Talk:Battle of Misrata (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Battle of Misurata)

Substantive Rewrite is Needed[edit]

The battle is now long since over, and to be honest, this article is absolutely useless as a reference guide. It simply lists daily facts and news headlines. I'm prepared to do a substantive rewrite of the article in order to make it useful, but I want be sure it won't just get reverted. This will be a major project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcherMan86 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources!![edit]

It needs more sources SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then go forth and seek and edit in said sources Dude.Del369 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free Libya Air Force[edit]

Although the few planes kept in the airfields and those two which defected to Malta in the first stages of the rebellion joined to the fight, there's only facts from one of them being in combat and shot down, don't seems any fought in Misurata. So, its participation should be noted only in Benghazi battles, until more sources can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.141.55 (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armor, jeeps etc[edit]

Gadhafi Loyalist have lost many tabks, BMTs and jeeps at Misurata there are several videos of vehicles destroyed, see here, two jeeps ambushed by rebels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bWTEgd6NPc&feature=player_embedded
here two tanks and a bmt disabled/destroyed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnZu6Rd67l4&feature=player_embedded ...--190.118.9.11 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted[edit]

Someone changed the result to "Pro-Gaddafi victory" citing Al Jazeera. This was confusing because AJ was in turn citing Al-Arabiya, and Al-Arabiya was quoting a government spokesperson. Therefore, the source of this report is not Al-Arabiya (the channel didn't confirm the report) but the spokesperson. It is not generally WP policy to cite suck spokespersons because they are known to distort the truth. If there are other independent sources that state this, then it is probably ok. for now, just a rumour.--Henohenomoheji (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

83.34.187.236 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Yellowdesk (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Misurata → Siege of Misurata —

Based on the wikipedia definitions for Battle and Siege, and due to how current event are developing.

Battle defintion is:

In general a battle during the 20th century was, and continues to be, defined by the combat between opposing forces representing major components of total forces committed to a military campaign, used to achieve specific military objectives, within a time-frame of less than a month.[7] Where the duration of the battle is longer then a week, it is often for reasons of staff operational planning called an operation. Battles can be planned, encountered, or forced by one force on the other when the latter is unable to withdraw from combat. A battle always has as its purpose the reaching of a mission goal by use of military force.[8] A victory in the battle is achieved when one of the opposing sides forces the other to abandon its mission, or to surrender its forces, or routs the other, i.e., forces it to retreat or renders it militarily ineffective for further combat operations. However, a battle may end in a Pyrrhic victory, which ultimately favors the defeated party. If no resolution is reached in a battle, it can result in a stalemate. A conflict in which one side is unwilling to reach a decision by a direct battle using conventional military forces often becomes an insurgency.


A siege defnition is:

A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault. A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that cannot be easily taken by a coup de main and refuses to surrender. Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies (a tactic known as "investment"[2]), typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as sapping), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defenses. Failing a military outcome, sieges can often be decided by starvation, thirst or disease, which can afflict either the attacker or defender. --83.34.187.236 (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, but please don't change the article without further discussion here - others will have a view, I'm sure. I've reverted your changes until we have had time to discuss further. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to mean necessarily that we should name the article Siege of Misurata since we have had for example the Battle of Vukovar which was a 87-day siege but has been called a battle both generaly and here on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word siege aperared among the code before change, so that means some people may have doubts. The point is what criteria is used to name things. It's a personal taste of the first writter? it's what sounds cool?...because if the wiki is an encyclopedia and clearly defines what is what then Misurata is having a siege. The combatants never moved ouside the city, don't got offensive far from the outskirts, but simply are defending the city from external agression. If ever the rebel forces from the east reach Misurata and broke the siege, then yes, then will be a Battle of Misurata. How it's supposed to be called? ...Second Battle of Misurata cannot, keeping it in this one it's an option, but I think there're two histories, that from the eastern rebels and that from the western rebels. In the west it's all siege. 83.34.187.236 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Vukovar article is a different case. My reasons: first, the Battle of Vuckovar was a multi-stage battle, being part of a whole campaign taking place at the eastern Slavonia region and not so far from the main front line. The city was divided internally by it's locals part serb and part croatian before the siege, and later rounded by the pro-serb yugoslavian army while operations outside by Croatia tried to breach the siege. Second, the article however while keeping term "battle", specifies we're talking about a siege. This could be an alternative here. Hegmn (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it's not moved, then atleast a redirect should be created at siege. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "Battle of Misurata" is not the dictionary definition of "battle", it's that nobody calls it that. See WP:NAME. Please find some descriptive article title that is actually in use. I get five hits for "battle for Misurata", but I am sure you can find something better. --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: the 'battle' has moved on into something different and Gadaffi forces are employing different tactics than they did in places like Zawiya and Ra's Lanuf, such as evictions and shutting of water, electricity etc. The way it is being drawn-out also makes appear to have evolved from a battle into a siege. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC) EDIT KP-TheSpectre (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The supporters of this move have ignored the claim early in the discussion that nobody calls it that. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting correct or improved names, we use the existing ones, see WP:AT, and yet all the supporting arguments seem to be phrased in terms of what the event should be called. Andrewa (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the article isn't currently at Battle of Misurata, but at Battle of Misrata. I've been bold and set up redirects from the various spellings of the town name, and also from the siege titles. No reason to hinder navigation while this move is discussed. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: While I agree that the battle can well be characterised as a siege, reliable news sources are not using the term enough to warrant a move. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The term siege is more appropriate to describe this conflict. Soldier198 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Soldier198 —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support The city is under a very harsh siege, its inhabitants lack of everything, food, water... SyHaBi (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per the definitions given above - Dalta (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The city is indeed under siege, but there is a long battle for it's control going on, which is the main point.--93.137.4.235 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the city, the rebels are not completely surrounded or blockaded - aid can get to the city's port. More to the point, it is more of a battle for the control of the city as Gaddafi, and Anti-Gaddafi forces are attempting to go on the offensive against each other to try to take parts of the city. Also, the city is not fortified against attacks, thus making it a battle, not a siege. Nsxi13(talk) 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The city is besieged but Gaddafi forces are in the city and are lauching assaults everyday on the streets controlled by rebels. It is mainly a battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geromasis (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is overwelmingly a battle with very few periods of siege. The port is mostly open to re-supply so it is not fully cut off. Wiki users searching for this page would search for Battle not Siege. It was the Battle of Britain not the Siege of Britain. A siege is more to do with mideival warfare and castles.--94.31.12.197 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having voted in favour, feel some opposing votes have a point. You could describe the Somali capital as being under siege, but no one does KP-TheSpectre (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a siege. Gaddafi forces are trying to blockade the city and partially they succeeded in doing so. The fact that they are cutting off electricity and water supplies are by definition sieges. They are trying of course to break in as well. Sieges may not be a total blockade. Bombardment of the city also helps in reducing supplies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varangian123 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At this point it is still a battle as there are so many infiltrations by government forces that front lines are hard to dissemble at this point. --RobNS 03:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not a Siege, it is a battle in an Urban environment. Review the Urban_warfare Article for specifics. Modern militaries have long since made cities a viable field of battle, where before they were more like stationary fortresses that held or fell depending on whether or not its perimeter defenses were breached. Modern technology, and the enormous size of modern cities have changed this dynamic. So long as what the US Military would term Maneuver Units are fighting, it remains a battle. Only if the Loyalist Army pulls back and builds fortifications around the city and attempts to pound/starve them into submission can it be categorized as a siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcherMan86 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Capital Letters[edit]

There's a litte dispute on how to write Anti-Gaddafi Forces. As a whole name meaning forces with a capital F or f. Depending on the decision the use of Gaddafi Loyalists may change to Gaddafi loyalists, and the UN no-fly Zone with capital Z would be wrongly written. Hegmn (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians[edit]

It is written in the "Strength" box that antigaddafi forces are revolutionary civilians and they are. They are not militiamen but armed demonstrators with no military experience. So we should count the 60 dead civilians with the other 244. SyHaBi (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The line is hard to draw. From my limited experience of arab soldiers, it would not surprise me if the armed demonstrators were better trained and more experienced than the armed forces they oppose. Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any sources proving that ALL the civilian deaths are due to the actions of the loyalists and that the rebels didn't kill a single civilian? This is what the infobox is implying. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Is there someone who can do a map of the city. And mark the territory of each side in the city? For example, collor green the southern, western and northwestern part of the city for loyalists; collor red the northern and eastern part of the city for rebels; and color with blue Tripoli Street, city center and the road to the port and the port area for ongoing fighting for control. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the situation is too fluid. Gaddaffi's forces are not stationed at every part of Misrata which they forces rebels out. There is no territory really controlled by either side. Gaddafi's forces do not control western misurata in the same way they control Ras Lanuf or Sirte. The attack on Misurata is just the loyalists bringing in small convoys of tanks and artillery, and then positioning themselves at a specific location. Where they are in these locations is what "they control" but they are constantly on the move, much like the rebels. A territory map is not helpful. Zenithfel (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the UN calls for a humanitarian mission in Misrata, then the map would become worthless. Zenithfel (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree– a map would do wonders to improve the article. Even if we cannot give the exact territorial delineations, it would be immensely worthwhile to have a map to show all the locations described in the article.
There was a map posted to the rebel-aligned website www.libyafeb17.com which I have referenced quite a bit in the past few days to orient myself in understanding where the fighting is happening. Here is the link. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please do a map? We have the sources now with the BBC and Guardian maps, although the Guardian map is based on the BBC one. So the BBC map should be the main reference. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intervene in this but the map has some seriously schematic boundaries compared to what actually happened. Anyone have time to re work a revision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.31.243 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege[edit]

Misrata: Libya's city under siege http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13118724 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is people looking for words to describe, and siege has some dramatic flare. To be a Siege however, as I stated above, the attacking force must holds its grounds and attempt to force the population into submission through attrition. As long as they are actively fighting, it is a battle. Review Battle of Stalingrad, Second_Battle_of_Fallujah, and the First_Battle_of_Grozny if you are curious as to what modern battles this is similar too. ArcherMan86 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Battle of Vukovar. There are certainly elements of a siege here, but ArcherMan is correct in his characterisation of this conflict. It is first and foremost an active battle. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle sounds more dramatic!

In the besieged city of Misrata ... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/escalation-of-british-involvement-in-libya-prompts-concerns-of-vietnam-war-style-mission-creep/story-e6frg6so-1226041986643 110.174.23.139 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... has been under siege for more than seven weeks ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-libya-misrata-shelling-idUSTRE73I70M20110419

The Washigton Post says ... in a battle like the siege of Misurata. Is that clear? 110.174.23.139 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Google search for terms "Battle of Misurata" or "Battle of Misrata" (to account for spelling differences): 28,900. Replacing 'battle' with 'siege': 23,300. So in that sense, battle has a slight edge. However, in the past week of news searches, the former has 74 hits while the latter has a whopping 10,800, which seems to me enough of a media consensus that we should change it. Support move to "Siege of Misrata". 140.247.146.104 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving article to siege. Seems similar to Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) and is getting enough reporting in the media now as a siege. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sevastopol is a good match for this. Battle of Vukovar and Battle of Stalingrad are much more similar. This is a case of street fighting and urban warfare more than one army sitting back and bombarding the other to smithereens. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something important and ifnormative[edit]

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/2011413142125348119.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8444041/Libya-perilous-voyage-to-help-besieged-rebels-in-Misurata.html

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/18/a-slow-boat-to-misrata/

These 3 links provide details about a boat trip the rebels have made from Benghazi carrying weapons/reinforcements and supplies for Misrata.

Its reported herein that dozen such trips have been made Its an important piece of information, since most of the aid mentioned here continues to be from western nations,etc. The rebels helping besieged Misrata is an important development. And the fact that they are sending arms and troops is an even more important aspect. Do note the NATO denial for such boats to actually reach Misrata.

Please dully add this information. --Pranav (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Victory[edit]

I read in many sources that the rebels have won the battle of Misrata. LeFigaro.fr states that the loyalist troops have been pushed back 40 kilometers west of the town. (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2011/04/28/97001-20110428FILWWW00395-misrata-la-victoire-est-proche.php). Even though the article says that victory is only close, the battle of Misrata has ended, because, as it is written in the WP article itself, there isn't any more clashes in the city itself. Currently, the situation is : NATO forces bombard Gaddafi forces who themselves bombard the rebels, but their is no battle anymore. I suggest we wait another few days, then edit (or not, depending on how the situation evolves) the article to "battle has ended". My main question is : "Do we consider that Gaddafi forces retreating from the city, but bombarding it, means the battle has ended ?"

I am humbly waiting for your opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totozenerd (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the Gaddafi forces have done is militarily known as a "Retrograde". They encountered stiff resistance and could no longer sustain offensive operations and needed to pull back to restore unit organization and supply. It also gives the commander time determine his next move. The Artillery fire is designed to keep the Rebels jumping and the targeted raids aimed at keeping them from seizing the offensive. The fact that they are still doing these actions indicates the Loyalist commander wants to continue his attack as soon as possible. The battle is not over. ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks ! Totozenerd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Also: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.62.57 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Question: If the casualties numbers are ok, this Siege/Battle is by Far more bloody that the battle of benghazi(Both phases) or the battle of Az zawiyah? If so this should be indicated in the Battle. Another question , how the numbers of rebels/civilians could be soo distant betwenn sources,(one source claim 500 the other 900!).--190.118.9.11 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: it looks as if the battle is over, in the sense, that all of Misrata is now in control of the Rebels and they are pushing out eastward towards Zilten (They are still a long way away and given their fuel tanks are gone...). On the other hand I believe the shelling has stopped and Gaddafi's focusing on the Nafusa mountains and desert battles instead. I propose we mark it as finished on the day they took the airport, and then reopen a separate battle much like what was done for Brega and Ajdabiyeh. GrantBud (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Control of the city centre and Tripoli Street[edit]

Can it really be said that loyalists held the city centre and Tripoli Street even tentatively all the way from late March to their withdrawal? I don't think so. From what I gather, they initially made their way into the the city centre, but were pushed back so that they only "tentatively" held part of it as the fighting along the inner part of Tripoli Street raged. Both places were focal points of intense fighting in the first half of the battle, so I don't think that they can rightly be described as controlled in their entirety by either force, even tentatively. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels themselves confirmed that at one point the loyalists held the insurance building, post office and the trade bank in the city center. One source here [2]. As far as the main road goes, they did hold the whole road at one point, how else could they make it to the city center othervise. But later on, when the sand-filled trucks were positioned, those in the center were cut-off from the outside and the loyalists all moved to just one side of the main road, the side where the vegetable market and old hospital were, where their main bases were. Hmmm, ok, maybe we put that they held the main road and half the city center? EkoGraf (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think just "part of" would be better, rather than trying to guess the exact proportion. Loyalists held the vast majority of the road, but the part of it in the city centre was contested heavily; I think rebels controlled one side of it or something like that. See the second map on this page from the New York times and this map from the libyafeb17 site (not 100% reliable, but useful). But at any rate, it should be noted that the city centre/Tripoli street area were heavily contested; even calling things "tenuous" is somewhat inaccurate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map again[edit]

After rebel victory in Tameena, which is further southeast than the map, the map has become outdated, and the rebels won the entirety of the area that the map provides. This is the current situation: https://twitpic.com/4xhryj/full. I suggest we use this map. Of course the names placed on the map are kind of biased, so all thats needed is the writing format on the map changed. Zenithfel (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 other maps that may help. http://storyful.com/stories/1000003438-videos-show-fierce-battle-to-end-siege-of-misrata Zenithfel (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Tameena is village outside Misurata and so this should be added to Tripolitania map while whole Misurata should be redrawn to red as rebels won the battle and there are reports about battles outside the city, not inside. Also we shouldn´t include in this article fighting in vicinity of Zliten or in Zliten itself (as recent reports from opposition suggest already begun) but instead move it to new Battle of Zliten article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article proposal[edit]

The fighting is now longer in Misrata at the moment, and any direct threat to the city is gone. According to an AFP report today, the rebels are at the gates of Zliten in the west and advanced 20k in the east, meaning that the current map is probably entirely under rebel control.

Hence I propose that the 'Battle of Misrata' article be concluded with a rebel victory, and perhaps a new article (perhaps "North-western Libya campaign"?) be created to continue describing the conflict. Seleucus (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and heres one of the best map so far showing current situation http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/23/world/africa/siege-of-the-strategic-city-of-misurata.html?ref=africa Zenithfel (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree in principle to this, however, last night, a doctor said shells landed in the city and killed 10 people and wounded 20. The battle would be well and trully over when the shelling of the city totaly stops (artillery gets out of range). Also, one more question, would this be a Pyrrhic victory for the rebels given that both them and the population they were said to be protecting suffered 550-1,000 dead and up to 4,000 wounded? All reports suggest at least 35 percent of the dead or wounded were rebels. And it was implied there were 3,000-5,000 rebels in the city. That would than mean around 360 dead and 1,300 wounded out of that original rebel force. 30-50 percent of their force. And the deffinition of a pyrrhic victory is that it's a victory that comes at a great cost to the victor. I would call it a great cost. Plus their hometown was trully demolished. Also, don't start an article for Zliten until they actualy reach Zliten ok? :) EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No to "Pyrrhic", yes to "Decisive". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being shelled doesn't mean that there's still a battle. Ajdabiya is still being bombarded, for instance. I also agree with EkoGraf regarding 'victory.' Pyrrhic victory comes for a battle with *irreplaceable* costs. The eponymous battles of Pyrrhus resulted in the Romans taking twice as many casualties with him (roughly), but his casualties were irreplaceable while the Romans always had reserves. Hence why Stalingrad or Moscow, for instance, were not Pyrrhic victories. Seleucus (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise, no to "Pyrrhic", no to "Decisive", yes to just "Victory". Because this is not a definite victory. NATO itself said if loyalist managed to organise a counter-attack they would most likely retake a large chunk of territory lost, thus the recent gains are fragile. Plus, again, a large part of the city has been destroyed and 30-50 percent of the original rebel forces has been put out of action. So, in that case, no to decisive, no to pyrric, just victory. Also, that map from the new york times that emerged, it can be used to show the farthest point of advance by the loyalists during the battle since the current map would all be rebel-collored now. Someone should tell Raffy. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "decisive" if this victory lasts, though. See for example Battle of Stalingrad: Soviets had ~400,000 more casualties than the Axis, and the city was pretty much levelled, but it was still "decisive", not "pyrrhic". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive only if it lasts. EkoGraf (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest holding off on 'decisive' because at this point there's no way to judge (accurately) how decisive the battle is to the Libyan revolution. A decisive victory tends to change the character of the war, at least to some point, which we can't say for sure now.
My personal viewpoint is that this is a pretty solid victory. For one thing, the nature of urban warfare means that advances can never be rapid (consider that battles have been fought for 2 months over the same strip of territory.) It's plausible to see a government counterattack push the rebels back to Misrata (though I don't think it's likely at all), but regaining a foothold within the city would be extremely difficult. For another, time is definitely on the rebel side in that their casualties (as macabre as it may sound) are replaceable, whereas government casualties are not. Firstly, the elite government security brigades are being worn down in battle with little method of replacement (due to NATO interdiction of arms shipments), and replacing troops themselves is also difficult for the government side - most of their fervent loyalists are in arms already, so governmental conscripts would become increasingly unreliable (plus, flights of mercenaries from interior Africa to the base at Sabha cannot function due to NATO interdiction.) Secondly, as knowledge of the character of the civil war seeps out (conscripts are told that they're fighting foreign jihadists/crusaders), more and more conscripts would defect as revolts become more likely. And thirdly, NATO is constantly degrading the loyalist military strength. Plus, time gives the rebels a chance to train and equip their forces to relatively similar standards as the loyalists. The caliber of the loyalist forces is nowhere the same as it was a month ago.
I don't think that decisive victory will come in a week or two, but it becomes increasingly harder to see the situation in Libya as a stalemate. To accomplish that, Gaddafi would have to somehow contain Misurata and the Nafusa mountains once more, keep western Libya under control, while obtaining a reliable source of recruits to replenish his forces. None of those objectives seem within his reach right now. Seleucus (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it would be premature to label this as "decisive" – at least for now. But here is no denying the magnitude of the victory. Misrata is indeed called Libya's Stalingrad, and that with good reason. The fact that the "ragtag" rebels managed to withstand and beat back loyalists and elite troops from the Khamis and Hamza Brigades (with a "little" help from NATO, of course) is nothing short of "decisive", provided they can consolidate their gains. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't call it little help from NATO since the siege was broken solely because of NATO's destruction of some 50 tanks and several rocket launchers around the city. If it weren't for them the city would have most certainly fallen a month ago. So nothing remarkable about the victory, it could have been expected in fact. And on the point of comparison to Stalingrad...it will only be Libya's Stalingard (a decisive turnaround battle) IF the rebels use the current situation at the Misrata front and advance on Tripoli or just expand rebel-held territory in the west, otherwise.... EkoGraf (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "little", not little. I was being facetious; NATO was a huge factor. I disagree with your contention that there is "nothing remarkable about the victory"; it may seem like that to us behind our computer screens, but I can almost guarantee that if you are a rebel (or loyalist for that matter) who had been fighting in the city for months, this victory has immense significance. I agree: it will only be a Stalingrad if the gains can be held. But I think Seleucus has characterised the situation very accurately. Loyalists could in theory push the rebels back to the city, but they would not be able to regain any sort of control over the city. Gaddafi is bruised and bleeding on the ropes now. Even if the Misrata rebels don't get all the way to Tripoli, this will still be decisive provided they don't eff things up. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triopolitanian Coast Campaign?[edit]

http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/110/6027/original.jpg

This is the situation we are looking at as of Ma 15.

It looks as if the fighting has moved well out of Misrata and is now taking place South and West of the city.

Perhaps a Triopolitanian Coast Campaign or a Triopolitanian Plains Rebel Offensive page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.137.160 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to have a reputable news organization covering the fighting to do that. Thus far, there has been none such, and it's still unclear precisely what the situation is (one rebel claims that they won't advance on Zlitan; another rebel claims that they defeated Gaddafi's forces outside the city there already, etc.) Seleucus (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold of on the creation of the article because it's obvious the Benghazi rebels are saying a lot different things than the ones in Misrata. The Western rebels say they will not advance, and have not reported any advances west to Zlitan recently (only to the east), while the Eastern rebels say they will advance, and were the only ones reporting advances to Zlitan recently (morale boosting propaganda???). Hold of on it until the situation gets clearer. EkoGraf (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did say they reached outskirts of Zliten and than fortified their positions while they are advancing to Tawarga. However their ultimate goal is to secure vicinity of Misurata so loyalist artillery would be unable to reach city, it´s possible that they will fortify upon reaching the goal and wait for reinforcements so it´s premature to start that article until rebels won´t fight for another major city like Zliten. --89.173.16.218 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikitable inside an infobox?[edit]

Is there any way to insert this wikitable inside the infobox or the image description? The vertical lines seem to mess everything up.

12 March, The arrival of Khamis brigade.
30 March, After the initial Loyalist offensive.
17 April, Maximum Loyalists gains.
25 April, Rebels counter-offensive.
11 May, After the second battle for the Airport.

--Rafy talk 11:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From earlier tests, I think making an image larger than standard/thumb size breaks visibility of attached image description. Ugly solution is to add the table immediately _after_ the code for the image. Justification and size does not follow image, but visibility is retained. Anyone more tech-savvy than me can confirm this behaviour or add (please) solution?--Paracel63 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dafniya[edit]

From the sounds of things, the fighting around Al Dafniyah is incredibly intense, and amongst the bloodiest in some time. I would suggest the information about this particular engagement be broken off into its own article. ArcherMan86 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Attalah Obeidi killed during battle?[edit]

As far as I know, this commander was killed during the "Battle of the Misrata Frontline", which came after this. Why is he listed as KIA'd here? Jetpower45 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

I'd like to tone down or remove comparisons to Stalingrad and Konigsberg. Misrata was an important battle, but very different in scale and circumstance. I think the comparison actually comes off as a bit silly, and therefore somewhat demeaning to the people who were in Misrata.Tomseattle (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Misrata. 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 true or failed 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Misrata. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 February-5 April 2011: number of deaths[edit]

This academic paper affirms: "By late February 2011, the popular protests in Libya became widespread and prominent; in response, the Gaddafi regime escalated its brutal crackdown on protestors.24 One group of independent human rights activists, concerned by the increasing death toll, confirmed more 220 deaths by February 21.25 There were further incidents of violence, including allegations that Gaddafi forces used rape as a weapon of fear and intimidation.26 In response, the ICC began an investigation into these alleged crimes against humanity."

The place of death is not indicated and it may be the beginning of Misrata's riots. Those Parliamentary proceedings refers:"the people of Libya continue to suffer at the hands of Gaddafi’s troops. In Misrata, fighting continues. Although accurate information is hard to obtain, there are reports that up to 200 deaths have occurred in the past week and that hundreds more people have been injured. Access to Misrata remains difficult, but on Sunday a Turkish humanitarian ship, the MF Ankara, evacuated about 250 injured people from Misrata to the opposition-held city of Benghazi.".

The dates are different and probably are referred to two distinct events, and thus to the deaths of 400 civilians. Those deaths sum up with the death of 130 soldiers, sourced in First Libyan Civil War#violence.

But to cite the first source, it is needed to be acknowledged about the place of the execution. Maybe, someone will give his/her aid about this aspect. Regards, Theologian81sp

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Misrata_(2011)&oldid=1214000965"