Talk:Battle of Gharyan

Recreation
I've recreated this article, since the original was redirected to the Nafusa campaign back when it referred to the original recapture of the city by Gaddafi forces. Right now the Nafusa article is a bit of a mess, just a senseless timeline. It could really use some work to look a bit more like the world war 2 campaign articles. Perhaps a campaign box for Nafusa mountains? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to see this merged at least partially to the Nafusa article, as Gharyan is in the mountains and its capture by loyalists is part of the campaign. The "senselessness" of the Nafusa article comes from the fact that it was pieced together day by day as the conflict unfolded. It is 100% unreasonable to expect that it look like a WW2 campaign article at this moment, as the WW2 campaign articles have the benefit of decades of scholarship to base things off of. We scrounged up patchy-at-times news tidbits in order to create a workable description of the campaign, because those are simply the only sources available. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Gharyan is like Wazzin: they are part of the Nafusa Mountains Campaing, but they are important battles and they can have an article. --Ave César Filito (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is hardly enough new information here to justify an article. If more information – enough to make a substantial article – comes out, then this can stay. But right now, Zawiyah is taking up the media spotlight, and all we are getting from Gharyan are some patchy rebel claims. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The information is coming out, as it is about a current event. Hence the marking. As for the senselessness of the Nafusa article, I realize that, but we can organize it a bit better. Besides, the Nafusa article is quiet long, and much of whats going into it now has little to do with the Nafusa mountains as it has moved into the plains. By documenting the separate smaller battles we can organize the Nafusa campaign article into a much more coherent and readable article.

I agree with Lothar, the article should be merged. No information on the battle and looks like not much of a real battle except maybe a skirmish. EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So its 2 for merger and 2 against merger? What do we do now? EkoGraf (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say let's wait until the end of the week to see if more details come out about the engagement...number of casualties, eyewitness accounts of how the battle unfolded, etc. As far as I know, no independent journalists have been allowed into Gharyan yet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Independent confirmation
Is there any independet confirmation what happened in Gharyan?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not a word. The rebels claim to had taken the town, but are not allowing journalists into the town. In my rulebook, that is an indicator that the battle is still not over. EkoGraf (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Gharyan. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312012800/http://feb17.info/media/protests-continue-in-liberated-gharyan/ to http://feb17.info/media/protests-continue-in-liberated-gharyan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

T34 claim questioned
This:

https://historygeek.co.nz/2012/05/19/last-of-the-t-34s/

suggests it looks more like a T55. Would be hard to find a reliable source mind.©Geni (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)