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest neutral name conflict --93.137.26.108 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DanPMK, we don't know Gaddafi will be ousted. We may be looking at weeks or months of civil war first. What we need to decide is the article title as of now, not after some hypothetical event in the future. Right now, these aren't "protests", it is a military conflict between different factions of the Libyan armed forces, plus various irregular troops on both sides. Describing this as "protests" is a joke. It is a "revolt" or "rebellion", if not an ongoing civil war. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the name should be changed to revolt and if this goes on for a week more or so than maybe to civil war.EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have no less than six of these topics now organized under a name change supertopic. Please give your opinions up there. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: I left a (neutral, I think) message on WP:AN just a minute ago. Hopefully someone will be along soon to take a look at this and either close it one way or another... or, do nothing. We'll see.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support "Transition must begin now", "Protests" is ludicrous. 190.19.240.214 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Support - Might I offer the term "uprising"? I believe it is most appropriate. 141.217.229.199 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving it now. This situation has changed quickly. I would not call it an uprising because Gaddafi's forces fired upon the protesters. The protesters did not start the armed conflict. Gaddafi did. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was unaware of the move protection. I will leave it alone for now. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - this is way beyond just protests now. It's a full-fledged uprising, with people saying it may evolve into a civil war before long. I'd say something to the effect of 2011 Libyan uprising would be much more accurate.--Witan (talk) 02:54, 25 February 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.
  1. ^ "Arab League deeply concerned by Libya violence". Reuters. Retrieved 2011-02-22.
  2. ^ "Arab League Bars Libya From Meetings, Citing Forces' 'Crimes'". Bloomberg. 2011-02-22. Retrieved 2011-02-22.
  3. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5b307dd4-3e9d-11e0-9e8f-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1Eil3i6Ng
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)/Archive_1&oldid=1256229397"