Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Tripoli (2011)/Archive 2

< Talk:Battle of Tripoli (2011)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Alwad7 in topic The Illustration is not correct
Archive 1Archive 2

First requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments18 people in discussion
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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


2011 Battle of Tripoli → Battle of Tripoli (2011) – As this article is out-fitted with a large-cap B as in Battle, it already seems to be a name and not a description. Therefore, to better rhyme with the English grammar. Plus it's better suited as a historical name (ref. other battle names/articles). And it seems the Gaddhafi regime has already lost control of parts of the city, without the frontline having gotten near the city.Paracel63 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, 2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan Civil War (2011). -- 92.4.58.76 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support changing the structure of all the Libyan articles (ex: 2011 Nafusan Mountains Campaign to Nafusan Mountains Campaign (2011)). Given the circumstances, might be best to wait and take a collective vote on all of it. Seleucus (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment/possible oppose support

There is a fallacy here:

WP:MILMOS#NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) doesn't support what the above are suggesting they do. They are ignoring that these names are not formal names, but rather descriptive names given in the media. Formal names are generally considered to be those given in authoritative military history sources, not picked by random wikipedians or editors of newspapers. Since these evewnts are recent, we should use descriptive names until authoritative sources emerge. Anyone who has been a long-time editor of MILHIST will tell you this.

Descriptive names are usually given the date in front, the parentheses are used only in cases were there is a need to disambiguate formal names. The "B" is capital not because of it being a formal name, its because generally when using "YYY Title of article" format, the first letter is capitalized. Since there is no other Battle of Tripoli except as a redirect to Siege of Tripoli (disambiguation), there is no need for Battle of Tripoli (2011) in any case we would move to Battle of Tripoli itself. However, that is indeed a name that is not descriptive, because it doesn't provide a date, so unless reliable sources have a formal name for this, the descriptive name is the best option.

In any case, this needs to be fixed to "2011 Battle for Tripoli", as the correct descriptive name ("of" describes the place, but not the action). If not changed to that, I oppose the proposed change as it doesn't conform to WP:MILMOS#NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) --Cerejota (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. 2011 Battle for Tripoli (or better 2011 battle for Tripoli when using a non-US headline standard ;-) ) is a better headline for a current event. When this is all over, probably Battle of Tripoli or Battle of Tripoli (2011) would be preferred.--Paracel63 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
"Battle for" is not correct usage on Wikipedia: no pages begin with it. A siege can very well be considered a battle: see Battle of Vukovar. Thus, it makes perfect sense to have Battle of Tripoli redirect to Siege of Tripoli (disambiguation). The proposal conforms to MILMOS conventions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Changed per WP:BOLD, without prejudice to this discussion. It just doesn't make sense to use "of" in a descriptive name.--Cerejota (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
There have been well over a dozen actions that could be termed the Battle of Tripoli throughout history. Did you even read the manuel of style? It states "If disambiguation is needed, the year may be added in parentheses". Disambiguation is needed. To my knowledge were battles at Tripoli in the following years 1830, 1825, 1804, 1802, 1797, and 1728. There are doubtlessly more besides those as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
These battles do not have articles in Wikipedia. Disambiguation is only needed if there is a need because of conflicts between articles, please read WP:DAB. See, for example, Gaza War - there have been many wars in Gaza, some document to thousands of years ago. However, that is the article named "Gaza War" because none of those wars are named "Gaza War" in wikipedia. Don't take my word for it, ask around. We do not do preventative disambiguation. This article should be named "Battle for Tripoli" anyways, as that is how the Reliable Sources are naming it, but in its defect we can use the descriptive "2011 Battle of Tripoli"/"2011 Battle for Tripoli" until a new name emerges. You need to see that disambiguation is not always needed. I do agree, however, that if there is an another article named "Battle of Tripoli", then we need disambiguation and "Battle of Tripoli (2011)" would be a good name.--Cerejota (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well now that i have finally finished creating Battle of Tripoli (1825), the need for disambiguation clearly exists.XavierGreen (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice! --Cerejota (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong support: Looks sloppy this way. Move it to fit with convention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:32, 23 August 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.

The Map

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

the map is definitely out dated. The Gaddafi compound has been taken. In relative terms there is almost no on-going fighting and things look stable. Also the map hasn't changed for the past 5 days or so. I'd have taken it down but the page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.82.34 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're seeing the map accurately? Click on the map, open it, and click 'refresh'. I'm guessing that this is a cache issue. Seleucus (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I see the same one with the compound, airport and university in green too....where's the updated version?.70.48.208.28 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the map, it's entirely red now. It's time to put up a more comprehensive one. Perhaps one similar to the map of the Battle of Misratah? Quizmoquanto (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bab al-Azizia

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Has Gaddafis palace the Bab al-Azizia been captured yet? I can't find a source on that yet. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of rumors, nothing concrete. I've heard that it's been 100% destroyed, for instance. Seleucus (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's one of the only confirmed places that the rebels haven't taken. 70.187.185.194 (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The 100% destroyed thing came allegedly from Al Arabiya... if so, it's presumably in an Arabic article that I can't read. :( Seleucus (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So hire an interpreter. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

Can somebody please update the page for today? 69.235.144.118 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What is there to update?. 70.48.210.150 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
For starters, the rebels secured the intelligence office, and they now control most of the Abu Salim district, as well as fighting near the Corinthia hotel, where the foreign journalists are staying after being rescued from the Rixos. And more probably happened as well. 69.235.144.118 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The battle is now over. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

It's not over until the rebels stop looting and massacring the populace. 77.45.146.42 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They are not the populace, they are mercenaries. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

I don't see any infamous "Gaddafi black mercenaries" here [1]. They don't even wear green bands as the army does. These are ordinary civilians taking up arms to defend their homes against the rampaging terrorebels. 77.45.130.2 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the sentences that stated that the Battle is over; it isn't. The rebels are still fighting to control supply roads into Tripoli. I've also added the 'current' template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
what?.didn't they already capture the supply routes before they marched in.206.210.107.27 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No, they didn't. See: http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-rebels-fight-control-border-road-133152063.html --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The supply roads are outside the city and unimportant. The entire city has been liberated. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

That would be forgetting an important issue. If the rebels don't have control of the supply roads into Tripoli, then the opposing forces can cut off food and water, effectively driving everyone out of town. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
They couldn't drive them out of Misrata that way, so why should they be able to drive them out of Tripoli that way (especially with their military collapse and all)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Gaddafi's mercenaries are hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, plus NATO is bombing them from the air and the sea. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Libyan army is fighting NATO mercenaries in the Tripoli airport: [2]
Terrorebel checkpoints in the center of Tripoli abandoned: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.130.2 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mutassim Gaddafi

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any word on his whereabouts....his bio page here still has him as in the compound...70.48.208.70 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

He and his sealskin suit are presumably in parts unknown. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Dibs on the suit. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Massacres

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Why not creating a special section dedicated to the massacres commited by both sides in the battle ? SyHaBi (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support that. Information is a bit sketchy and unreliable, though; it's not clear to me how many massacres allegedly took place, where when, of whom, and by whom. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

by massacre you mean killing innocent people.70.48.208.70 (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you getting at? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I mean what about reprisal killings.70.48.208.70 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a good idea to include information on massacres in Human rights violations in the 2011 Libyan civil war as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a little. The Sirte Massacre is yet to happen. 77.45.147.64 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Better map needed

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

It would be nice to get a animated map now like the one they have for the Korean war. No.47 20:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NO.47 (talk • contribs)

Anyone capable of using SVG editing? Would be nice if we could get a Tripoli map with dots of red showing the neighborhoods where fighting is claimed.

This may help http://twitpic.com/51kljo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.152.125 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Combined with information on this open source map: bit.ly/o41Xeb ? 83.185.153.85 (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Tripoli uprising.svg - i have a problem with the thumbnail being out-of-date. Boud (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
OK now for me. Just a minor reloading/cache/purge problem. Boud (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The map you are inserting is out-of-date and showing rebel-held territory from back in February before loyalists crushed them. Puting that map into this article is missrepresentation of the situation and readers who come to the article can get the wrong idea. So best that you create a totaly new map. Until than don't insert an old map. EkoGraf (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Maybe you have a cache problem? The map was last edited at 11:56 GMT 21 August 2011: current 11:56, 21 August 2011 Thumbnail for version as of 11:56, 21 August 2011 1,664×820 (208 KB) Wael.Mogherbi (talk | contribs) (Souq Al-Goma to rebels) It would be pointless to create a new map just because of a caching/thumbnail problem. See Commons:File:Tripoli_uprising.svg Boud (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
What seemed to work for me in getting the correct thumbnail was to choose "show image" in my browser, which took me to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Tripoli_uprising.svg/300px-Tripoli_uprising.svg.png, and then i clicked shift-ctrl-r to reload the URL=file and force a refresh of my browser cache. i say "seemed" because there is most likely a complex system of servers and caching for creating Commons thumbnails and serving them to users. There is very likely a good help page somewhere in the Wikimedia wiki system to explain this better and more reliably. Some time ago there was a warning about thumbnail problems on Commons - maybe this is not fully debugged yet. If anyone has problems, then please give details so that someone can trace the problem. Boud (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This battle is over

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tripoli is in NTC hands. A separate article should be created for low-level fighting in the city (something like Insurgency in Tripoli), because the Gaddafists control no territory in Tripoli or any of its inner suburbs now. I suspect snipers and sleeper cells will continue to cause trouble, but the battle is over. Our maps depict Tripoli as taken. This article should reflect that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be added to aftermatch section in article just as in case of 1st battle of Tripoli in February. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Influences on other fronts

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think it should be meantioned that once the battle in Tripoli started, the fronts at Khums (after Zliten) and at Brega both collapsed. 93.232.153.96 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet we still see no footage from the industrial zone of Brega. 77.45.130.2 (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you implying that Brega was not taken by rebels? A dozen news agencies are with rebel forces near Sirte and you are still not sure about Brega?!! check for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32zbWBgVRsY 93.232.153.182 (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition of battle end

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

When does the battle count as over? Right now, the situation seems to be that rebels control almost all of the city, but there's still fighting at night.

But after the first (failed) Tripoli uprising, we denoted the battle as over even though rebels still ventured out at night. So based on the same standard, it seems to me like we should say that this battle is over. Seleucus (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait until anti-Gaddafi forces don't just control almost all of the city, they control all of it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
What I'm asking is are there newspaper articles stating that loyalist forces still control X and Y sectors of the city? The impression I'm getting is that rebels control the city, as in they can walk through all the districts in the day without being killed, but there's fighting at night... which we have previously denoted as a victory in the first Tripoli article. Seleucus (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
They do, that compound is outside of Tripoli although in area of Greater Tripoli. Morever rebels control all road in and out of that compound which may have been already overran for all we know since rebels declared victory over the city yesterday. And guerilla attacks were conducted even during February - August period. And last thing - so far I dont see any journalist report about loyalist helding any part of the city after what Abu Slim district was stormed. --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If we can round up a preponderance of news sources with correspondents in Tripoli saying the battle is over, not just almost over or all but over, or that Tripoli is securely in NTC hands, not just increasingly secure or virtually taken, then I think we can declare it over. Remember, Wikipedia doesn't make news, it just reflects what reliable sources are saying and weaves them together. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Here they are [4][5] and especially [6]. That last base was 3km outside of Tripoli and it was taken as well. If there are no objections Im changing the map and ending the article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
First phase: the rebels toke control of great parts of tripoly within few day by a suprising attack combined with local uprisings. Second phase: the rebels more slowly defeted parts of the city which remains under Gadaffi control --> end of battle, rebel victory (27 August?). Third phase (28 August -current) Rebel control Tripoly, but it is a city with 1 million peoply, many armed and not everybady happy with the rebel victory and som people use the situation to do crime for own purpuse or revange. Compare with Bagdad, there were an American victory, but the city is still not safe. 90.141.34.235 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The first battle of Tripoli in February was declared 'over' even though the city was not safe, so based on that precedent, I would support declaring this battle over too. Seleucus (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

when ample reliable sources declare it over, then wikipedia can mark it over--96.232.126.111 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, NOW the ycontrol all of Tripoli. THE BATTLE IS OVER! Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
can you provide a reliable source or two reporting the battle is over?--96.232.126.111 (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
How about this? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
nope. that article merely reports on end of battle in suburb of Salaheddin; the article is silent on end of battle of tripoli.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that news orgs have taken the end of the battle for granted. A more pertininent question is then perhaps is anybody reporting that there are still active hostilities (not just guerrila attacks, those have been the norm in Tripoli since February)? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

where are reliable sources reporting end of battle?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

i see unsourced assertions in the infobox that battle is over. however, i fail to see any reliable (or unreliable) sources for those assertions provided in the infobox (or, for that matter, in the prose).--96.232.126.111 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Than check again, I posted some in upper section. That battle is over. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
the attributions provided (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=65109&Cat=1 and http://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/International/2011/8/96193/) in the infobox are reporting on the end of the battle in the Tripoli suburb of Salaheddin. they are not asserting or reporting on end of entire battle of tripoli. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: [7] [8] -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

---New map?---

The current map lists abu slim as having yet to be taken. Could that be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackolacky (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Battle of Tripoli is now over, the rebels won. So to be consistent with most battle articles on Wikipedia, I think we should start putting pictures of the Battle in the top section instead of the map, and maybe put that below or in another section that describes how the battle was won. 68.39.210.172 (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Second requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
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: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Tripoli (2011) → Fall of Tripoli (2011) – "Fall" seems to be the term we use for large military victories that deliver the coup de grâce to the losing side (i.e. Fall of Constantinople and Fall of Saigon), which this certainly is. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see how you think you can get a majority concencuss on this issue since your last request was rejected just a few days ago and a day ago another concencuss was reached among editors that the battle be re-named to Battle of Tripoli (2011). Besides, most major media outlets refer to it as the Battle of Tripoli, little if any refer to it as the fall of Tripoli. We name the battles per what they are called in the general population, and at the moment it's the Battle of Tripoli. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per EkoGraf. Not the WP:COMMONNAME. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose To my mind, Fall of Tripoli and Battle of Tripoli are equally appropriate. But, the convention in Wikipedia seems to be the use of titles like Battle of XYZ (19YY). And the media is using the name "Battle of Tripoli". Further more, the Fall of XYZ has a slightly romanticised feel to it. Besides, there is already a notable Wikipedia article entitled Fall of Tripoli that refers to a military event in Lebanon in 1289. Deterence Talk 14:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
How about the new proposed title? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to see Fall of Tripoli (2011) as a redirect, but more than that seems unnecessary: it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's norm of naming battles as Battle of XYZ (19YY) and it is inconsistent with the name used by mainstream media for the event. For comparison, Fall of Berlin redirects to Battle of Berlin. Deterence Talk 06:35, 30 August 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.

Reuters story

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a very interesting article, I think. To flesh out the Battle of Tripoli in its context.--Paracel63 (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this page needed?

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

It seems like it's too soon for it to be called a battle and moreover, this article should be part of a larger article about the conflict in Libya. Foxhoundz (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost any other (maybe except Brega 4th) so-called "battle" of the Libyan war pales in comparison to the current fighting in Tripoli - both in the amount of manpower and firepower employed. Also, the article IS part of the Libyan war article, via a link.89.102.1.194 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with user just above. This is one of the biggest battle of the war. Only Misrata may have been more bloodiest but it lasted more longer. This is the most intense fights of the war. Loyalist are not giving up as it seemed. Tripoli is such a big city that they can only defend part of it but they do it with a lot of agressivity.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been well reported the rebels basically marched into tripoli with little resistance, to the surprise of even themselves, so I don't know what you guys are talking about.64.229.136.66 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That the battle started AFTER rebels marched into Tripoli.195.212.29.190 (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems you are still on Sunday. The rebels entered Tripoli after a battle betwenn local rebels and tge governements and took a lot of quarters that were not defended. But central Tripoli is defended and areas of the city are still in control of loyalists who put up a big fight. Basically loyalists choose to fight what is maybe their last battle in a urban area. The battle is still ongoing and the resistance is there. The celebrations of rebels have been way too soon and there are little celebration now that they understood that the fight was not over at all. Casualties wise, this is either the first or the second bloodiest battle of the war. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not their last battle, neither Sirte nor Sabha has fallen yet. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia should have a rule against writing about events until at least a year or five after they happen. An on-line encyclopaedia and a news website are completely different things. Let history settle down a bit before you start writing about it. Most of what is written too close to an event will need to be rewritten anyway after it becomes clear what has really happen. Too many articles are ruined for me, and I'm sure for many others, by this kind of short term, transient thinking.109.154.74.121 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary. I think this civil war is a prime example of the great use of Wikipedia. I think we are no worse in presenting the news than any of the other major media in isolation. A conflict of this scale and complexity is bound to present major issues of understanding. But Wikipedia, with its structure of mixing different types of sourced content into one storyline, can (IMHO) do great things. And its not a bad thing we are an amalgam of different types of editors, doing this non-commercially. This makes accusations for corruption and WP:NNPOV less pertinent to us. That's my experience after having discussed a lot with believers of conspiracy theories. When this is no longer a current event, we at least have a horde of storylines and links to sources that makes writing the "final" history a lot easier.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I just don't think we should be in the business of documenting things as they occur. Information changes rapidly and thus defeats the purpose of documenting it in an encyclopedic fashion. Foxhoundz (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that you think that way. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you, then. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of dead NTC soldiers

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there some reliable source to confirm very high number of 1,700 killed soldiers during the battle. I think that that number include both dead civilians and dead NTC soldiers. We also don't have any information about number of wounded soldiers.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: "Month-Day" formatting rather than "Day-Month"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When dates are used in headers, "month-day" formatting is more readable than "day-month" formatting. The official policy says that date formatting should be retained, but I feel that the article would be improved in terms of readability if that guideline were ignored. Compare: 

3.5 23 August
3.6 24 August
3.7 25 August
3.8 26 August
3.9 27 August
3.10 28 August

3.5 August 23 
3.6 August 24
3.7 August 25
3.8 August 26
3.9 August 27
3.10 August 28

Would anyone else support this change? 153 [x] 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Illustration is not correct

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just came in to see the entire article and first thing i saw was the Illustration of Frontlines during the Battle of Tripoli. File:Battle_of_Tripoli.svg, and the dates aren't accurate, indeed they aren't accurate at all, Tajura and Suq al-Jum'a were frontlines on 20th of aug, zawiat al dahmani on 21st. and no one entered Tripoli untill the 21st of aug from any axis. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Tripoli_(2011)/Archive_2&oldid=1142753870"