This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
There's been a lot of talk about a strategic roundabout. Now, where is it? In the eastern part of the town proper there seems to be no roundabouts, only simple crossings. But outside of the built-up area there is this and this. The first one is more directly linked with the (capture of) Sirte's port, which lies east of the town. The second one is a roundabout linking town with the highway. So, claiming the eastern NTC forces are inside town, based solely upon the roundabout info, would be a bit optimistic.---Paracel63 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible there are multiple forces. Al Jazeera, BBC, and Reuters all have correspondents reporting from Sirte proper, and they have said troops from the east are inside Sirte. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! Here's a lot of maps with interesting info. Not WP:RS per se, but clarifying a lot, I think. This "rotunda" would mean the northern roundabout in my post above. Still outside of the town proper.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How come we claim the NTC "captured" the airport while in the same sentence admitting they are being shelled from the other end of the runway. Since when does not a runway part of an airport constitute? I propose we move the text to one along the lines:
NTC forces again entered the military airport proper and engaged the loyalist forces stationed there, the battle was ongoing according to the latest reports.
The Sirte military airport has two X runways and is 3km * 4km big with tens of fortifications. It isn't just a piece of tarmac in the middle of the desert as most other Libyan airports. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal for the map but also think a few images of the fighting would come a long way of properly representing the battle in this article. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent start. Can you make it up a bit more like the Tripoli and Misrata maps, with the dated battle lines? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red is a color of the Libyan flag flown by the new government. It's fairly typical in the media to use red or burgundy to represent it, and green to represent Gaddafi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the battle is over, I would suggest that the map be reverted to show the battle lines as of the start of the conflict. --Sacolcor (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"rebels/opposition/anti-gaddafi/revolutionaries..." become "NTC"/"NTC forces" overnight[edit]
Istrongly object against such arbitrary naming. It is obvious from the beginning of this conflict that the forces fighting Gaddafi Loyalists and former Libyan Army are NOT controlled or even fully supporting the NTC. This stinks of PR even though I believe the result was not intentional. If we indeed keep the NTC moniker for all forces fighting the previous regime, then I require all "pro-Gaddafi/Loyalist" monikers should be changed to "Libyan Army" or "Jamahirya forces". This goes for all Libyan War articles, basically. 195.212.29.190 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're decidedly not rebels anymore, and WP:RS refers to them as "interim government forces" or other such monikers. And you can't unilaterally "require" anything, FYI. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are NTC forces, etc., but they also are Rebels. The rebelled against Gaddafi and losts of sources call them Rebels. I am not saying that "NTC forces" should be changed to "Rebels", but I think it cannot be said they aren`t Rebels. --Ave César Filito (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason we can't just use anti-Gaddafi forces? They might not all be actually part of the NLA or NTC, but the ones fighting against gaddafi are by definition anti-Gaddafi. I think this is a good compromise :)Jeancey (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support this. AFAIR, this was actually a long-term consensus in the articles describing this war. I raised the issue only because the "rebels" were summarily renamed to NTC/NTC forces which is factually incorrect. I have nothing against using the "NTC forces" moniker where appropriate. However I am strongly against retroactively replacing all mentions of "rebels/Anti-gaddafi" with "NTC/NTC forces".178.40.125.146 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with this, non of the sides are homogeneous. There are plenty of non-Khaddafi-supporters and entities fighting against the rebels/former rebels. Wouldnt it be easier to call the group of fractions who is rebellious for rebels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.33 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my personal opinion on the naming is far from WP standards ... BUT, we need to avoid WP:OR as much as possible. Thus we shall use the naming used casually in the media BUT we shall under no circumstances follow the propaganda of either side (the naming IS part of it). Summarily naming _all_ factions fighting the pro-Gaddafi forces "NTC/NTC forces" is WP:OR, unless we consider the NTC spokespeople who were caught lying more that not as authoritative source above all. And it is propaganda on top of it all.94.113.101.38 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Fourth opposition attack has, according to the article, been going on from oct 4 and is still on. Its seems the fighting has stopped a few times during this time. At least the attack must have stopped yesterday oct 13 when the NTC-forces were pushed back and they started a siege again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.33 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering that the fourth attack in essence lasted until 12 October when they managed to bottle up the loyalists in the two districts. Since the 13th in essence is a new siege. EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the article its said that Bani Walid has fallen. The NTC took that back later on oct 18th, saying that they had only entered the city and had taken some ground. That was reported by fighters from Misrata witch had been transferred from Sirte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.33 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sirte-8.10.2011.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Sirte-8.10.2011.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Sirte (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 11 external links on Battle of Sirte (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
