Talk:Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War and military intervention (16 August – 23 October)/Archive 2

Al 'Aziziyah
I've fixed the incorrect claim about capture of Al 'Aziziyah added in this diff, sources say that rebels have only reached it. --93.139.252.173 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

References not shown
Right now the reflist is not shown, nor the other parts of the page foot. Are these the consequences of an overloaded/overlong page?--Paracel63 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like it. I think it's time to do an emergency split, which I'd assist with if I weren't at the airport about to take off. I'd suggest splitting it at the end of the siege of Misrata/the start of the battle of the Misrata frontline. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm doing it right now. For the sake of simplicity, March-May + From June is easer to understand.--Paracel63 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it's done. All of the Talk got to this article, which I think is fine. Some templates and flags may need additional correction, but I think it is workable as of now.--Paracel63 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the split helps a lot, but wonder if even shorter time periods would be good? (March-April; May-June; July-August? As an emergency technical measure, we've split out the "Course of the war" section of the main 2011 Libyan civil war article and some detail needs to be put into these timelines and then a nice summary put in the main article. (I'm amazed and impressed at the amount of information in all these articles!) Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

War just ended, Gaddafi's security forces surrendered, Saif Al-Islam captured. 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the map, there significant pro-gaddafi holdings in the south of the country, and a few towns, including sirte, to the East. if Gaddafi got out of tripoli alive, chances are the rebels will be in in this a bit longer. though with tripoli fallen, hopefully there wont be significant resistance anymore. Joesolo13 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove Overview map of developments in Misrata?
Is necessary to keep the Overview map of developments in Misrata? It seems to be quite outdated and it doesn't add anything of value to the article. I recommend removal.
 * Replaced with 2011 Battle of Tripoli map Ansh666 (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

History
Wouldn't history of the Libyan civil war be a better tittle,--J intela (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, as this is still an ongoing conflict. Ansh666 (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Animated Maps?
Hello, To understand well the consequences of the different actions explained in the article, could you animate the maps of Libya? Thanks :) Btw, great job to contributors.-- IP 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.252.203 (talk)

Post conflict
There are some specific actions now being undertaken, which are pmainly post conflict issues, which seem inappropriate for the current two sections headings. I have therefore added the unfreezing of some assets on humanitarian grounds into a post conflict planning (ie: third) section. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Waddan
There's claims that the NTC have got control: Bloomberg, CNN — Nightstallion 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Facts
There are some facts that are not reported in the main article, for example the clashes between the cityes of Gharyan and Kikla against Assabah, all held by NTC forces; or for example the clashes between NTC brigades in the days of Younis death.Why?. Oscar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.102.178 (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Very Long Article. Split the article up into timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war by months?
I think it is well known that this article is huge and very long. It is just over 291 KB and per WP:SIZERULE no article should be any bigger than 100 KB. Therefore I propose splitting the article up into sections, perhaps months? Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree wholeheartedly with this idea. Months would work best as 'milestones of development' can be too subjective whereas you can't debate months. Daniel Musto (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SIZERULE. But perhaps it should be split by important milestones of development of the war and not by months. --93.139.43.236 (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support A month or so ago there was a strong consensus to not do this, and articles covering the months were deleted, is there a way to undelete them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree the months is an objective and simple way to break-up this article. I like the maps at the top, which should be labeled by "as of" date, corresponding to the end of the month covered by the article. --Ben Best (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is basically a chronological listing of events, so a split per month is most practical and least time-consuming. Any more complex events spanning months are more suited to be covered in the main article and/or the individual subarticles about battles, campaigns etc.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Couldn't the issue be resolved by tweaking the current article? I see a lot of very insignificant facts presented there, as the article has become a register of all events that were reported by the media, whatever their notability is. A lot of these events are opinions or speculation that, even being from a reputable sources, could be at least shortened or combined with similar events, or removed altogether if no important information is presented by an opinion or a speculation was proven false as the time passed. It would be great if we could rewrite most of the article in prose, eliminating the previous day-based partitioning in most of the article. In this way we could highlight the most important information of each phase of the conflict and to somewhat hide the non-notable facts. Current day-based partitioning doesn't allow that. Of course, the most recent information (a month or so) should be left as is, since neither the accuracy, nor the importance of these facts is known yet. IMO dividing the article into month-based subarticles is the worst solution, since neither it does not make reading easier (it is already hard because the article is like a dump of the facts), nor makes maintaining easier. By the way, the article is not as overweight as it seems, as we have only ~180kB without counting the size of the references, as is suggested by WP:SIZERULE.1exec1 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, but split it not by month but by periods of the conflict.--Yalens (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I think that it should be split in three: Pre-NATO involvement, Then till the siege of Misrata broke, and from then to present. --ERAGON (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: the above mentioned deleted articles covering the months, were created by banned vandal: User:SuperblySpiffingPerson, who did try to split the article into monthly sections to make it easier for him to hide his vandalism and "I love Gaddafi" POV editing. Therefore the articles were deleted to avoid having this vandal with his many socks vandalize the monthly articles every night again and again and again and... noclador (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The split into 3: Pre-NATO, NATO until breaking of the Siege of Misrata, then from then till now. I think the magnitude of the breaking of the siege justifies this. 97.75.142.190 (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The breaking of the siege could work, though considering the magnitude of the problem - and I was the one who divided the timeline the way it is now, for what it's worth - I would not object to splitting the timeline by month and linking with the "main" or "seealso" template from a primary article. I can see about working on a sandbox version of such an article over the next couple of days. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Before anyone finalizes a split decision I'd like to see how much of this article can be pared down due to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. That alone might bring it down to a reasonable size. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to save this detailed list on here somewhere if we eliminate information? This is a historical gold mine and I'd hate to see it cleared completely for the sake of simplicity.  That said, I understand the concerns and if the article is pared down, maybe it would warrant a 3-way split instead of a month-by-month split?  97.75.142.190 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with the above. For once, I think this bare timeline format is well suited to its purpose. Prose is better used at the separate campaign/battle articles, while this page is somewhat of a naked barebone to events as they occur (and a great show of Wikipedia as a better news agency than Wikinews can ever hope to become ;-) ). Within a single day, the different sub-themes should be kept together for added clarity, but apart from that I think it is fine.--Paracel63 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! Nothing happened following this voting, as I see. And still the article needed a split. So I did a split-up of the articles = two parts ("March-May" and "from June") some moments ago. This is at least better and more robust, to when the server has a hickup, like it did a while ago (not showing the reflist etc). I think most of you would feel this is better than before. And if the siege of Tripoli etc drags on for another month, we can probably think of another split-up of the present timeline (to "June-July" and "August-September" etc). What do you think?--Paracel63 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This could also be split up into Western and Eastern fronts as well. For the most part, starting with NATO involvement, the East was where most of the action took place, and then it stalled for a long time around Ajdabiya and Brega, at which time the West really started moving.  It allows for one to follow each front individually while still being fairly chronological.  I'm unsure where Misurata should go though.  Sleeker (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A split into East and West would not be practical at all (IMHO), as it is still only one civil war, one NATO, one NTC and one Muammar Gaddafi. But we must consider splitting this article up chronologically pretty soon, as it's still a bit wieldy. My two alternatives would be splitting into "June-July" and "From August", or splitting August into a third one (based upon everything that's happened during August). Splitting into articles based on sieges and campaigns would lead into even harder decision-making, IMHO.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Create Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (June-August) and Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention after fall of Tripoli. Mix321 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

September 26, citation and entry do not match
Under the post of September 26, someone posted that fleeing residents of Sirte report heavy civilian casualties as a result of NTC tank shelling, and that angry remaining residents are taking up arms for with Gaddafi forces. Citation number 378, connected to this entry, links to an article reporting tank-shelling and fleeing residents, but nothing of shelling causing severe civilian casualties or the raising of armed volunteers as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.149.179 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was

Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (from June) → Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (June–August) – Now this article has grown to become more than huge. In August I was involved in splitting up of the article (then containing the timeline approx. 19 March–21 August) into two, when it became too long for the servers to present the references properly. Now I believe maybe the time has arrived to do it again, as the number of references soon will hit the 400 mark once more. My idea is that a split-up into "June–August" and "From September" would be the easiest way to do it. What do you think? Paracel63 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I agree. Mix321 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Support per Paracel63. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Support per Paracel63. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Bias
I think this article is not objective enough, it is quite bias in favour of the rebels. 1.How do we know the rebels control all those southern cities south of sirte, when just yesterday where listed as pro gaddafi controlled are now pro rebel controlled. I don't have proof one way or the other, I just don't see how we can assume that because Gadafhi is dead that these people are not still fighting against the rebels (ie. whatever general in the south has surrendered or is still fighting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.8.161 (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Profound Bias
This page, doubtless like all pages to do with the Libyan war, is biased to a ludicrous degree in favour of the rebel side. I have noticed references to rebel killings of policemen again removed, and more bombastic pro-rebel language inserted within the last couple of days.

Alas, there is probably little that can be done until this ceases to be such a major news story.

Unfortunately, these high profile conflicts bring complex geo-political events into the world of people who spend the rest of their time watching "stars in their eyes" and celebrity gossip shows.They have no experience of thinking objectively or processing information on an adult level, and they will keep coming to obsessively propagandize the "good" side.

The responses by one particular rabid rebel supporter on this page fundamentally misunderstands the concept of an objective encyclopedia to a depressing and frightening degree. And there is plenty more where he came from.

I guess the only thing to do is include as much information as possible, and hope the tabloid cattle lose interest soon enough.

Batchuba (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC) need to stop using aljazeera english as a reliable source. it is giving way too much of a one sided story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.250.154 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should try to avoid calling people cattle, it dosnt help at all. And there dosnt seem to be much, if any bias. Its just so happens that one side seems to have been observed murduring civilians, using hospitals for snipers, ect. while the other side hasnt been observed doing that. its not bias when one side is simply shown to be doing things that are wrong and not the other when the other side isnt doing much, if anything, wrong. Joesolo13 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's exactly my point. You seem to be under the impression that the rebel side have not been repeatedly filmed murdering unarmed non-combatants and prisoners, when in fact they have. Meanwhile, the government forces were repeatedly accused of crimes that simply did not occur ( the bombing of protesters and other such nonsense ).

This is not about which side you sympathise with ( I, like most, sympathised with the rebels on my own time ). Its about whether a person can summon sufficient objectivity to edit responsibly on the subject. And most don't, because they are hugely emotionally involved in a situation they know very little about. Batchuba (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias Correction
If you believe there is too much bias, you must surely have content to the contrary. I will keep an eye out for anyone removing sourced data as this is against policy however you cannot argue that too much information favors the rebels...you will simply have to add content with the opposite POV if you feel this way. Daniel Musto (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am adding it (referenced and in English), yet its continiously being deleted.Ratipok (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But you can argue that the information warfare NATO and rebels wage over here DOES favor them. Otherwise they wouldn't bother, would they? 89.102.1.194 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 one external links on Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xJ4lwmv0 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110323070749/http://www.monstersandcritics.com:80/news/africa/news/article_1627376.php/British-jets-fired-on-Libyan-targets to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1627376.php/British-jets-fired-on-Libyan-targets
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110430101054/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-libya-military-aid-20110421,0,3835596.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-libya-military-aid-20110421,0,3835596.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110405185507/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/172525.html to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/172525.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110410102130/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-10 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525213121/http://www.france24.com:80/en/20110522-libya-says-nato-warplanes-raid-port-kadhafi-home-tripoli to http://www.france24.com/en/20110522-libya-says-nato-warplanes-raid-port-kadhafi-home-tripoli#
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121001090911/http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libyan-rebels-Sudan-mercenaries-clash-20110525M to http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libyan-rebels-Sudan-mercenaries-clash-20110525M
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120911081841/http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/05/26/50826476.html to http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/05/26/50826476.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110614134041/http://www.haaretz.com:80/news/mideast-in-turmoil/gadhafi-forces-surround-zlitan-threaten-rape-rebels-say-1.367051 to http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast-in-turmoil/gadhafi-forces-surround-zlitan-threaten-rape-rebels-say-1.367051
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722172259/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/coffeehouse/7107908/some-good-news-for-cameron.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7107908/some-good-news-for-cameron.thtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110731081626/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/3-journalists-killed-in-Nato-raid-Libya/articleshow/9426494.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/3-journalists-killed-in-Nato-raid-Libya/articleshow/9426494.cms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110824231127/http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16053368 to http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16053368
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910012723/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jG1LxnOFriI_5_q5jmZrLTWAPgFg?docId=CNG.a1ea6f0d270aa6e8b3a53593d358de40.141 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jG1LxnOFriI_5_q5jmZrLTWAPgFg?docId=CNG.a1ea6f0d270aa6e8b3a53593d358de40.141

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)