Talk:First Battle of Brega

Free Lybian Army

No citation about its participation in the first attacks in Brega. Should stay out this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.141.55 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Human Shields as "Strength"?

Should human shields be considered part of the "strength" of the Pro-Gaddafi force in the infobox?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8357934/Libya-rebels-in-desperate-battle-to-hold-ground.html

My vote is yes:

It may not be sound, sane, or normal military doctrine but if the Pro-Gaddafi forces are bringing human shields along with them just as they bring their water and rifles, they consider human shields to be a military asset.

As a strategic military asset: had the human shields been killed, it could have been seen as making the rebels look bad. PR victory.

As a tactical military asset: the human shields can either absorb bullets or dissuade the rebels from firing.

Either way, their presence can be seen as a military asset. By their own actions, the Pro-Gaddafi soldiers are demonstrating that they believe the presence of human shields to add to their military strength. 76.245.44.104 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your reasoning, human shields are not considered by any standards a strength category and have not been considered anywhere on Wikipedia and used in that category while writting an infobox in an article.EkoGraf (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why categorize Pro-Gaddafi forces as "paramilitary"?

Having read through the references in the article, my impression is that the ground troops are full-time soldiers that have remained loyal.

If anything, the rebels could be characterized as "paramilitary": http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish#p/u/9/yqFUk6QotaI

The MIG pilots dropping those bombs certainly aren't paramilitary. 76.245.44.104 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gadafi had at his disposal some unregular corps, for example people militias and the Pan-African Legion. These are not full time soldiers but is not clear it they are fighting in those battles.

recent added templates

Battle of Brega

Could you provide explanations for each of the improvement tags you added to the article on its talk page, as is required, so we could identify the specific problems. It will make it much easier for us to improve the article. Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Brega is a totally undue description of a minor skirmish, actually , there is only an minor skirmish around the harbour and the oil export facilities, there are claims that are completely unconfirmed in the infobox and we don't do that - there are no confirmations of death claims at all, the presentation is completely undue and imo a false representation of the general unconfirmed reports that need attribution and should not be presented in the info box at all. Tomorrow I will comment further . Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution is the key , and as such, unconfirmed claims should not be in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the major media outlets are calling it a battle, bbc, cnn, guardian, etc, and also there have been confirmations by both the media outlets and the rebels themselves on the numbers of casualties. Even if they are maybe claims we put them in the infobox, but point out they are claims, like 2-10 killed (opposition claim) etc. Just because they are claims (the number 14 from bbc you are always deleting is not a claim but a fact) that doesn't mean we should disregard them.EkoGraf (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you provide a source where it says it was a minor skirmish?EkoGraf (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A battle is not a headline in a report it is hundreds of soldiers fighting in a battle - to describe this as a battle is completely undue and basically false representation without attention to detail or attribution or verification - In a week when the press have gone home this article will require deleting, or merging somewhere, its just a falsification not historic fact at all. Just present your claims and reports as such, not as facts in the infobox - add the unconfirmed claims to the body of the article where they can be rebutted - as in jonny said 1000 died, bit harry said only 550 died but nothing was confirmed. To suggest there was a 2011 battle here is false and to be honest nonsense. Write about it if you like but its fantasy and not encyclopedic at all. The battle for bla lba, its just rubbish. [User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So you don't have a source where it says it is a skirmish and I have multiple sources where it is called a battle? And if a battle is when you have hundreds of soldiers fighting (according to you) how come 300-350 rebels against 200-400 loyalists is not a battle?....Since it's hundreds of soldiers fighting.....Just asking.EkoGraf (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well add it to the body of the article and explain how the battle occurred and where and as such allow it to be refuted in the body of the article - do not present it as if fact. Off2riorob (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is stated by everyone to be a battle (except you) than it is a fact. And you still don't have a source to support that it was a skirmish. Also, you contradicted yourself now on the hundreds of soldiers part. In any case, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, I have multiple sources you have none.EkoGraf (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, then add it to the body of the article and attribute the claims correctly - explain the forces and the location of the battles and who is reporting the claims please do not present unconfirmed opinionated claims as if facts when they are not at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The way you want them to be confirmed and be facts is not realisticly possible. And there is no Wikipedia rule to exclude claims of the numbers of killed from the infobox, we include them but note they are claims since no independent figures exist, excluding claims just because they are claims is not a neutral position.EkoGraf (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

no independent figures exist the rebels told us that the rebels were attacked with massive weapons and the rebels told us that hundreds of rebels were killed by massive attacks for massive weapons but non of these claims from the unnamed rebels were confirmed - and johnny said he had a massive ****. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe it to have been a conspiracy? People in towns west of Brega told foreign journalists by cell phone that dozens of technicals were on the way to Brega, then people in Brega independently said they came under attack from dozens of technicals. In order for this battle to have been a fabrication, as you believe, it would have by definition needed to be a conspiracy. Do you have a source on that claim? 68.127.137.20 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with EkoGraf. Your own idea for what constitutes as a battle is simply your opinion. Do not dismiss the claims of rebels on the ground and every major news outlet who have gone to lengths to verify the information and who acknowledge it was indeed a battle. If we want to be fair we should simply just include what the other side (Gaddafi's Libya) claims to have happened. The fact is it's hard to verify 100% because of the circumstances, so therefore we accurately attribute the figures as claims made by the rebels and by whatever particular news outlet. Also, this battle was very significant and not in your words simply "bla bla". Brega is a major oil port and its capture by Gaddafi's forces would have been a great blow to the rebel-held east because of their dependence on it for a lot of their energy. The battle also demonstrated the ability of the rebels to hold off against Gaddafi's better-equipped and trained forces. Frankly your reasoning for the factual accuracy tag is not nearly sufficient. The article could use some NPOV and should include Libyan State TV's version of events in addition to that of the rebels for balance. And again you are obliged to present specific evidence of POV in the article and evidence of a POV tone being used. Also, if you do not present a real argument for your "dubious factual accuracy" template then I will promptly remove it. Again, dismissal of international news sources (BBC, Al-Jazeera, CNN) (who are on the ground I may add) and denial of the conflict being called a battle does not constitute a real argument, but rather your own personal opinion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Please do not unilaterally move this discussion page. If you want the discussion page to be renamed, the article must be renamed first. If you want the article renamed then you must gain a consensus at least bring it up for discussion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Brega.ogv

For those you know, I added a video to the info box. Yes, I know that it's marked for deletion, but there are two things.

1. Its still going under debate, Ive gotten three approvals so far so it looks like It may stay.

2. I thought it would be more informative to put a video instead of a still image.

But i'm open to your thoughts. Disapprove or Approve? Cowik (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm divided over the video. The permission seems very dubious from what I can read, I'd want to see that firmed up properly for it to feature so prominently. Secondly it is not 100% clear that this is the right location and the right battle/skirmish. I'd like to see a secondary source confirming it, for example. Thirdly the low quality shooting and the lack of English commentary/translation makes me feel it is not entirely appropriate for the infobox. And, finally, I am not sure what value it necessarily adds to the article, without translation/commentary it is mostly people running around with guns without much context. If permission can be ironed out then definitely a link to the commons category would be appropriate, and if we can work out a way to incorporate the video into the body that might work. Balanced against that; I completely approve of trying to get more video into articles :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, about the location of the video, It's been featured on the some really big News sites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12637724

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/article8359638.ece

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Colonal-Gaddafis-Warplanes-Bomb-Key-Rebel-Town-Of-Brega/Article/201103115944844

Also I was originally going add a version in English, but I thought it would be a bit unfair to have the video in one language. Even though I can make a separate video if you like. Cowik (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the video is not good enough for an infobox. The image needs to look good at 300px - the standard size for infobox images. Not only does this mean that the real picture should be 300px or more (to prevent pixelisation) but the original image itself has to have been taken professionally. Putting the video in the article is fine, but the standard for infoboxes is higher. Australian Matt (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

News

There are new information about this city from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12726032--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo

The image at the top has a typo in the caption. It says "Anti-Gaddafi forces celebrating after there victory." but it should say "Anti-Gaddafi forces celebrating after their victory." (there changed to their).