Jump to content

Talk:Western Libya campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belligerents support

[edit]

@Sakiv:, can you provide a source which states Egypt and UAE sent troops to assist Haftar in this offensive? There are the sources you claim should be cited: [1] describes Sisi meeting Haftar in the Arab Summit before this offesnvie even started in Tunisia. [2] describes Qatar's reaction to the UAE condemnation of this offensive.

Where does it says Egypt and UAE sent military forces to assist, or even endorsed this military offesnsive? [3] per this source, Egypt issued a deceleration of de-escalation. [4] per this source, UAE condemned the military offensive.

You're performing original research WP:OR Wikiemirati (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiemirati: They does not need to send troops to add them to the infobox. Previous support is as current support unless there is a source confirming the end of support. They have provided both military and diplomatic support to the LNA because it is fighting the Islamists. See this article for example Northern Aleppo offensive (February 2016). Saudi Arabia and Qatar did not send their troops to fight but gave arms to the rebels.--Sakiv (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The arms support was provided prior to this offensive, hence Egypt, UAE, and Qatar are included in Libyan Civil War (2014–present) infobox. They did not however, provide arms for this particular offensive unless they release a statement saying they support it. You're including citations from prior to this offensive and combining it here WP:SYNTH. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your words are not true. They still support the Libyan national army. I have provided an Egyptian source acknowledging the support of UAE and Egypt for Haftar.--Sakiv (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic support is not the same as military support. Belligerent mean a nation or person engaged in war or conflict. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE all diplomatically back Haftar's government, but they are not considered as "Belligerents" in this conflict. [5] This source states all these countries supported Haftar's government internationally, but backing doesn't mean sending weapons or troops in this particular offensive. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wikiemirati, infobox is reserved for military, not diplomatic support. Prior support (before the offensive) does not mean there is military support now for this offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French experts

[edit]

Under 8 April, I added Libya Observer's claim that Libya al-Ahrar TV claims that French experts arrived in Gharyan. Since we don't have Wikipedia articles on either Libya Observer or Libya al-Ahrar TV, it seems premature to me to include this info in the infobox. Better recognised French media will probably add more info one way or another soon - e.g. Le Canard enchaîné - which appears in print on Wednesdays, offline only or Charlie Hebdo, also appearing on Wednesdays and only in print. Boud (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found three articles citing the military support Haftar has received from UAE and Egypt. It’s no secret they give military support the UN issued a condemnation. I’m tired of Egyptians writing my country’s history so I will be taking over maintenance of this page to prevent anymore Eastern Propaganda from being posted. If you want to allege there’s no proof for Egyptian or Emirate support you may as well say there’s no evidence for Turkish intervention lol. Your desire to paint people in a certain light doesn’t supersede the facts, I’ll be reporting this to admin. Sikeahmed (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

knowledge about the past, not the present

[edit]

Please remember WP:RELTIME - Wikipedia is not a news desk. We can report information that happened recently according to WP:RS, but the information should be written in such a way that if Wikipedians suddenly stopped editing the page and made no more edits for 5-10 years, it would still be accurate according to the old sources of information. The hypothetical reader in this situation should not be misled into thinking that the events of April 2019 "are still happening" in April 2024. WP:RELTIME explains this nicely.

Wikipedia:As of can be quite useful here.

Boud (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tripoli (2019)

[edit]

If fighting escalates or continues into larger portions of Tripoli, would the title Battle of Tripoli (2019) be a better fit? Weathin (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Maybe.Alhanuty (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: swap belligerents left-right

[edit]

We presently have HoR/LNA on the left half and GNA on the right half of the infobox. This is a situation where, even though the reality is more complicated than A versus B, the presentation is simplified, and there is a roughly west-east split, and we're showing the map in the conventional style of west-left, north-up, east-right, south-down. Since these conventions are heavily programmed into most of our minds, I propose to swap the left-right convention so that we have "west/GNA" on the left and "east/HoR/LNA" on the right. (I'm ignoring political left-right affiliations, since that's more abstract, and there's no well-publicised pro-workers vs pro-business division - at least not in the present state of this article and mainstream media articles.)

The point is to make it easier for the reader to anchor info in his/her mind. (For people familiar with US geography, imagine a California vs US-East-Coast war with US-East-Coast key text info on the left-hand side of the infobox and California key text info on the right-hand side of the infobox.)

Any objections? (If there are no objections and someone wants to do the swap, then go ahead without waiting for me.)

Boud (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, since there were no objections. Boud (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zintani Brigades allied with the GNA?

[edit]

I've been reading in multiple articles that the Zintan Brigades, previously allied with Haftar, are now fighting with the anti-Haftar troops. However, we also know that the Zintan brigades were allied with Haftar at the war's start. The war map here on wikipedia also still shows Zintan as held by Haftar. So what's up? Does anyone have any more sources confirming a shift in allegiance by the Zintan brigades?Jogarz1921 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After initial claims in the first few days by the GNA that Zintan was rushing to their aid, Zintan issued a statement saying they were with Haftar and all online maps show Zintan still under LNA control. EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Not accusing you of lying but given the two reports above I need something solid.Jogarz1921 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here [6] Also, just look at any Libyan war online map. EkoGraf (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Re-switch to right-left

[edit]

The House of Representative's forces are the ones who initiated the offensive therefore it is more logical to place them in the left as it is on plenty of other articles such as the following:

Battle of Stalingrad
Akashat ambush
Battle of Baghuz Fawqani
Battle of the Karbala Gap (2003)

It would be best to return to the original format.

Takinginterest01 (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter

[edit]

Why is so much in this article sourced to Twitter? SashiRolls t · c 23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many news agencies will not publish an actual article unless a serious development has happened. A full article is only usually written when a town is captured, a major battle occurs, or a major figure is killed, thus leaving out many smaller engagements that, while only carrying local importance on their own, significantly change the perception of balance of power when taken together. Even when a serious development does occur, it may take a while for anything to get published, as a war in a third-world country isn't seen as a top priority by many agencies. Sometimes the only articles that get written are authored by biased news agencies. Many agencies instead publish smaller bits of information on twitter. So long as they are reputable and confirmed sources, and so long as reports corroborate, I don't see a reason why not to include them. I try to cite articles over tweets wherever I can, but that's not always possible. Goodposts (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer. I think that as time goes by it would be best to replace those links with more synthetic references, of which a fair number are already & will (I suspect) be appearing. An insource:"twitter.com" search of en.wp currently turns up 39,208 pages which cite Twitter in some way,(§), up from 35,735 back in July 2018. This worries me, especially when we are referring to the Twitter account of a media organization we don't know much about (as on this page we refer to The Libya Observer's twitter feed, for example). As I said at ITN I think that a lot of good effort is being pored into this page, but that (as regards Twitter and other sources) it might be good to keep the wp:notnews policy and the wp:now! (essay) in mind. SashiRolls t · c 21:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: What would be good to handle this systematically would be a template mainly for twitter/fediverse references that does something like: if the tweet is older than (default = 3(?)) days, then warn the reader that although the reference was considered temporarily acceptable, it has to be replaced by a reliable source; optionally choose a different default number of days. Or better: add this as an optional parameter in a properly formatted cite template. This could be a bit tricky wikipedia-politically though, since it would imply that using unreliable sources is temporarily acceptable...
@Goodposts: I don't use tweets/toots as references myself, since I don't wish to have to update them later. I think that sooner or later a proper discussion and guideline (RFC?) will have to be done in WP: namespace (starting at WP:ITN somewhere?) about whether or not tweets/toots can be used as sources, and whether or not they are archivable (I haven't tried seeing if WebCite or the Wayback Machine can archive tweets/toots). The differences between the centralised, corporate-controlled Twitterverse and the decentralised Fediverse would have to be thought through too. Boud (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: I agree, the situation isn't ideal. However, I have also struggled in finding non-biased published sources for most of the article. Mostly the agencies that publish full articles on recent developments are those such as The Libya Observer, which has a very strong and definite pro-GNA bias. Their point of view undermines their credibility for issues outside of statements made by GNA officials. Having to choose between biased sources and verified twitter accounts is like choosing between the lesser of two evils, but I do belive the twitter sources, so long as they belong to reputable and unbiased organisations, can be helpful in this case. I do think it would be best if we could migrate some of them over to articles, but it would be a tough job. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible semi-protection?

[edit]

Recent minor events of vandalism in the same style, from two different Croatian IPs:

The vandalism is minor and not very visible to a typical reader. I'm putting these here for convenient analysis. For the moment I wouldn't think that semi-protection is needed, given the cost of discouraging genuine IP users/novices. We have e.g. this constructive edit by an IP user.

If there's a keen Wikipedian for whom 05:30-ish UTC is a convenient time for editing, it might be useful to check this article around then. Boud (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these edits become a trend, then we would require semi-protection. However, seeing as there are only a few of them so far and because they were quite minor, I think we ought not to hurry. Semi-protection discourages people from becoming editors and making good faith edits. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record (the status of minor annoyance rather than overwhelming vandalism is unchanged):
Boud (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox vandalism (from Indonesia/keduanya dari alamat IP di Indonesia)
Neither edit made sense given the main content of the article, but they could have confused readers. Again, this is just for the record. There does seem to be a pattern that the edits slowest to be fixed are those around 5-6 UTC. US/Canada based Wikipedians willing to check watchslists/edit during afternoons would be useful here. Boud (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, similar minor infobox vandalism:
The pattern is too consistent for this to be a "good faith edit". But it's still only a minor annoyance/embarrassment.
Boud (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minor infobox vandalism:
Boud (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TODO: government(s) versus legislative body(ies) (parliaments)

[edit]

I don't know if it's Western mainstream media, Libyan online English-language media, or the general chaotic situation who is (are) responsible, but we have a whole bunch of Libya-related pages in which the HoR is described as a government instead of a legislative body, even though there's not much WP:RS'd info on the pages about the HoR voting on any legislation, getting Haftar as de facto head of state (of the "Tobruk government") to sign laws, and so on. Obviously, if both the HoR and the High Council of State (Libya) are both making laws and getting the de facto or de jure (depending on legal interpretations) laws signed by the de facto/jure heads of state, then the legal history of Libya is likely to be a big tangle - but that's not Wikipedians' problem.

What is a problem for Wikipedians is that this oversimplification (legislative body = civilian government = military government), apart from being misleading in itself, risks leading to confusion given that some of the HoR members will apparently meet in Tripoli to create two rival parts of the HoR, and have already declared rival "opinions of members of the HoR" regarding the Tripoli offensive. See the reference in House_of_Representatives_(Libya)#2019_Western_Libya_offensive for the planned Tripoli meeting.

This problem (government? parliament? real parliament? nominal-but-in-reality-close-to-fictive parliament?) seems to be on quite a few pages. Fixing this is not likely to be so easy since sources to describe the relations between individuals and institutions have to be sorted out. The reality is probably a lot more complex than a simple "west vs east".

Just as an example, the lead of this article presently says that Haftar "represents" the HoR. My understanding is that right now he's the de facto head of state and head of the armed forces of the "Tobruk government", which is closely related to the HoR. I'm not convinced that Haftar "represents" the HoR, but I'm not proposing to change it right now, since I don't see a simple compact alternative justified by the sources. Probably adding a solid, sourced, 2015-ish to 2019 section to the HoR article and also the same type of section to High Council of State (Libya) would make sense first. After that, key points could be used here in a compact form.

Boud (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haftar claims to represent and work for the HoR, but pretty much everyone (except for a handful of pro-Haftar propagandists) agrees that it’s actually the other way around. The HoR is totally reliant on Haftar for its continued existence, even as Haftar has reduced it to a rubber stamp for his de facto military dictatorship. I think the article doesn’t want to make this quite clear for neutrality reasons, but it should since this is the nigh-universally agreed fact on the ground.Jogarz1921 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete info based on WP:RS should go into the Haftar and HoR articles, or other articles where it makes sense and helps clarify things, and the info should respect WP:RELTIME. We don't want info that is only true "now". The present info has the HoR recently holding sessions in Tripoli, generally in opposition to Haftar's attack on Tripoli, so at least recently, it doesn't seem to have been either a rubber stamp for Haftar or reliant on him for its existence. Boud (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LNA, LA, Libyan Armed Forces articles cleaned up

[edit]

I've done what I could to disambiguate, based on sources:

  • Libyan Armed Forces - a historical overview, pointing to the two LNA and GNA (LA) components of Libyan armed forces
    • Libyan Army - the ground forces nominally controlled by the GNA/al-Sarraj/Tripoli
    • Libyan National Army - the ground forces nominally controlled by Haftar/Tobruk-HoR

Feel free to keep an eye on them (watchlist them) to make sure that they don't get messed up again.

There's still quite a lot of info in the higher-quality, in-depth sources (Wolfram Lacher SANA Briefing Report; Jason Pack ISPI report; see the ref lists) that could usefully be integrated into these articles. For example, both "sides" include Islamist militias, but with important nuances and differences that seem to be factual enough for inclusion, for someone interested in adding depth to the Wikipedia entries. Boud (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Turkish military drone operated by the GNA. Since when does that count as a ‘’Turkish’’ loss? I don’t even think that you understood me. A Turkish built drone (Bayraktar) operated by the GNA was shot down. Do you have any source about Turkish operated drones (as in operated by the Turkish military) in Libya? These drones were sold to the GNA and used by them. Stop adding this as an Turkish casualty. Its already listed as a GNA casualty (12 bayraktars shot down claim: Per LNA). Gal17928 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you show from zerohedge is u confirmed and onoy claimed by the LNA, no one else. Thts not an reiable source nor any evidence Gal17928 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey lost a drone?

[edit]

I see that someone added the lost drone as a ‘’Turkish casualty’’. These Turkish made drones were sold to the GNA and are operated by them. It doesn’t make any sense to add them as ‘’Per Turkey’’ on the casualties list. Thats like adding a shot down libyan MIG aircraft as ‘’Russian’’ because Russia sold it to them. There is not a single source that confirms that these drones are operated by Turkish troops. If there is, then please show it Gal17928 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It´s indicated as a Turkish military aircraft. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/libyan-rebels-shoot-down-turkish-plane-moments-after-ankara-approves-sending-troops


Mr.User200 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey as combatant

[edit]

While Turkey no doubt is heavily involved in supporting the GNA and has voted to send troops, has there been any proof that Turkish forces have deployed yet (aside from dubious claims by pro-LNA sources)? Most "neutral" and pro-Turkish sources indicate that Turkish troops are yet to deploy and any claim of casualties originate from LNA sources.

Even Ahval (an anti-government source in Turkey I should add, I'm not saying this as personal opinion or claiming that it is less value but indicating the clear biases of the news source) indicates the claims originate from pro-Haftar sources [7]. Until Turkish involvement has been confirmed, they should simply be listed as a supporting country and not an actual combatant. FPSTurkey (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal proposal to rename LNA to Haftar armed forces

[edit]

See Talk:Libyan National Army#Informal proposal to rename to Haftar armed forces and discuss over there. Boud (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question re HCS group

[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask, could you please help explain what is the group that is labeled as "HCS," in the section for 2019–20_Western_Libya_offensive#February? I have not been able to find any definition for this acronym. I appreciate any help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Libya Observer

[edit]

The Libya Observer has got some attention from an editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines. Feel free to either edit the content with proper sources properly NPOVed and/or explain to that editor at Talk:The Libya Observer#"Unsourced information" that without sources s/he cannot add material, and even with sources, cannot add personal essays to the article. Common sense says that the journal is pro-GNA, but common sense is not a source, and the language still needs to be encyclopedic, not a personal essay. Anyway, feel free to go over there to contribute/discuss. We very likely have a demographic bias against editors from Libya, so having the patience to help someone who claims to be from Libya understand why there are guidelines would be a small effort against this bias (I have no reason to suspect that s/he is not from Libya). Boud (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi aint a major figure of this offensive...

[edit]

...So that's why I removed him from the commanders list. Also, the PFLL is, according to all sources, a little group. --HCPUNXKID 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article writing, pro GNA information and omitted information

[edit]

Why in the war crimes section, only Al Werfalli is mentioned, but not members of Al Somoud Brigade, such as Salah Badi, who is also Sanctioned by the UN for destroying Tripoli airport in 2014, and causing the deaths of some 128 civilians? And Why not Abdulraof Kara, who has faught countless battles in Tripoli, and who has admitted himself to have ISIS members within his ranks? Who has committed extrajudicial crimes against civilians in Tripoli based off their own interpretation of a non consensus sharia Islamic Law - Arrests. And the so called "Bugra" militia leader, that has stricken Tripoli on numerous occasions with Grad rockets, including fighting RADA over some squabbles, All whom were supported, funded, trained and armed by Turkish secret service.

Why Not Mohammed Bishr who lead so called "Supreme security Comittee" that defaced almost all of Tripoli's cultural Historical sites dating to Sufi or Italian cultures? Vandalization and sale of Antiquities to Italian Mafia and such?

Why so much bias against Haftar when the GNA is literally composed of the worst criminals who have escaped prisons during Gaddafi era, and who are shamelessly claiming to be part of a "Civil" "Democratic" government of which there is no evidence of, and rather, a Militia Junta with little legal backing or consensus from the entire country. How can members of a certain ideology, being Islamist, Claim and use rhetoric such as "The Government of Libya", When there is no actual government; is rather fractured within 3 parts, With 2 separate central banks, and the western GNA being composed of Islamist militia junta with a Corrupt "Islamic Supreme court", and Eastern based HOR, which has recently had troubles with Haftar Military groups; Are allowed to continue this rhetoric on MSM and confuse the world implying that the only valid true government is that of the Jail escapee Militia junta, and making matters worse, with a Prime minister, mind mindbogglingly being called a "President" by these Militias, with little shame or respect for legal DEMOCRATIC process of actually electing a president, and making matters worse, inviting Turkish military into Libya to bomb Libyan assets, considering that this so called prime minister has Turkish Family Roots.

And yet this Article only mentions a "Conspiracy" claimed by Erdogan, but not one on our country, by TURKEY itself, to Fund, Arm, and Use "Koroglu" Turko-Libyan root political figures, who conveniently have political positions now ( after years of Kidnappings, Murders, and all sorts of Political Intrigue. ) And continue its plot to control Libya via these individuals. Including but not limited to, giving swathes of Libyan Territory to Turkish government.

There is a clear plot by Turkish Government to control the GNA and use it as a Scapegoat for its extension of Influence in North Africa, A continuation of the Ottoman plan, and SHAMELESSLY bring back talk about them "OWNING LIBYA"".

CORRECT THE ARTICLE WITH VALID INFORMATION!. And CEASE demonizing the Libyan national Army.

OUTRAGEOUS. Biomax20 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Biomax20:, Yes I agree with some parts of what you have said. There is a lot of propaganda and a mediatic war in the current Libyan Civil War and in some degree in this Article. But to edit in this place (Wikipedia) you need Reliable Sources and if them are in English Better. Also reporting facts must be balanced neutral and without a POV. This Article or offensive is the resume of the current war in Libyaand this topic have become a battleground too.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UN RECOGNITION OF THE "GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL ACCORD" DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO LEGITIMACY. WRITE FACTUAL ARTICLES, OR CEASE WRITING.

[edit]

UN recognition of the GNA does not translate to consensus legitimacy. no matter what Erdogan and his stooges claim, the Libyan people are the Sole power capable of providing Legitimacy for its government. Currently, the GNA does NOT have legitimacy, despite the mass propaganda campaigns on a Daily basis including claiming that Faiez Serraj is a "President". A Koroglu with Turkish Family roots, would NEVER have been allowed in Libyan political positions were it not for a conspiracy to install him by Turkish government and the Militia Junta - Prison escapees that now claim to be part of a "Civil and Democratic" government, which is isnt far fetched from how ISIS acts according to Nawasi, Rada ideologies.

WRITE FACTUAL INFORMATION, ON BOTH SIDES, AND INCLUDE WAR CRIMINALS UNDER THE GNA, CEASE BIAS INFORMATION WRITING, CEASE CAUSING A DISSERVICE TO LIBYANS SUFFERING UNDER BOTH ORGANIZED JUNTAS. Biomax20 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by Lucius Corin.

[edit]

Lucius Corin, I have told you in my talk page and in yours the reasons why those edits are not suited for the article. And you keep reverting like you did Here Here. Twitter and other Social Networks are not RS per see. Unless they fit in the criteria given here. WP:TWITTER Mr.User200 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties suffered.

[edit]

The current number of casualties and losses in the infobox uses ranges of equiptement lost report as well as foreing fighters. The followig sources are used; SOHR, Regional media and other journalism related sites like Meduza. If one side of the Inbobox is errased from the Upper number of casualties the same should be done with the opposing side. Obviously both sides will make their media downplay their own losses and inflate that of their enemies. For that reason to keep a Neutral POV we use ranges of losses, even if one of the other parties denies them. Like in the Pantsir claim of 7 lost (Denied by LNA) and the UAE servicemen killed (Denied by UAE). Keep in mind that Turkey never denied those claims made by LNA of Mercenaries killed.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200 Yes but for the pantsir and UAE stuff, there is not a single independent party claims so they should have ranges in the infobox but unlike the other one which have SOHR as an exclusive independent source. The ranges are also too big and for a constantly changing event, it should be included only when the event is over.
Never mind, if you want to edit that again, just remember to use correct typo.Pestick (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you provide a source that counters those claims made on GNA Losses. The content remain unchanged per Neutrality. The Opposing side have its claims on Pantsirs and UAE soldiers and are considered.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.User200, a source that counters...? I don't understand what you mean? Well, in here there is that SOHR source, which is neutral and independent, that "counter" claims by LNA. If you really want "neutrality", then a neutral source like SOHR to be mentioned and that's it, no other sources should be picked.
The further problem that we have with the LNA source is, it is outdated (it shows only data for a specific time which is quiet long ago) while the SOHR source is constantly updating the casualties up until now. So yeah, for a still ongoing event, we should only pick the up-to-date source. Hope you understand what i mean.Pestick (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever(talk) 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2019–20 Western Libya offensive → 2019–20 Western Libya campaign – The Wikipedia thus defines a military campaign:

The term military campaign applies to large scale, long duration, significant military strategy plans incorporating a series of inter-related military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war.

This article describes not only an LNA offensive, but also GNA counter-offensive operations and Turkish intervention. In other words, it is a complete military campaign, so the title must be adjusted. Fontaine347 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change timeline to paragraphs

[edit]

Should we change this section of the page from a date-based timeline list to paragraphs to make the page more compact and smaller? --PanNostraticism (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer prose to the existing timeline. I tried to convert the June section to prose but it was promptly reverted by Myrabert01. I'll defer to regular page contributors on which layout is best. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current WP:PROSELINE format has been the main objection to posting this event on ITN. Modest Genius talk 10:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

End?

[edit]

Hasn't the battle ended today? [8]--Aréat (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhanuty Caution! an offensive (military) is not a military campaign. Also, the name "Central Libya offensive" is not appropriate since Sirte is considered Western Libya (Libya has no clear "central" region).Hambient1981 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also in Support for a new article. This one was focused on Haftar's Operation "Flood of Diginity" and the subsequent GNA's Operation "Volcano of Anger". Considering that the GNA has now initiated Operation "Paths of Victory" for Sirte and Jufra airbase, I would prefer this as a separate article (maybe named "2020 Central Libya campaign"?). --Rr016 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rr016, neither an offensive (military) nor a military operation is a military campaign. Please read the 3 articles about those terms. If it's called an offensive, it's over, but a campaign? I'm quite sure it ain't over. At least, it's too early to decide. Also, the name "Central Libya offensive" is not appropriate since Sirte is considered Western Libya (Libya has no clear "central" region). Just carefully review your thoughts.Hambient1981 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EkoGraf, an operation is different from a military campaign. The campaign hasn't ended, because the GNA operation is a part of this campaign. A campaign counts operations from both sides.Hambient1981 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal interpretation. Which is considered Original Research by Wikipedia and not permited. EkoGraf (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EkoGraf, It's not my personal interpretation. It's the interpretation of what a Military campaign is, according to the article in the link. This is about semantics, it has nothing to do with Original Research.Hambient1981 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia's policy, Wikipedia itself is not allowed as a source. If you do not have sources confirming what you are editing, then its considered unsourced Original Research. EkoGraf (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the campaign ended now that the LNA failed to take Tripoli and is retreating. So the original campaign is over. I started a separate article for the new campaign. In the media, most media outlets also refer to the campaign as over and the GNA operations as a separate campaign. Romanov loyalist (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Romanov loyalist, you seriously overuse the term "campaign". Change the article's name to "LNA's West Libya offensive" or "Operation Flood of Dignity" if you want it to "end", just don't use the word "campaign". Please read the articles about other campaigns to see how it really should be done. What the media said does not trample upon everything else.Hambient1981 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of this changes the fact that the campaign is over, what you are doing is semantics. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer changing it to Central Libya Offensive.Alhanuty (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romanov loyalist. Well, semantics are absolutely required in considering this change. The offensive (the operation launched by LNA forces in April 2019) is over, but the campaign (including operations from both sides, which includes both the LNA operation which is over, and the Sirte offensive by GNA which is still ongoing) is not. You still don't understand the main issue we are discussing. You are not making arguements on that matter but keeping on making a political stance on something else?Hambient1981 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not understand, or are you pretending to not understand? I repeat, the original purpose of this operation was the taking of Tripoli. That failed, and now there is an entirely new operation that is a separate campaign, and most of the media is referring to it that way. The offensive to take Tripoli and the offensives towards Sirte and the south of Libya are different campaigns. Therefore the campaign is over. However, if you are so hung up on this for some reason than perhaps the title of this article should be changed to "2019-2020 Tripoli offensive" or "2020 Western Libya offensive" to clarify. The ongoing conflict in Sirte is distinct from the original LNA attack towards Tripoli and should not be considered part of one campaign. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...an entirely new operation that is a separate campaign...The offensive to take Tripoli and the offensives towards Sirte and the south of Libya are different campaigns..." See? You still confuse "operation" and "offensive" with "campaign"! A campaign involves many operations/offensives, not just one. And yes, this is just the title problem. But I think the title should not be changed from "campaign" to "offensive" again since the offensives by both HoR and GNA forces all occured in "Western Libya" and are inter-related. There is also nothing called "Central Libya", it is the new article's title that should be changed instead.
Important note: What the media is refering to that has "failed" is the LNA offensive in April 2019, they don't say that "the campaign has failed". A campaign cannot "failed" anyway since the term covers operations by both sides.Hambient1981 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said -- the LNA operation in Tripoli and the GNA operation in Sirte are considered to be two different events, and if necessary then the title of this article should be changed to Tripoli offensive or Western Libya offensive if you care about semantics so much. The point is the events covered in this article should be about the LNA operations in Tripoli and those are over now. Central Libya refers to the central part of Libya, it's that simple, not a distinct geographic region. "Western Libya" doesn't really exist either, the historical provinces of Libya are Tripolitania (which is only northwestern Libya), Cyrenecia (northeast), and Fezzan (south). The point is we are going to assume this is over and start working on the 2020 Central Libya offensive article, not relating to the events in Tripoli. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I have changed my mind. After Googleing just found a few reports from 15 June [9][10]. And most news are from the political levels. IE Talks, ceasefires etc Mr.User200 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.User200, the problem here is about the two terms: "offensive" and "campaign". The original offensive by LNA is over, but as a "campaign", it hasn't, a campaign considers actions from both side in a specific region, in this case, Western Libya. The Sirte offensive is a part of that campaign, so it can't be said that the campaign is over.Hambient1981 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine you got a good reason to back your posture. But since you are new here, I will give you a advise. You are risking a block for 3RR. You have reverted 3 times that. Two from another user and the last one(me). I will not take action because of Resentism. But your behaviour is not the correct. Even if you are right 3RR is an delicate issue.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2019–2020 Western Libya campaign → 2019–2020 Western Libya offensive – In Talk:2019–2020 Western Libya campaign#Change timeline to paragraphs, it was suggested that the title of the article be changed to "2019-2020 Tripoli offensive" or "2020 Western Libya offensive" for semantic reasons, and to be able to declare the offensive/campaign at an end. User:Romanov loyalist tried to cut-and-past move this page to 2019–2020 Western Libya offensive, against the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Page histories which states "You should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that.". I believe the best way to go forward with this is a proper requested move, since this might be a controversial move. Personally, i am neutral. Koopinator (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


strongly disagree. As explained above in Talk:2019–2020 Western Libya campaign#Requested move 22 May 2020, this article describes the LNA offensive (Operation Flood of Dignity ) and also GNA counter-offensives operations (Operation Volcano of Anger and Operation Peace Storm). That is a complete military campaign, instead of an offensive by one of the belligerents only. --Fontaine347 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Syrian militias fighting for LNA?

[edit]

I have looked at the sources, and so far the only evidence of Syrians is textual, with no photos. And only sources for this are Syrian opposition, and pro-opposition SOHR. We should add "alleged" next to numbers. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Libya_campaign&oldid=1208785541"