Talk:Fezzan campaign

Propose rename: South Libyan Desert campaign → West Libyan Desert campaign

The Eastern parts of the desert are covered in an "Eastern..." page, so at least in my opinion it would be best to deal with the Western parts in a "Western..." page. --Yalens (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more properly Southern, since it's along the Chadian and Nigerien border rather than the Algerian and Tunisian border. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well we could do "Southeast". The "Eastern" part speaks of places (Kufra/Al Jawf) also bordering Chad and Sudan. --Yalens (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should definitely be called the Fezzan campaign. What do you think? Please, respond, I don't want to act unilaterally, but the area contested there is clearly the province of Fezzan. Beleszólok (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do it then. Beleszólok (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

God name change! And we ought to start to hear more of this name ("Fezzan") in the media, as and when everybody's interest turns south.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

However, there is a problem: Al Jufrah is not in Fezzan. --Ave César Filito (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

original research in lead shifted to this talk section

i'm shifting the following sentences in the lead:

Due to scant media coverage in southern Libya, details of the campaign remain sketchy and uncheckable by independent media, though The Wall Street Journal have pieced together interviews with some rebels and local residents. The report of events below are almost exclusively coming from rebels sources or sources close to the rebellion. Neither the Tripoli-based Libyan government nor independent journalists have confirmed the narrative presented below.

here to this talk page because:

• they are not a normal part of the WP:LEAD;
• Wikipedia does not put WP:DISCLAIMERs in the lead, and we don't even put them in article content; the place for disclaimers is through the link Disclaimers at the very bottom of the page;
• they constitute original research;
• a Wikipedia article is not a "narrative".

Boud (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Added map

I added a map to the infobox. Without a special Fezzan map, I think this will be ok. Control on the ground in Fezzan seems to be very patchy as of now (and probably will be, as this mostly is utter desert), and the caption wording therefore uses the word "might".--Paracel63 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Force strengths

Where in the world are the numbers (17.000-20.000 Rebels, 70 to ? technicals, 52-57 tanks and ironclads) coming from? And what are the ironclads? I assume for obvious reasons that they don't mean the 19th century-era warship. Seleucus (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jokes removed. 89.102.1.194 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Iron-clad? Could it be this?--Paracel63 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sabha "surrounded"

Another "ironclad" moment, this time by BBC? 89.102.1.194 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The main map at Commons even boldly proclaimed parts of Sabha to be under "rebel's control". Yes, I've seen some footages from YouTube last week about "rebels in Sabha", but it's still a YouTube with no confirmed date. Therefore, what the heck?? AlphaBravoCharlie (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Strength numbers in infobox?

I think the strength figures in the infobox are a bit strange, as of now. "50,000" for NTC – with no reference – against "35,000" for Gaddhafi – with info dating to "23 November" (sic), linking to an article from 21 September not mentioning any numbers at all (what I can see). Vandalism?--Paracel63 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fact is, nobody knows. I am wondering though who removed the ONLY cited and verified info about ~300 strong NTC force in July.

Also, the 35k Loyalist claim was originally "several thousand military, 35k claim".94.113.101.38 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I see that was in Sabha. No matter, fixed the infobox on a best-effort basis until we get any verified info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.101.38 (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fezzan campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.maars.net/blog/2011/06/13/libya-conflict-reaches-oasis-city-of-sabha/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Noose+tightens+around+Tripoli/5277626/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120821211336/http://cdn.radionetherlands.nl/africa/bulletin/libyan-oasis-jufra-ntcs-key-target to http://cdn.radionetherlands.nl/africa/bulletin/libyan-oasis-jufra-ntcs-key-target
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323161413/http://wires.univision.com/english/article/2011-09-21/libyas-ntc-claims-vital-sabha-2 to http://wires.univision.com/english/article/2011-09-21/libyas-ntc-claims-vital-sabha-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)