Talk:Battle of Tripoli (2011)/Archive 1

Clean up
The need needs major cleanup.--75.74.107.88 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We should wait new information from battleground.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Move suggestion
I think "Tripoli uprising" would be a better title. Appears to be an internal resistance, not a full-fledged battle. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Siege of Tripoli (2011) would be a better name. Since the rebels had cutoff supplies and all major roads. Just my two cents.--75.74.107.88 (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Define full-fledged battle... and even if it's 'just' an internal resistance now, it is almost certainly not going to stay that way (the rebels did say that they would launch their big Tripoli offensive from Az Zawiyah, on 21 August.) Seleucus (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * an AJE source for uprising: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-21-2011-0948 Boud (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Kudzu1's suggestion may have some merit e.g. Warsaw uprising. But OTOH we should better follow historical precedents in regards to naming conventions for armed conflicts. If that's the case then we should follow Seleucus' suggestion and refer to the recent developments in Tripoli by it's official codename. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.169.127 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kudzu, Tripoli uprising is a better name considering no outside rebel force has attacked the city, all of the rebels are from within the city. EkoGraf (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Since when it's only a battle when it's coming from the outside? The only difference between clashes and battles are the scale of the fights. If we believe the casualties figure then it's already 150+ dead in one day and it's definitely the scale of a battle.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle?
Unknown if it is a battle. It could be simply clashes. I would only count it as a battle if rebels from outside Tripoli snuck in, which we do not know that yet. Zenithfel (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see...
 * Why wouldn't it be a battle if it was currently a Tripoli-based uprising. See, for instance, First Battle of Benghazi Seleucus (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be clashes yes, but only for the moment. A source say that rebels that are around Zawiyah are getting reinforcements and are pushing on Tripoli.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is a battle, and the rebels effectively win, does that make Colonel Gaddafi no longer in control of Libya? The BBC reports that gunfire is heard, which makes me think that Gaddafi's military and paramilitary forces are bellowing each other in anticipation of a rebel invasion of the capital. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For now according to all the reports that are coming in this looks more like an uprising than a battle because no outside rebel elements have attacked the city. It seems all of the rebels involved are from within the city. So if no outside rebel force attacks the city in the next two days or if it is confirmed by tomorrow that the uprising has been crushed, because most reporters from Tripoli now say it is quiet since this morning after a night of heavy gunfire and explosions, I suggest to rename the article 2011 Tripoli uprising and your example of the First Battle of Benghazi can not be applied here because the rebels in Benghazi eventualy got reinforcements from outside the city from Dera. If the rebels from outside manage to link up with those inside Tripoli and attack the city it is a battle, but for now it looks only as an uprising and is being described as such. EkoGraf (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rebels from Misrata and Zlitan have boated into the city, so no renaming needed.
 * Besides, the rebels from Zawiyah are now just outside Tripoli - there are literally no more towns left between them (in al Mayah) and the Tripoli suburbs, so they will definitely have linked up at least a bit, by tomorrow. Seleucus (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1,000-10,000
Is somewhere more precisely estimation?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation in the city is very confused at the moment. The 'thousands' is based off of regime statistics (they claim that they have *65,000* armed soldiers in the city, obviously wrong), and we don't even have any numbers for the rebel force size. Seleucus (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Runs mobile phones in Tripoli?
Shouldn't this be: "a company who runs the mobile phone network."? Jrdplas (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrdplas (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an article
I swear that I saw an article from just after the battle, in which rebels stated that the key to victory were the boats to Misrata, carrying 1,000 fighters (rather than 200 previously reported), and carrying many arms and munitions as well. I can't find this article though (I looked for it for a while so I could add it); anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? Seleucus (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I heard about that too. 70.187.185.194 (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this Brazil Al Jazeera tweet, but that's all I could find. I know that there was more than that.... Seleucus (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Battle's End
How is it decided when this battle ends? Is it when the rebels have control of the entire city, which would make a Rebel victory --- or when the rebels become entrapped and utterly destroyed, which would make a Loyalist victory...? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When the city is 100% in the hands of one side, in short.
 * Must say, at this point, the second option you listed is not exactly a possibility. 68.42.243.198 (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct... But most important is the official declaration of victory.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle still ongoing, with reports that opposition forces in the western part of the town being pushed back. Enough said. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

rename reverted
User:Philadelphia 2009 moved 2011 Battle of Tripoli to Liberation of Tripoli arguing that "now Tripoli has been liberated, this is the better name". While it is probable that this might be a reasonable historical name for one side of this battle, it is not a neutral description, and it is not sourced to any reliable source. Such a potentially controversial name change should be done only after discussion, and only after reliable sources are shown to use the term.--Cerejota (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The press is now using the term "Fall of Tripoli" rather than the "Battle of Tripoli". Would this be a good time to rename the article. Please note that this would have to be "2011 Fall of Tripoli (Libya)" since there is already a "Fall of Tripoli" article that refers to Tripoli, Lebanon in 1289. user:mnw2000 13:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the "fall of Tripoli" is the outcome of the process, while the "battle of Tripoli" is the whole process. So I don't think it should be renamed. Alfons Åberg (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well no one seems to have a problem with this tittle.Just saying.It's not completely unreasonable. 206.210.107.27 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that was from a foreign occupier, this is during a civil war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps most importantly, "Liberation of Paris" has sixty years' worth of reliable sources describing it as such. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fall of Saigon? Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 15:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your point is.70.48.211.39 (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah lets try to avoid OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I can bring up dozen examples of battles named descriptively and not in POV. It might be that in ten years, this article is named "Fall of Tripoli" or "Liberation of Tripoli" in authoritative texts. Right now all we have is news and the need for NPOV. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. "2011 Battle of Tripoli" is a good, solid, neutral description of the event. Also, lets way for a few days of cool down before declaring the battle over - it would be embarrassing to declare it over prematurely. --Cerejota (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle still ongoing, with reports that opposition forces in the western part of the town being pushed back. Enough said. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle Map of both day 1 and 2 and so on
The article looks good and the current situation is put forward well by the map. However we should add in the map for the first phase of the battle (day 1) then day 2 and so on if it is to drag on. This would provide the reader a clearer view of the situation as it progressed.Thank you, regards Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Red/Green color map?
The map is impossible for red/green colorblind people to understand. I'd really appreciate a red/blue or blue/green map. 8-10% of men are red/green color blind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.167.126 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Escape
The one that got away... 70.187.185.194 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to create new part of discussion. So, whats about Saif al-Islam status??? In infobox is he was captured by rebels and there are some rebels sources, however western journalist already met with him and he said:"It was rebel trick" .--89.176.61.178 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Change "Ongoing" to "decisive victory"
Tripoli is surely won. 74.74.159.120 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle over, Gaddafi's security forces surrendered, Saif Al-Islam captured:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Might still be some pockets of resistance - wait a bit, okay? :) Seleucus (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Saif is one is only one of his (Ghadaffi's) sons. Nothing is certain yet. Polozooza (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, Saif is the main one, the de facto heir and successor. But yes, nothing is certain. Seleucus (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it is reported Khadaffi has been slain. Now that would be a major news item: Khadaffi dead. Polozooza (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any link? I only saw it as a rumor.
 * Meanwhile, I heard that Qaddafi had been captured, whereas the situation was unclear with Gaddafi (/joke) Seleucus (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaddafi was captured???!!! Why didn't I hear about this?! 70.187.185.194 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the above was a JOKE regarding the numerous possible spellings of Gaddafi's name, as well as the poor quality of information in this war. Seleucus (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gadaffi's name is an Arabic one, so when translated it has to be spelled phonetically, which can be numerous variations. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's way too soon. Clash are still ongoing. And no independant confirmation of surrendering or capture other than rebel source who could try to demoralize their opponent with propaganda. I find very doubtful that Saif would have been in such a dangerous area while all other officials are still protected --ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK representative has confirmed it. I'm struggling to find a source for it, as this was stated on television (by Sky News) Seleucus (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only source is NTC, not other source have had their hand on it. The UK representative was probably referring to them. UK minister said that Gaddafi was on a trip to Venezuela 6 months ago. They are no afraid to report publicily rumors. Until they show him captured I will doubt it, since it would have been really stupid to not go to a safe area like the other members of the governement and his father. Anyway it is still ongoing for the moment. Clashes are reported near Green Square and Rixos hotel. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Source?
 * It's not like he's the only one. Al Jazeera confirmed that Muhammed al-Gaddafi (Gaddafi's first son) surrendered himself to the rebels. Seleucus (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera is reporting NTC claims--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for that source you keep quoting Seleucus (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just heard a wire stating that the ICC stated that Saif has been captured and they intend to prosecute him for crimes against humanity.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting.You'd think they would've seen the writing on the wall and fled but guess not.76.70.40.8 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera INTERVIEWED Muhammed al-Gaddafi tonight, in which his capture was confirmed... so yes, he's definitely captured. Seleucus (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, this battle is not decisive until Gaddafi is fled or dead or arrested. Hold your horses. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli situation is very unclear.
Dear people, I read many comments about that Tripoli has already been liberated that the victory for the opposition fighters and that the battle has been won. Well, that is not the case: Muammar Gaddafi is still at large and more recenty two of his sons who were reputedly captured managed to escape -- Mohammed and Saif. This is confirmed by the NTC's ambassador to the UN and CNN reporter Matthew Chance. The news is that the situation in Tripoli is very fluid. There are also reports that Zuwara is being attacked by all sides by pro-Gaddafi forces. Jrdplas (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting ridiculos. Mohammed captured, than escaped; Islam allegedly captured, than proven to had never been captured; Saadi allegedly captured, than rebel commander doesn't know if he is captured; rebels capture Green Square; than retreat from Green Square.... Anybody seeing a patern here? XD EkoGraf (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

All this capturing stuff is fog of war. Rebels did enter Green square, as it was confirmed by the correspondent IN green square, and they retreated which was also confirmed by the same correspondent. It took a week to capture Zawiya.Zenithfel (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I'm quite suspicious of the Saif situation, given that the sources are several reporters in the Rixos hotel who is basically being held hostage by loyalist forces, and that there are quite a few reporters at the Rixos who have not taken advantage of the claimed restoration of power to make their reports on twitter. Seleucus (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to doubt Matthew Chance's report, especially considering he had photographic and video footage of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi accompanying it. I think one of four things happened: rebel commanders lied to the NTC, the NTC lied to the ICC and the media, Saif al-Islam escaped, or Saif al-Islam used a body double (who was either captured or was the one who spoke to Chance). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would they lie about this, least of all to the ICC....I mean what's the point?.The ICC said they had confirmation.64.229.136.66 (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Saw a NTC claim which I tried to verify: The streetlights are on in the Saif video (easily verifiable - see ), whereas Tripoli is currently without electricity except for Bab al Aziziya (Widely reported. Ex: ). Though it might be that there's emergency power, but that's part of why I'm suspicious. Still, we'll know the truth soon. Seleucus (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another NTC claim that Saif was wearing the same shirt in the video as in his televised speech two days ago, which does seem to be the case... still, could be that he just likes the shirt. Or too busy running/fighting/etc. to change. Seleucus (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how the NTC is discussing his shirt. Lol. Its a kaiki coloured shirt, im sure its a military issue and that there are tons of them floating around. And as Seleucus stated above, you generally have more to worry about than changing your cloths when your in the middle of a battle and being chased around the city people who want to kill you.XavierGreen (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The light business is a quite fair point though... Seleucus (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestely who care about the color of the shirt of Saif when independant western journalists have met him? He is obviously not under detention and that was pure lie from rebels. They would have showed him very quickly if he was captured. The battle is far from the easy thing that the rebels were trying to portrait. But Tripoli is just so big they can control 80% without fighting as they can lost quickly grounds --ChronicalUsual (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Saif al Islam has NOT been captured
see article:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2090033,00.html

Gman566 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to yesterday.Glad you caught up.174.91.111.218 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

capture
Al Arabiya reported that a third Gaddafi son, Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi, had been captured by the rebels, citing the head of the NTC.[87] He had been reported captured as well the previous day, so it was unclear when and where the capture took place.

Not sure I understand this....he was arrested twice?.174.91.111.218 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it has been reported twice that he was arrested, but it's unclear when exactly the arrest took place. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, really?.What a joke.I'm sure in a day or 2 we will hear he has "escaped". 64.229.136.66 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Official Fall Of Tripoli
Tripoli has officially fallen, I say we end the battle in favor of the rebels. 70.187.185.194 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

hmm, but what about this ?.64.229.136.66 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

update less than an hour ago:

''rebel forces, earlier seen celebrating, feared Gaddafi's troops were planning an attempt to retake the square. The rebels' mood had changed and they were taking up defensive positions''Bold text.64.229.136.66 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, when Gadhafi forces actually succeed in a counterattack, (unlike the cases in many other cities) then we will change the map. 70.187.185.194 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The current (12:15) BBC news headline (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/) says Battle rages at Gadaffi compound Heavy fighting is reported around Libyan leader Col Gaddafi's compound as rebels say government forces still control up to a fifth of Tripoli, so it may be premature to claim Tripoli has fallen or the war is over. Although it seems from teh other reports that the rest of the world is treating this as a de facto rebel victory. Wardog (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points here: 1) There are several foreign journalists in the Rixos Hotel and they say their building is still under regime control. Meanwhile the reports from elsewhere in the city are largely from rebels or rebel sympathizers and have not been confirmed by foreign news agencies.  The rebels have a history of prematurely claiming victory.  2) There is still no proof that Gaddafi is dead, captured, or out of the country.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are those journalists in the hotel being kept hostage?.They must be, or things must be very, very ackward.70.48.211.39 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hostage to the situation. People, be kind and wake up! TRIPOLI IS A WARZONE. SURPRISE! SURPRISE! You do NOT wander around an active battlefield without a guide. You just do NOT do it. Period. On another note, the faction that has the hotel under control is responsible for its occupants. Thus has every right to restrict their movement. This goes for all sides. NATO including.89.102.1.194 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With Brian Dell. The newspapers will announce the "fall" in good time. Meanwhile their reports make it clear the battle isn't yet over. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Redirect/Missing
Searches and links to this article just end with a blank page and a redirect to the exact same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.122.30 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the article link at the top of this talk page send you into a redirect loop, I know this is a redirected talk page (should it have been moved instead?) but I can't work out what is going on - really needs fixing though. -- wintonian  talk  21:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some mess with repeated moves over redirect as well as at least one copy-and-paste move (see WP:MOVE), which is something I learned the hard way is against WP because it's a huge pain in the rear to correct. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As pepole will (should) know Pages should not be moved (especially popular ones) without full consensus and a name needs to be decided upon so it is not changed willy nilly every other day (or whenever). If these uncoordinated page moves continue maybe move protection could be considered? -- wintonian  talk  22:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I got it fixed. It was the article creator who did a noob thing.--Cerejota (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was you who started this mess.Next time don't move pages unilaterally(to improper tittles).64.229.136.66 (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was nothing improper about it, just that you disagree with it, and it was not me who did the mess - I tried to fix it wrong, that was my one mistake, I should have gone directly running for admin help instead of trying to talk it out. Its a moot point now that Battle of Tripoli (2011) is going to be the name. However, I suggest you read WP:MOVE and WP:BRD for an explanation. I would have move it back (or someone else would have) had there been any objection on the talk page, but someone chose to "copy and paste" - which is indeed prohibited in WP:MOVE. As I said, at the time of the move, I didn't find it controversial, and in fact the Lede said "for". Can you point me at the policy you allege I violated?--Cerejota (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone mentioned above, popular, active pages shouldn't be moved without consensus beforehand, regardless of whether you find it controversial or not, that's all.64.229.136.66 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion, not policy. Get it? --Cerejota (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * that is how things work around here.You won't gain any respect with these unilateral decisions (which will be reversed).but suit yourself.70.28.7.229 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok if they were new to Wikipedia that’s fine, was feeling a bit grumpy earlier. Thanks for sorting it. -- wintonian  talk  00:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

on the replacement of "of" by "for"
Just for the record: the name change from 2011 Battle of Tripoli to 2011 Battle for Tripoli was made in. It doesn't sound consistent with the naming style that most of the people editing this series of articles have chosen: see Template:Campaignbox 2011 Libyan civil war. Boud (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See my explanation above in the RM thread. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much?--Cerejota (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw it and completely unconvinced.It isn't proper format/convention and just doesn't sound right. 64.229.136.66 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the BBC calls it that Battle for Tripoli], what is your source?--Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral move are against Wikipedia policy. Learn some respect about other people advices.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the move to replace it with "for". Flies completely in the face of established WP naming conventions, as does the unilateral move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, now that the mess that ChronicalUsual has been fixed, by no action of his own, lets get to this. You are both wrong:


 * 1) Anyone can change the name of an unprotected article as per WP:BRD. Of course, insisting on doing it beyond reasonable is edit warring, so I will stop for now (in particular because of unexperienced editors seem not to be able to revert a move correctly). But to say it is against the rules is to not know the rules. Trust me, I have been in more rename battles than all of you.
 * 2) 2011 Battle for Tripoli doesn't violate WP:NPOV, WP:AT, or WP:MILMOS. There is not a single policy it violates - so it doesn't violate any policy or convention. Y'all need to cool down and realize that there can be more than one possible, rules compliant, title (and in this case, because no single source names it anything, there are actually dozens of different valid titles). SO while 2011 Battle of Tripoli is not a violation, as I mentioned above, there is a source that uses Battle for Tripoli as name for this, while the only source that use "Battle of Tripoli". The current title is less rules compliant in this sense. --Cerejota (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A unilateral move which anyone with any experience would know is going to be contested, particularly in the midst of an ongoing move discussion and for such a poor rationale is generally seen as distruptive. The fact you've 'been in more rename battles than all of you' (hint: trust me, it isn't something to be proud of) suggests unfortunately you still don't understand wikipedia is intended to be a place where people work collobratively and constructively on building an encylopaedia, not a place where people push the boundaries because they can, and needlessly disrupt an article, waste time and causing confusion by carrying out an action they know is going to be reverted, particularly a page move on a highly active main page linked article, where again anyone with any experience would know should know can cause problems particularly when inexperienced users try to revert the move. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Xinhua and the Baltimore Sun, among other sources, have called it the "battle of Tripoli". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nil, you failure to assume good faith is disheartening. I didn't think the changing of "of" for "for" was going to be so controversial, and when I changed I placed a comment on talk - as you can notice in the talk pages and my edit summaries. It was the first reverter who failed to got to talk, and then the copy-and-paste move happened, on which I acted quickly and even dropped the naming issue (for example, I could have in bad faith asked the merger happen into the "for" version and gotten away with it). What I meant when I said "renaming battles" I mean being RM discussions and such, and knowing also how there being some people opposed to something is not the same as consensus and controversy. You are correct I should probably stopped at the first revert, but the lack of discussion (And the fact that the change in the lede was made by some other editor) made me feel the WP:BRD cycle was snowing me towards change. Being wrong is not the same as being disruptive. I understand you might disagree, but accusing a good faith effort, specially in view of my quick and clearly good faith actions to fix the problem approaches a personal attack, and I ask you strike it through in the name of good faith and civility.--Cerejota (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "For", to me at least, has a different connotation than "of". "For" implies a cause, and more of a POV feel than "of" , which simply implies a location. However, this is, of course, my personal feeling. I think whatever the preponderance of reputable sources us is what should be used. In a completely unscientific perusing of google, I see reputable instances of both, and they seem to be fairly matched. If someone wants to dig deeper, please do so. Given the choice between the two, I'd still argue that "of" seems to be more widely used on wiki than "for" (for just brief example, refer to the various battles of WWII or the Iraq War, etc etc. Most if not all seem to be in the "of" format). It may not be set in stone policy, but unless there's an overwhelming NPOV reason to use "for", I think consistency is a good thing. My vote, in that case, is for "of".204.65.34.218 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No I won't strike it. You are the one who alleged you had extensive experience. If you had extensive experience as you claimed, then it would have been obvious it would be controversial to move a page during an ongoing move discussion which only began about a day ago, of an active main page linked article particularly for such dubious rationale. If you had extensive experience, you would have been aware a lot of people don't know how to revert moves, and in a highly edited page it's easy for copy and paste reverts and other such issues to cause extensive problems particularly on main page article. Sometimes this may even be partly by accident e.g. due to confusion over an edit conflict. Finally if you had extensive experience, you would know particularly given there being a clear cut protocol for page moves and it not really being urgent most of the time, it's usually better to just let that play out when there might be disputes rather then being bold and hope it works out. If you weren't aware of these (and in my limited experience with page moves albeit perhaps more extensive experience with main page and active articles I've seen them all), then I guess you're experience wasn't as extensive as you claimed, but you can't blame me for AGF that your statement that you had extensive experience was accurate and basing my reply on your claims. Of course, if you made an honest mistake based on a lack of experience then you weren't being intentionally disruptive, but your actions still caused no ends of problems so it would be advisable to live and learn from this, rather then to try and suggest (as you did initially) that you did nothing wrong. BTW, I didn't bother to check the history. But if I understand you correctly, it's even more disturbing that you felt it acceptable to revert (rather then fix) the copy and paste move simply because that particular editor had not left a comment on the talk page at the time, since there was an ongoing 1 day old move discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At the time of the discussion, another editor had agreed with my view, and none had opposed, and the discussion was about the final name (and acknowledge that in my comment saying I did the move without prejudice to this discussion). Its all here, in this talk page. The rest you are saying, is simply not how my experience has been. Move warring is one thing, another is to not expect controversy and being bold in fixing a grammatical sense in a descriptive name (i.e. not a final name for the event - which was being discussed). You just want a fight, and I won't give it to you. The record its there. You not only have not bothered with the history, but actually reading the discussion, and my actions regarding fixing the "copy-and-paste" move. On policy in the abstract, it is obvious we have entirely different appreciations of it, in particular you don't seem to take assuming good faith very seriously. You are being as deaf as the guy who didn't understand he was reverting the move in a wrong fashion. But in this case, your account of the actual actions is not supported by the actual facts, you are just inventing actions, and imposing motives, that are not supported by the evidence - evidence, that by the way, you admit to not have bothered to read.--Cerejota (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What you still don't seem to get is it was a dumb move. Several people have said it before me and after me. If you did this without realising it was a mistake, that's fine. People do that all the time. I wouldn't have commented if you'd just accepted you'd made a mistake. But when you make a mistake, and then try to defend it in every way possible saying it wasn't against any guidelines (when it was not only against guidelines but common sense) and trying to use in your defense your extensive experience in rename battles (which is apparently much more limited then you think), that's a problem. When people take you on your word and presume you must have realised from your history what a big mistake it was, they aren't failing to assume good faith (AGF isn't a suicide pact, and as I pointed out, I would be failing to assume good faith if I didn't take you at your word). Part of wikipedia means you have to be able to accept when you made a mistake, not try to defend the undefendable, which you've done from the beginning. You appear to think the fact that you acted in good faith means you can't have done something wrong. That's not what AGF means. Plenty of people act in good faith, but still cause no end of problems. The fact they are acting in good faith means we give them more leeway (but ultimately if people are unwilling or unable to learn from their mistakes, we do have to take action). To use an obvious example, the person who made the copy and paste revert was very likely acting in good faith, they still clearly caused no end of problems. There is no need to read anymore evidence then what I've already seen to demonstrate your action was a mistake. Hence why multiple people have come to the same conclusion. And why your rationale for making the move has completely fallen apart (it's not grammatically incorrect, plenty of sources use 'battle of', we don't apparently use 'battle for' in any other article title [according to a comment above] but do use 'battle of' a lot and both raise their own neutrality concerns). And why people have wasted plenty of time discussing the problems and fixing the problems arising from your unilateral move. In case you still don't get it, if you had simply made the suggestion in the ongoing move discussion and waited longer then 1 hour, people would have pointed out the flaws in your rationale and we could all have easily moved on. (If you are going to be bold, it's usually wise to give greater consideration to your rationale, particular for a page move which as I've said can be confusing to revert for many and of course isn't even possible for an anon and if not reverted properly can cause no end of problems particularly on a active main page linked article, something which is unfortunately fairly common.) BTW I'm not some sort crusader handing out punishments and sentences to all and sundry nor am I arbcom, so I don't have to look in to the entire history to see who did what wrong. It's not particularly relevent because whoever did whatever else wrong, it doesn't change the fact you made a mistake, and it doesn't change the fact you are the only one who seems to be here trying to defend their mistake. (I don't know what happened between you and whoever made the copy and paste move but the fact remains, they're not here now trying to defend their actions, at least not that I've seen.) I also don't know what 'facts' I've invented since all I've said that can be considered a fact is you moved the article while there was an ongoing move discussion which started about 1 day before your move, which as far as I know isn't in dispute. (I also commented on my intepretation of one of your comments i.e. after someone attempted to revert your move but did it poorly rather then helping to fix the article and move it back to what it was before your move, you instead tried to protect your version at first based apparently on the lack of that person commenting on the discussion, despite the fact there was an ongoing move discussion. If my intepretation was incorrect, I apologise but I made it clear when I made the comment that I wasn't sure of that interpretation.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of "for" is absolute POV nonsense and is not correct usage on Wikipedia: no pages begin with it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so at the time (ie I saw it as a descriptive thing), but I can see the point - it implies in the case of a holding vs taking action that one is taking a side. I saw it, as does the BBC, as more neutral descriptor as a battle for Tripoli as a prize - because it is a prize. However, with the existence of Battle of Tripoli (1825) the point is moot. --Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you say the BBC chose the title because it was a 'more neutral descriptor'? As most experience with the media shows, this sort of thing is often just some semi-random decision by some random sub-editor without such indepth consideration. For example, in the recent England riots, the BBC kept switching between England riots and UK riots. Since the pattern seemed to be one choice during the night and one choice during the day (can't remember which was which), it was semi-jokingly suggested that perhaps the reason was because whoever was in charge during one session was Welsh and so choose 'England riots' and the person in charge during the other session was English and so didn't care. (Actually this was suggested before the pattern was clear.) I don't think we will ever know. Eventually the BBC did come out and say something like, they'd decided to settle on England riots out of sensitivity to those in Wales, Scotland and Ireland (and also said they'd used UK riots because of the emphasisis on the UK, e.g the involvement of UK PM, which didn't really explain the chopping and changing). Point being, trying to read too much in to the motives of some word choice, particularly during an ongoing and rapidly developing news story, is often a mistake. If the BBC have actually said they chose 'battle for' as a more neutral descriptor, then great. But if not, IMO you're reading way too much in to something which could have plenty of other explainations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is more than an aesthetic difference between The Battle for XYZ and The Battle of XYZ. We say The Battle for XYZ when the defence/capture of XYZ is the strategic objective of the battle, such as the Battle for Berlin. We say The Battle of XYZ when XYZ is merely predominant geographical identifier for the location of a battle that is fought for other strategic objectives, such as the Battle of El Alamein. That said, the convention in Wikipedia appears to be the use of Battle of XYZ.  Deterence  Talk 03:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Title
Why this has not been renamed as Operation Mermaid Dawn. It is what the rebels codenamed. In all other wars Operations were named here. Why not here? What has so special Libyan civil war. This is an Operation since it was a coordinated air, naval and ground assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.84.163 (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This should be renamed as Operation Mermaid Dawn. As the rebels codenamed it at first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.78.29 (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I highly suggest changing the title to "Battle of Tripoli (2011)". It looks a lot less clunky, as seen with similarly titled articles like "Battle of Kiev (1941)". sonicnerd23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Seems like a good idea to me. On the other hand, though, there's a certain inertia built in because Wiki editors have been titling the Libyan civil war articles in the current fashion (Ex: 2011 Nafusa Mountains Campaign, 2011 Libyan Civil War.) So you would need quite a large consensus to change the titles on all the articles. Seleucus (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only that but the Battle of Tripoli (2011) already redirect to Tripoli clashes. For the moment keep it like that until a major change is done to all article if needed. The name is not really a problem.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The name needs to be changed to Battle of Tripoli (2011), every battle article on wikipedia has the name followed by the year (in the occasion where there are multiple battles with the same name. This standard is a well established naming convention. All of the Libyan Civil War articles should be changed to conform with it.XavierGreen (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Was about to say this myself. Quindie 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The other possible name is its official codename, Operation Mermaid Dawn. But titling it that would probably be out of character with the rest of the civil war. Seleucus (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the guardian's live blogging of the battle, the NTC is referring to the battle of Tripoli as "Operation Mermaid Dawn" 74.74.159.120 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost every media org is calling it the battle for Tripoli. ShipFan (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Storming of Gaddafi's Compound
The BBC and Sky News have journalists inside Gaddafi's compound with the rebels(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14630702, http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16055237). Fighting seems sporadic but theyre pulling down statues and putting up Libyan flags. -- JamieHughes (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; this is pretty much the end of the end. Seleucus (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but seems a good idea to leave it ongoing until it quiets down in the city. The Rixos Hotel is still under siege presently from the Sky coverage. But things seemed to be over 2 days ago also. Sky journalist seems to think rebel force is now overwhelming. -- JamieHughes (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely the hotel is much easier to take than this compound. 64.229.136.66 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there is one major factor, in that the rebels can't bombard or call in NATO support for the hotel (they do want to rescue the journalists, after all.) Seleucus (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... anticipating a page 2011 Tripoli hostage crisis :-( 81.178.38.169 (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for a split for the moment, but there is a need for good editing and reasonable subsectioning and RS-ing of Rixos Al Nasr. If RS's say "hostage crisis", then that can go into a subsection title. Talk at Talk:Rixos Al Nasr if it's controversial. Boud (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He was just making a point/personal observation.Why so serious.70.48.210.52 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Report about the assault on the Azizia compound being led by qatari and UAE special forces. This means direct violation of USNC Resolution 1973 prohibiting any direct participation of the foreign land forces 95.32.6.41 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither Qatar nor the UAE recognize the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; they recognize Libya under the stewardship of the NTC, with whom they are allied. But that's beside the point. The article doesn't say the assault was led by special forces, it says they were involved in conducting searches and seizures once the compound fell. We know they've been traveling with the rebels, ostensibly to provide training, tactical advisory, and logistical support. This isn't a breaking scandal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true. Coalition special forces running the rebel war effort is BAU in this conflict. No fuss needed. This belongs under the carpet.89.102.1.194 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked it. The article sez: "The rebels will be led by special forces from Gulf nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which spearheaded yesterday's final assault on the dictator's Bab al-Aziziya compound" and "It is known that the Qataris were first into Colonel Gaddafi's private residence in the complex" - all of this means they had to encounter resistance first. So why are you LYING, Kudzu? Because it's something to smear the image of the law-abiding coalition? Also Gulf states may not recognize Jamahiriya, but shouldn't they respect the UNSC at least?
 * Reports of Qatari involvement appear to come from Robert Fox, defence correspondent for The Evening Standard who also writes for The First Post that first ran the story Qatari special forces led Libyan attack on compound. This is a recent Reuters report about Qatari involvement Analysis: Qatar hopes for returns after backing Libyan winners. I don't think speculation about whether Qatari (indeeed UK and French etc) involvement violates USNC Resolution 1973 is encyclopaedic but I do think there's enough RS here to merit a mention with due NPOV attention paid to the points Kudzu makes above. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Army retakes Bab al-Azizia
It seems the the Libyan Army has retaken control of Bab al-Azizia on Thursday. War censorship in the English language countries is extreme, so it is very difficult to find reliable sources that clearly state out this fact. Here are two sources a quick search revealed. This is a video report by Euronews correspondent Mustafa Bag. The associated voice over is extremely censored, so you will have to "read between the lines" to understand what's going on. The video however shows the aftermath; the the rebel camp abandoned – the Libyan Army firmly in control with civilian traffic flowing past.
 * Update: Euronews has changed the voice-over, giving even less information. The text on the web page – roughly corresponding to the earlier voice-over is still available.
 * Update 2: Here is an older version of the video (on Facebook), with a French voice-over. As far as I can tell, it seems to make the claim explicit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is another source for the same battle, quote: "''Snipers loyal to Gaddafi were involved in the bloodiest battles in Tripoli's Abu Salim area, near the ruler's former compound in Bab al-Aziziya which was overrun earlier this week."

British war censorship again prevents the journal from telling who won the battle. The Euronews video however shows the aftermath. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. – Here is an al Jazeera video form the same neighborhood the day before (Wednesday). The rebels are still in control and on the attack. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rebels fight for Gaddafi-held neighbourhood

Here is a WP:RS that confirms rebels "hastily retreated" from the compound: -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * – with audio and transcript.

Libyan army retakes Green Square:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.160.148 (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an old video from February. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How you can tell, i can't find it in the old Green Square videos

This is all innuendo and speculation on your part. No reliable source is actually reporting that the Gaddafists counterattacked and took back the compound. Video is hardly definitive because, first, it's difficult to tell when it was taken; and second, there is a combination of uniformed and irregular troops on both sides, with very little to distinguish their loyalties based on appearance. If you can find a reliable source that says Gaddafi's forces took back Bab al-Aziziyah, then it can and should be added; until then, this is wasting your time and ours. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kudzu1. You (Petri Krohn) speak a lot about censorship but do very little effort in pointing out what specifically indicates that Gadhaffi troops actually retook Bab al-Azizia. I simply cannot figure out how you arrived at that conclusion. Alfons Åberg (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is how Petri operates. Lots of hand-waving, but little substance. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting video of citizen militia in action. Note they don't wear the green bands nor they have any flags on the technicals, so its hard to tell if they're really pro-Gaddafi, but they're definitely anti-rebel (you can hear a guy with a beard insulting them) 77.45.255.24 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Move Request: Battle of Tripoli (2011)
Per the Battle of Tripoli (1825) article, and other battle articles, in order to keep consistency. Agree or disagree?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a move request section above proposing the same thing. So far it commands unanimous support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * please move it away from the "battle" title altogether. Seriously, words like "battle" have actual meanings, and we should respect them more than they might be in tabloid journalism. Look at Category:Battles of the 2011 Libyan civil war -- most of these are better described as drawn-out, amorphous armed clashes and skirmishes, or simply "fighting". The word "battle" is not synonymous with "armed clashes", it has a much more specific meaning. What is going on in Tripoli is certainly an armed conflict, but it isn't -- other than in figurative use or grandiose journalistic hyperbole -- a "battle". --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary has this for its first definition "A general action, fight, or encounter, in which all the divisions of an army are or may be engaged; an engagement; a combat." suggesting that the test should be that all available forces are committed to it, which indeed seems to be the case in the current fighting. The Oxford English Dictionary incidentally simply offers "1. a. A hostile engagement or encounter between opposing forces on land or sea; a combat, a fight." 81.178.38.169 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your rational that it isn't a battle is simply...not understandable. A battle is a battle, and this is a battle for a city. End of story. EkoGraf (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * dab, not good argument. There were battles less than this, don't waste other wikipedians time--93.137.178.189 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ^what those two said... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see some of the rationale behind limiting the use of the term "battle". For instance, the term "battle" would probably not apply to a brief (a few hours or days) and somewhat spontaneous armed clash that occurs during a coup d'état or popular revolution. But, I see no problem with using the term "battle" to describe each of a series of significant and distinguishable armed clashes between identifiable belligerents during a protracted (6 months) revolutionary war. Indeed, given the relatively pivotal strategic importance of named Libyan sites - readily identifiable towns, highways and oil refineries, etc - it is even more appropriate to identify the distinct battles that mark many of the stages of the 6 months of combat during the Libyan revolution. Precedent may include the Battle of Bunker Hill during the American revolutionary war.  Deterence  Talk 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All you need to call something a battle on Wikipedia is a reliable source that uses the term (which in this case is no problem).--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If that was the case, the Elvis article would have a section on how he is alive and well and regularly appearing at your local supermarket. Editors need to realise that there is more to content than the mere existence of WP:RS and start using some bloody common sense. The robotic manner with which some people edit Wikipedia's content has rendered far too many articles into incoherent gibberish.  Deterence  Talk 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel that way. God forbid editors try to add structure to the encyclopaedia. I'm not sure what RS report Elvis being alive; you do know what a "reliable source" is, don't you? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. We can find "reliable sources" to say just about ANYTHING. I used the Elvis example as hyperbole. You know what hyperbole is, don't you?
 * I know one tireless high-volume editor (with deep mental health issues) who enjoys spending all his days sabotaging political articles by unearthing absurd quotes, that have been taken completely out of context or are sourced from obviously agenda-driven authors, that he injects into articles about content he doesn't like. Instead of slapping him down, editors are spending COUNTLESS hours in talk pages and edit-wars trying to fix his reliably sourced sabotage when all that is needed is a bit of common sense. Without a bit of common sense from those who understand the subject matter, Wikipedia will soon become nonsensical (as some articles already are).  Deterence  Talk 00:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)