Talk:Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road

Destroyed Helicopters

This should be cleaned up. The Reports are confusing and contradicting. Only McClatchy states that a helicopter was shot down on Saturday. The Libyan government claims that two Chinook helicopters were destroyed on Sunday, but they dont claim that a Hind was destroyed. Is there any other Source that reports a Hind (or any other heli) was downed on Saturday? 62.178.177.37 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing confusing or contradicting. Everything is properly sourced.
Source 6 - confirmed a Hind was spotted over Ajdabiya Saturday coming from Benghazi, only helicopter seen over Ajdabiya
Source 7 - confirmed by the rebels themselves they had a helicopter shot down on Saturday, only Hind seen during the day, so no confusion
Source 30 - confirmed by the rebels themselves they sent another two helicopters from Tobruk in the evening
Source 8 - claimed by government that they shot down two helicopters on Sunday, see source 30 (about two helicopters), again no confusion
The only attack helicopters the rebels have are Hinds, there are no other attack helicopters in the rebel arsenal. EkoGraf (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay: 1.) Shows a Hind over Ajdabiya on Saturday, thats right. The same source doesnt mention anything about the heli being destroyed. 2.) So, the rebels (primary source, dont forget that) are now credible? You said several times that we cannot trust the rebels. You're right about that. 3.) Thats right. 4.) Its a claim by the government (primary source), so scratch that. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I said the rebels cann't be trusted when claiming success for themselves or trying to downplay their losses, just like the government. However, this time they are admitting to have lost a helicopter. Isn't the logical thing to do in a propaganda war to deny you lost a helicopter, not confirm it? :) As far as for point 4, we noted that it is a government claim and not independently verified. EkoGraf (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first source that shows the Hind, which you say doesn't confirm the shot down, is hours before the news of the downing of the heli. The source is from about the time the Hind was seen. Also, pointing out once again, the only attack helicopters the rebels have of being able to attack ground targets are three Hinds. That's it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds logical, but you're missing my point (again): Anything you wrote about the Hind is a conclusion, okay? You're citing two sources: Source 1 reports that a helicopter was downed; Source 2 shows a picture of a Hind over the city. I dont say, that you're writing something wrong, but its doesnt right either. My proposal: We write that it was "possibly" or "very likely" a Hind. Your last point is simply wrong: The Rebels have Mi-2s that can be used as gunships. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Note that the first source is a blog. Its constantly updated. Point proven again. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Added another source confirming that the helicopter was shot down. Confirmation from the rebels themselves again. And they said it was "Russian-made". Only "Russian-made" helicopter seen that day was the Hind. Point proven again. :) EkoGraf (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are not willing (or able) to understand my point: There is still no confirmation that a Hind was shot down. Mi-2s are "Russian-made" too. Your new Source just says that a helicopter was shot down. I NEVER said, that this was wrong. But still, there is no source speaking of or showing a destroyed Hind on Saturday. So, you're wrong again. In fact, nothing has changed on that topic since yesterday. So, please stop editing this page. We had a good solution yesterday... 62.178.177.37 (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Just that something sounds logical does not mean its sourced! Contact an admin if you dont believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.177.37 (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Only one helicopter seen, and it was the Hind. EkoGraf (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to assume, that you know I'm right and you're just ignoring facts. I'm fed up on your stupid edits and you are clearly not willing to cooperate with others or pay attention to my words. Last change now, next time I have to report you to an admin. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I'll try it one last time: You can write that 2 chinooks were shot down, because even it is only a claim, it is explicitly stated, that helis of the Chinook type were shot down. No, absolutly no source reports or shows a downed Hind, so you cant write it, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.177.37 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting the source [1] Rebels said government forces shot down a Russian-made helicopter sent to the fight by revolutionaries only two days before. Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. Also, you clearly violated the civility rule by calling me stupid. For removal of sourced information, 6 cancelations of my edit and insulting a fellow editor you have been reported. EkoGraf (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you still dont understand it. For the personal stuff, please refer to my talkpage. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing

Just made an edit to the article and looked at history, seen I've joined in an edit war. Two things, firstly....that was the first edit I've ever made to this article (or any of the 'battle' articles I think), secondly....stop the edit war. In a dispute like this, you go with the sources....all sources have this as an ongoing conflict, the ceasefire idea was thrown out. It is ridiculous that people have been arguing over this.92.21.195.147 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the use of obvious sockpuppets to revert my edits. 92.21.195.147 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You have certainly made your point by not signing in and accusing a long-term contributor on top of that. This article is about a specific BATTLE, it is NOT about the whole coastal campaign. Several sources have confirm the fighting is, for several days, sporadically continuing in the desert halfway to Brega. Thus the second battle for the town is over..Ihosama (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not signing in to my account which I totally have...not like I've been an IP editor for ~5 years, and 'long term' as in one editor who only became active to edit islamic conflicts and another editor whose only contributions of any kind have been to join in with a vote with the first editor and join in with an edit war with the first editor, signing up just after the first editor was warned about 3RR in his frequent edit wars. It is a ridiculously obvious sock, you should look into such things before commenting rather than making a fool of yourself by assuming the username is innocent and the IP is troll. 92.21.195.147 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You make your own image. But do not expect people to give you respect for boldly attacking anyone you do not agree with. BTW, first contribution for User:92.21.195.147 was on 12:52, 13 April 2011. Yes, I checked before replying yesterday.Ihosama (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop fighting, assume good faith and talk about the article, stop making personal attacks on each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.61.64 (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Frontline

On a more constructive issue...the rebels say the fighting is 40km east of brega....isn't that closer to ajdab than brega? They want a positive spin ofc, but point being....people've been putting notes saying this or that hasn't been confirmed, neither Gad or rebels are reliable....we could probably do with a coeopnsistent ad hoc policy towards either always putting such a note for non 3rd party claims, or always just leaving it as 'Gadd/rebels said "blah"'

Just seen on the timeline rebels saying the position is '40km west of Ajdab', so probably looking at rebel checkpoint at the 3-roads t-junction thing half way between. 92.21.195.147 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

End of battle?

There is nothing going on for a few days and there have been no confrontations between the rebels and Gaddafi's forces. --93.139.234.192 (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing's happened for over a week. 140.247.144.207 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. No fighting for three weeks now. EkoGraf (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What will we put as the ending date? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose April 18, that's when after the fighting on April 17, rebels advanced from Ajdabiya and set up the frontline at the gas station midway between Brega and Ajdabiya. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

According to various media (BBC, Al Jazeera, and I'm sure others), there has been fighting between the two towns within the last few days. Mainly hit-and-run by the ground forces (anti and pro Gaddafi), but nevertheless fighting. Additionally, the Nato airstrikes are a part of the battle. Note that stalemate does not equal end of battle. As far as I can see, this basically leaves us with two options:

* 1) Fighting after April 18 (incl. fighting the last few days) is part of this battle, i.e. it is ongoing.

* 2) The Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road stopped on April 18, as proposed in the above. In this case, a new page (2nd Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road or whatever people want to call it) should be started, which would include fighting after April 18; essentially a large part of the info presently in the New stalemate section: Claimed Nato airstrikes on 23 April, shelling of al-Faluja by pro-Gaddafi forces on 23 April, Nato airstrike on Mareer Qabes on 24 April, fights on 9 May.

At present the article follows the first option in the above (only because that is the simplest solution), but I do not have a strong opinion on this matter and invite people to split it if they prefer that solution. However, saying the battle ended on April 18 and then having a section that describes a whole range of battle-related incidents that happened after that date isn't a good solution. 62.107.192.166 (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's use two-battles option. --93.139.164.107 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also for option number 2. Create an article for a second battle, because in essence between April 18 and May 6, for three weeks there was no real fighting on the front except for an occasional shell landing here or there. So in essence that battle ended on April 18, and it ended in a stalemate where neather side could claim victory. This right now is a totaly new thing. EkoGraf (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really very new at all. These sporadic, inconclusive scuffles haven't amounted to anything worthy of being called a new and separate "battle". It's the exact same on-and-off fighting and shelling on the exact same stretch of road as before. This article as it stands is an umbrella article for a bunch of skirmishes along the highway and the Ajdabiya raid. Anyway, word on the street is that the rebels have some new assault on Brega in the works. That will undoubtedly be a separate and cohesive battle. These clashes are not. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Phase one and phase two than? EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds fine to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is anything – verifiable – happening on the Brega-Ajdabiya front-line (since 17 of June)? The word stalemate now seems more appropriate than ever, and the word battle much less so. There's a lot of talk on Twitter, though, of NATO bombing a resupply column of 150-200 vehicles near Brega, of opposition reconnaissance seeing Qaddafi troops involved in infighting, and other conflicting things.--Paracel63 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Twiter has been in the past highly unreliable. EkoGraf (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. But as other/reliable sources seem to have said zilch on the issue for over a week…--Paracel63 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sleeper cells?

AJE recently put out this video, which talks about attacks made on clinics and checkpoints by Gaddafi loyalists trapped in the city. I am not quite sure of the date, so I don't know if this is an indication of continued fighting or not. Should this be included? If so, how? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Brega events

This was the reason for reverse of my sourced edit: Press TV is not a reliable source by any standards. Except for Press TV not one reliable source has confirmed the capture of Brega, In fact, all of the others state the attack has failed per the rebels themselves
1, Per what WP:RS standart is Press TV considered to be unreliable?
2, This is what was reported
Abdel-Hamid Badein, a rebel fighter, said the rebels had to withdraw to their previous positions after they were repulsed. [2]
“There is fighting taking place to the north (of the main road between Ajdabiya and Brega) and the south and the middle,” said spokesman Mohammed Zawi.

“We are making good progress in the north. The fighters there can see Brega. We are within sight of Brega,” Mr. Zawi said.

Radio chatter from Colonel Qaddafi’s forces showed them asking for reinforcements and for people to come and collect the dead and wounded in the north.

Mr. Zawi said rebel troops were also making “solid progress” in the south.[3]
the rebels Friday stepped up an offensive on the oil town of Brega, hoping to dislodge loyalist troops and win a strategic victory[4]

Yet somehow we came to conclusion that fighting is over although all sources states repulsion of attack on Brega city itself and direct continuation of battle on other fronts. Also no one had any problems with ridicolious claim about Sudanese army capturing Kufra despite that no other source stated that and suddenly its a problem alghough my edit clearly states that it is just and only Press TV report, not a fact. As for RS issue I moved it here WP:RS/N#Battle_of_Brega.E2.80.93Ajdabiya_road. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As an extension to the above, I have modified the infobox; removed the sentence "Temporary Anti-Gaddafi Victory" and changed "Rebels [....] seize the city" to "Rebels [...] entered Brega". There seem to be a lot of second-hand info (twitter and alike) suggesting that Brega (btw, not a city by any normal definition) has been taken by anti-G. forces and it seems relatively clear what way it is heading, but we really need reliable sources that confirm it before it can be added. Until then, we'll have to do with the rather vague "entered Brega" and "ongoing fighting", which is supported by ref's (very last sentence in article + its refs). 62.107.209.235 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebel victory?

The fighting has moved to Brega and rebels now control the Brega–Ajdabiya road, so does this mean that they have won this battle (of Brega–Ajdabiya road), at least temporarily? --93.140.136.27 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. That depends on where you put the border; battles always are a limited amount of time. Since Fourth Battle of Brega has now been started, the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road presumably represents the period before the Fourth Battle of Brega. As such, the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road was a stalemate since the two parts were locked in place for an extended period with no real movement. Only when the new battle, the Fourth Battle of Brega was started, did the position change (or at least in appears that way right now). Please remember that battles do not always represent the final word on the matter since other battles often follow, i.e. just because Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road was a stalemate does not mean the region ended up divided between the two. Comparably, Germany clearly won the Battle of France in 1940, but in later battles they lost France (and eventually WW2, of course). 62.107.209.235 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820045547/http://liveword.ca/libya/2011/04/26/4857/ to http://liveword.ca/libya/2011/04/26/4857/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413172548/http://www.businessweek.com:80/ap/financialnews/D9MGA5G00.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MGA5G00.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18086179?source%3Drss
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libyan-Government-Claims-18-Civilians-Killed-In-Nato-Attack-In-Libyan-Town-Of-Brega/Article/201105215991597?f=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923201001/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/misrata-fighting-rages-on-despite-tripoli-vow/437209 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/misrata-fighting-rages-on-despite-tripoli-vow/437209
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413172548/http://www.businessweek.com:80/ap/financialnews/D9MGA5G00.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MGA5G00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411103752/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-11 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005142649/http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/resources/24/Daily%20OUP%20update%20July/OUP%20Daily%20OMU_%2004July2011.pdf to http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/resources/24/Daily%20OUP%20update%20July/OUP%20Daily%20OMU_%2004July2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813060413/http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int:80/resources/24/Daily%20OUP%20update%20July/OUP%20Daily%20OMU_%2007July2011.pdf to http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/resources/24/Daily%20OUP%20update%20July/OUP%20Daily%20OMU_%2007July2011.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wfmj.com/story/15086449/libyan-rebels-fall-back-after-failed-advance

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: 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MGA5G00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422104040/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-22 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-22
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MGA5G00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511110434/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-0 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511110434/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-0 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/resources/24/Daily%20OUP%20update%20July/OUP%20Daily%20OMU_%2007July2011.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43766539/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026064637/http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/world-news?oid=210477&sn=Detail&pid=333&Libya-rebel-advance-slowed-by--chemical--trenches to http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/world-news?oid=210477&sn=Detail&pid=333&Libya-rebel-advance-slowed-by--chemical--trenches
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110720/libya-rebels-killed-brega-government-forces-moammar-gadhafi-110720/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412104452/http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110809-0000286/Libya-rebels-dissolve-executive-committee to http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110809-0000286/Libya-rebels-dissolve-executive-committee

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609143405/http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110416-0000871/Libyan-rebels-say-theyve-reached-oil-town-again to http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110416-0000871/Libyan-rebels-say-theyve-reached-oil-town-again
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609143405/http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110416-0000871/Libyan-rebels-say-theyve-reached-oil-town-again to http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110416-0000871/Libyan-rebels-say-theyve-reached-oil-town-again

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)