Battle of Locust Grove

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Renaming

Why on Earth was this renamed? This should be removed and changed back to "Operation El Dorado Canyon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp1187 (talk • contribs)

Although I didn't do the moving - probably because operation names are bad titles for articles related to military actions - since there are two sides involved. To title the article as the name of the operation would show some bias to one side or the other. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#PC_event_titles_-_.22conflict.22_instead_of_.22War.22 Megapixie 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the article should cover the entire history of US-Libyan interactions, including terrorist attacks supported by Libya, air battles over Gulf of Sidra in 1981, etc. The article does NOT do this and refers specifically to Operation El Dorado Canyon. Jkp1187 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further point -- this means that a series of military operations will now be subject to odd names. Should Operation Entebbe be renamed: "Israeli rescue of hostages taken by Palestinians aided and abetted by Idi Amin]]? I am changing this back to El Dorado Canyon. If nothing else, it is a bit high-handed to change the name of this article without any discussion whatsoever. Jkp1187 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please do not re-name this article again without any discussion. Jkp1187 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truly an oddly named article...Operation Eldorado Canyon would make more sense as it would be specific to the content of this article. It is hard to believe that Libya has never been bombed on any other occasions, e.g., during World War II for example. Not to mention practice bombings by USAFE aircraft when Wheelus was in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Both sides here have valid points. The code name carries bias, and the changed name was way too ambiguous. The title of the article now reads "1986 Bombing of Libya".
(That title was selected over: "Reagan's Remodeling of Wheelus Airbase".)--Vybr8 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion on WP:MILTHIST I have reverted back to the original title and added a hat note to the article. There are only two other bombings, one in World War II and a French air raid (which was also in 1986), and those are linked at the top of the article right now. hbdragon88 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Tfine80 asks for chapter and verse on the Queen's view of Operation El Dorado Canyon. The Sunday Times has been cited—admittedly, no date or page number. But none of the other assertions in this "aftermath" section is properly cited either: why, therefore, make an example of this one?Phase1 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why did the Queen call the PM "uncaring"? Need more elaboration here for those of us who weren't aware of the controversy in the UK back in the day.

Do we have any sources that state Ghadiffi was a target?

I had family that was on a couple of the US 6th Fleet staffs and out to sea when this went down. They recieved the orders from the Pentagon. They don't remember seeing anything about Ghaddafi being a target. Let alone the fact that by EO 12333 assissnation of a foregin leader is forbidden. So the question in my mind is do we have any primary source material that states the US Government gave the go ahead to assissnate Ghadiffi?Southernap 09:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is pretty clear that he was the target. His house in Tripoli was bombed (though he wasn't in it at the time) and members of his family were injured. The 20th anniversary concert – held in front of his bombed-out house – is testimony to that. See Libya concert marks US bomb raids.Phase4 11:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)~That doesn't seem to answer my question. Because as I read US Law, it would of been against the law for President Reagan to order the hit againt Ghadiffi. Second of all, from some news segements I remember seeing talking about Ghadiffi, he lived just like most other Arabic rulers in the Mid-East. In that they have mulitple houses all over the place and the rest of the inner circle doesn't know where they are going to stop until they stop for the night. This article here A USAF magazine article mentions how one of the homes was located inside a military barracks in Tripoli. Yet everything else I run across mentions the target was the Azzizy barracks and that was where one of his homes was. I can't seem to find one primary source that states the President gave the order. Even skimming former Sec of State Shultz's autobiography, he states that the National Security Council thought of it. However, it was dismissed because of the international relations fiasco if it happened and there was no guarentee that he was going to be there. So my question remains is there hard primary source evidence that Ghadiffi was a target that night?


The answer to your question, Southernap, might be available under the US Freedom of Information Act. You could try the following website:[1].Phase4 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is easy to explain. EO-12333 is an Executive Order - that means it is a directive given to the military and federal employees by the President of the United States. As President, Reagan was free to make an exception to this Order if he wanted to. However, he did not need to. Ghadaffi was not just a leader of a nation, he was the military commander of Libya as well. This would make him a valid target under the direction of EO-12333.
Your article link is dead, but it is not a "USAF magazine article". The Air Force Association is private and non-profit. Its views, editorial and otherwise, are its own. It has no sanctioning from the US Government or any part of it.--Buckboard 15:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not target foreign heads of state. But sometimes bombs may miss their intended target and hit his house. We also do not target foreign embassies although sometimes a cluster bomb may fall off the bomb rack while the aircraft are doing violent evasive manuvers to avoid AAA fire. This can sometimes occur even if the aircraft attains complete surprise of the enemy by its use of terrain following radar and uses lazer guided bombs.

Reaction in American Popular Media

Should we add a section that contains the following, or similar info, to the article?

The comedian Sam Kinison had some funny (and disturbing) comments on the bombing.
Kinison: "That was too f***ing cool! American bombers going in there going, 'WHERE'S THE BABY'S ROOM?' BLAM!!!"
"'Where do keep the little girl?' (ballistic whistling) BLAM!!!"

If the Kinison comments are added it should done in a tasteful manner.

69.39.172.48 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of troll work there, 69.39.172.48! And what about those hilarious car stickers that were so popular in 1986:
Libya
I'm
Bombing
Yer
Ass ?
Phase4 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Hi, you might want to include some information on the weapons Libya proceeded to ship to the PIRA after the attack Provisional IRA arms importation has a good write up on it which ive just added too Fluffy999 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Fluffy999, please set out below what you have in mind.Phase4 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the arms shipments to the PIRA were as a direct result of Operation El Dorado canyon. Anyway, details to give would probably detail in a paragraph what al-Qaddafi shipped, when, and what the PIRA used them for- there was a lot of ordnance- enough for 3 infantry battalions. Also there is currently a court action launched in USA by the victims suing al-Qaddafi for shipping the arms, so it might become news there? His aim was to strike at the british.
There might be other paramilitary groups he shipped arms too as well- ones that would strike at american targets? Not sure- probably worth investigating. Anyway just thought i would mention it. Fluffy999 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you have links, sources and evidence for these assertions?Phase4 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just brought the article to your attention, check the citations. I think you misunderstood though- I wont be adding to the article. Some details in the aftermath section of this article (considering it has one) on the massive export of heavy weaponry and explosives al-Qaddafi made in retaliation to the airstrike might be in order however. Up to whoever is looking after the article. Fluffy999 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I've included a reference to the significantly increased PIRA arms shipments under the heading Retaliation.Phase4 11:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, I did have a google around and found some other things that might be relevant to this article:

  1. "Between 1975 and 1981, the government of Czechoslovakia exported nearly 700 tons of Semtex to the Libyan Arab Republic" See here and
  2. an Israeli report about an increase in terrorism sponsored by Gaddafi immediately after Operation El Dorado, See here - describes his aid to groups attacking American citizens in response to the Operation. Fluffy999 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "war on terrorism" reference is accurate or appropriate as written. Backwards-applying a term like that is never ideal, and in this case is a total misnomer. US-Libyan history of that period is overwhelmingly affected by the Cold War and Libya's status as a USSR client state- any use of the word terrorism from that period is of a secondary nature compared to current uses of that word and phrase, specifically against trans-national, non nation-state actors. So in summary I ask for a re-phrase.208.100.144.202 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming 2

Hey, move it back! [2]!!!! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the points I listed earlier prior to any further attempts at moving. Jkp1187 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From military history wikiproject: [3] Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). So US- POV name. Wikipedia means WP:NPOV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I forgot, Operation Entebbe was the name given by the world press to the incident. The Israelis gave the name Operation Thunderbolt, so it's worldwide POV and not Israeli as El Dorado Canyon is US-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Except that the title "United States Bombing of Libya" tends to 'other-ize' the United States, and implies that it is doing SOMETHING to Libya, without reference to Libyan actions. We can go round and round about this, but I am going to continue to move this back to El Dorado Canyon unless and until other participants offer their views on renaming this subject. Jkp1187 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, "Operation El Dorado Canyon" pulls up 12,500 hits on Google, "United States Bombing of Libya", 110.

Also: the Wikipedia guidlines cited above do not state that operational titles CANNOT be used for article titles, merely that others should be considered. Jkp1187 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that you have been already been reverted by an administrator and your actions are considered vandalism. Watch out for possible penalties. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did not realize that you spoke for the administrators. As pointed out above, initial changes (i.e., vandalism) were carried out by TheFEARgod. Are you able to address above points? Jkp1187 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we call Iraq War - Operation Iraqi Freedom....? This is also a war by itself. See also: NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO campaign against the Army of Republika Srpska--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I remember the (UK) reporting of this bombing very clearly - it was one of the most notable and oft-cited appearances of the famous BBC reporter Kate Adie. To me, and I suspect to the vast majority of the UK, the phrase "Bombing of Libya" would evoke memories of this event, whilst until I read this page just now I'd've had absolutely no idea what "Operation El Dorado Canyon" referenced. 195.58.94.172 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation factual error

In the text on Retaliation it states that: "Alec Collett and Leigh Douglas, along with an American named Philip Padfield were hanged in revenge."

This is not quite true. All three of the men were British. Philp Padfield is a distant relative of mine. His father and my mother were first cousins and I met him in the early 1960's on his family's farm in the small village of Luckington, Wiltshire, UK. Leigh Douglas and Philip Padfield were in fact kidknapped together, shot dead and left on a roadside outside Beirut. Alec Collett was hanged in a separate incident.

This information can be verified for accuracy at other websites including the BBC. It may be better to state simply that three British men were murdered in retaliation.

I hope that someone may find time to correct the report. I have no wish currently to become an editor.

Robert Hellier, London, UK

Cable transcripts

Were those cable transcripts ever released? I don't understand why they have been kept secret for over twenty years unless they give away a secret method to obtain them. Richard Cane 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing called 'conclusion' of reciprocal actions The article states "The bombing raid was the conclusion of a period of escalating reciprocal actions by the United States and Libya."

How can this possibly be considered the conclusion of reciprocal action given the subsequent downing of Pan Am 103, discussed further down the article under the headline "Retaliation?" Would it not be more accurate to state that it was an element of the reciprocal action, not the conclusion of it? The article currently gives the false impression that the US strike brought an end to the conflict, which it most certainly did not.

Retaliation:

The Libyan Government formally accepted responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing on May 29, 2002, and offered $2.7 billion to compensate the families of the 270 victims.

This is writen here, i just want people to know that i find this fact obscene. Just think all the millions of civilians killed by Americans in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, all the pseudo-covert ops in Central and South-Americas so on. When the fuck is the goverment the USA going to pay survivors and families of these incidents, and one more thing, with pricing like this, they wouldnt get a way with just few billions of dollars but would have to pay billions of billions dollars, alone in Iraq and Afganistan hundreds of thousands of civilians (and other people who didnt have to die had it not been for american aggressions, friend and foe alike) have lost their lifes because american actions.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this unfortunately typical bit of revisionist history on the still largely anglo-american -centric Wikipedia cannot stand as-is, and must be changed at some point to reflect an objective worldview. While Wikipedia may now have more than its fair share of partisans of the U.S. & british governments here, the fact remains that it is the U.S. which is certainly the #1 source of terrorism and destabilization on the planet, by far. However, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and can only get better -- if it remains free of this sort of jingoistic propaganda/censorship.
Wikipedia must not try to emulate Fox News, or the Wall St. Journal, or The Sun (pick one) or The Times (pick one).
Pazouzou (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Action:

Perhaps an article should be created and added to the templete box concerning the march 1986 incident where the united states 6th fleet engaged and destroyed several libyan gunboats as well as bombed a radar station? XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have most of the Naval and Air Force information regarding the Naval Supression Attach before the U.S. Air Force came in to lay down their 500lb, 1000lb and 2,000 lb pound lazer guided pave track bombs by the F-111's and the politics that were involved in the U.S. Air force being involved and the Navy's reluctance to have the. U.S. Airforce involved at all and their involvement went right to the highest levels of the Whitehouse and congress push for this to happen and this is how the airforce came up with a plan calle Operation El Dorado Canyon and was conceptualizer because the U.S. Airforce did not want to be left out of this operation because of funding purposes because at that time the Navy was getting all the funding and glory hence the U.S. Air Force felt left out and wanted more recognition for future funding by the DOD among other rivalry situations beteween the Air Force and the Navy.thank you for your ear and your patience Qui Tam Relator (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN General Assembly Discrepancy

The part about the UN declaration about the indicent says that the attempt to do so went on between 1994 and 2006, but ended in 2005. Er? The linked source provided isn't any use. I couldn't find any sources for this besides what's on wikipedia.

Agamemnus (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"many nations condemned the attack"

The statement that merely "many nations" condemned the attack is misleading. The attack was condemned by the United Nations General Assembly as resolution 41/38 demonstrates, the Non-Aligned Movement, and virtually every country in Asia and Africa. It is necessary to incorporate the viewpoints of these sides in order to accurately reflect the international response to this incident. Nierva (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually no country outside the Middle east condemned the attack, a lot of countries criticized it but that is far from the same thing. --85.220.75.26 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan casualties

The boxed summary on the article page says 15 Libyans were killed. But Colonel Venkus' book quotes sources in the 35-40 range. Just FWIW.

B Tillman Jan 26 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the usually reliable (and impartial!) BBC, the number of Libyan casualties exceeded 100 (see [4]).---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"shot down" ist incorrect as the planes were not airborne but were destroyed on the ground. this should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.7.113 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the U.S. Down played the smountbof civiliams that ere killed and injured because of the technically poor performsce of the raid. The newspapers were told to down play the damage around the French ambassey and the damage that was done to several other embassies done by missile fire from the U.S. Navy and because of the among of AAA from the untouched Libyan surface to air batteries and their radar sites due to the HARMS Misdiles por performance during the beginning of the raid to knock out all the SAM Site Radar Installations to pave the way for the U.S. Force to bomb key targets., Thank you for you eat and your patienceQui Tam Relator (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation of warning

Do you think the paragraph about Dr. Merriman should be there at all or not? Doesn't sound that credible to me but well, removing it should take some consultation. Argymeg (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Adopted"

It is said that Hanna was adopted by Qadhdhafi. I was wondering if there is any proof of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan losses

How come it says thats its alleged that 40 people died in Libya, when according to the Infobox, 15 civilians died/. Does this mean that 25 of the Libyan deaths were military?

Reenem

Al lies a cover story for the botched Bombing raid and the poor performance of the HARM Missile, watch 60 Minutes segment Oct. 1989 a YouTube source "In HARM's Way with Mike Wallace. There were a couple of hundred civilians killed and injured from Errant HARM Missiles. Thank you for your ear and your pstienceQui Tam Relator (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overflight Rights Denied?

EA 6's landed at Sigonella from the states in support of this mission. Was there..... Gaddafi had sent a message out to the 6th Fleet stating "Stop your aggression or face total destruction" or words to that effect. I still have a copy of that msg somewhere received by the Italian Command at Sigonella.

In regards to the scuds fired at Lampedusa in retaliation they didn't fall short but went over the base and fell in the bay. HC-4 from Sigonella evacuated all coast guard/civilian personnel from the base and brought them to Sigonella.

Was an interesting tour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.227.206 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Response section

The section titled "International response" makes some very strong, seemingly POV assertions with no citations at all for said assertions. They either need to be rewritten or thoroughly sourced.

Missile

Do we know which type of missile shot down the F-111? Drutt (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were shot down by a soviet or French made SA6 surface to air missile that were new to the Libyan arsenal and at that time there were soviet technicians teaching the libiyans how to set them up and use them I've got plenty of info regarding that and the web also talks about this info. Thank you for your eat and your pstienceQui Tam Relator (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also there were German made surface to air missiles that were state of the art at that time and were helping the russians were helping them with the technology and the building of the SAM middle sites and radar installations.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Crews, One F-111?

This article states: "2 aircrews killed, 1 F-111 shot down." This is a neat trick - did one a/c return to the UK or a carrier without a crew? Maybe, some wikiot meant "2 aircrewmen killed" actually 1 F-111 never returned to base or called "wet feet". There is no evidence it was shot down. The same crew is still listed MIA. I need to find references though.

Silver Stars

Hello to the editors and thank you for making Wikipedia a worldwide reliable source on the internet, does anyone know if the two Air Force Captains that were killed got Their Silver Stars yet? Qui Tam Relator (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci and Paul F. Lorence be up for the Silver Star? Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they earned them, I know something about the two gentleman that not to may people know, I believe I may have had a hand indirectly to their deaths in 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you know so much about them then your first comment was trolling. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are correct trolling for the truth and wanting to know why these two pilots never got the Silver Stars they deserved. There is a story behind my motives for asking this question. Do you know why they never got the Silver Stars Sir ?Qui Tam Relator (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am only interested in published, reliable, verifiable sources about the two aviators. I do not wish to discuss unpublished assertions. This talk page is for improvement of the article, and the article cannot use unpublished material. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are breifly mentioned in Colonel Robert E. Venkus book "Raid On Qaddaffi" ISBN # 10: 03129299986. Venkus says they were shot down by a Libyian SAM Missile. There is a story even behind the Venkus book that you may not be aware of at this time and encourage you to look deeper into this situation regarding why Capt. Dominicci and Capt. Lorence deserve the Silver Stars. Thank you for your ear and patience.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also another good source of reference is http://rolandgibeault.googlepages.comQui Tam Relator (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone

Well I guess it depends on what side of the your on. "Operation El Dorado Canyon" is standing on the technical tactical side of the fense, The April 15,1986 Libya Bombing Raid is if your on the civilian side of the fense as memory date affixed to a thought or event. They equally have weight and validity and historical value. Of course I happen to know alittle bit about this subject matter so I have to exclude myself from giving any biased opinions even as true as they may be. My humble opinion is that Operation El Dorado Canyon be separate from Clarks Complaint. If anyone would bother to read Clarks complaint in 1986 I have to say it's one of his best written and formed complaint he ever wrote. There is a real complaint on the Internet you can read in it's entireity from the desk if Ramsey Clark given to me by his law clerk Jackson. Type into google. Thank you for your ear and patienceQui Tam Relator (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more talk on the trial of the La Belle Disco Bombing.

There are many articles on the Internet about the trial regarding those involved in that bombing and the trial in Germany and I don't see any information regarding this issue as contraversal as this subject matter may be non the less it's important history.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more talk on the trial of the La Belle Disco Bombing.

There are many articles on the Internet about the trial regarding those involved in that bombing and the trial in Germany and I don't see any information regarding this issue as contraversal as this subject matter may be non the less it's important history.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter Killed?

Hard to say if this is 'true' or not.

Gaddafi is a chronic liar addicted to propaganda so it may well be an outright lie.

On the other hand it may be just a figure of speach. e.g. 'my daughter in the revolution' might perhaps apply to any woman or girl who was killed, or indeed to any living Libyan woman. This week (march 2011) Gaddafi called President Obama his 'brother' so, given that Arabic is prone to flowery language, it may just be that English speakers unwisely take what is really a figure of speach as literal fact.

Translating Arabic into English may pose lots of similar problems and thus lead directly to many misunderstandings - some of which our own western governments and media may in turn use as propaganda. Mistranslation of the enemy's words is commonplace in every conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.18.203 (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article title

Clearly, after the recent events, the title "bombing of Libya" and similar is untenable. But, as I was going through references to disambiguate, I saw most references still using the phrase. 1986 bombing of Libya sounds like a more appropriate compromise than the operation codename. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, the Ouadi Doum air raid was also a 1986 bombing of Libyan territory... but perhaps there is no actual ambiguity, because I couldn't find any ambiguous references in that matter. The incoming redirects now mostly paint a proper picture. Sadly there's still no trivial ready-made way to count parts of Special:Whatlinkshere/Operation El Dorado Canyon output, but it's clear both sets of names are commonly used. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just call it Operation El Dorado Canyon. That's the official code name of the operation. Compare with articles on Operation Texas Star, Operation Anaconda, Operation Earnest Will, etc. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole naming of things isn't very clear. Those operations are titled by the code name, but for example, we have Gulf War instead of Operation Desert Storm (although that's because there are probably a dozen names for the various operations), and Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998) instead of Operation Infinite Reach. The latter title, especially, seems incredibly awkward and overly precise. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25th Anniversary

I can't wait to see how we commemorate the 25th Anniversary this year... Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea, assign both names to the article "1986 Bombing Raid On Libya / Operation El Dorado Canyon " or "Operation El Dorado Canyon / 1986 Bombing Raid On Libya" either way it makes everyone happy and it uses both name allowing everyone looking at Wikipedia to see the article in both forms, date of the incident and military code name.Qui Tam Relator 15:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Congressional Consultation Photo

The photo accompanying the article states that President Reagan is consulting with bipartisan Congressional leadership regarding the strike, but gives the date of the photo as March 14, 1986. The strike was in retaliation for the Berlin discotheque bombing of April 5, 1986, and the strike was presumably not considered before that. Ergo, the date of March 14 is wrong (perhaps it is April 14?), or the meeting was about something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.mcgeer (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F-111 Photo

The photo showing the F-111 taking off is labeled as "taking part in the bombing". This is false. I was there. The planes that took off were loaded down with blue bombs, and fuel tanks. The F-111 in the photo has no bombs on the wings. It is clearly taking off on a standard training mission. I request that the wording be changed.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.172.221 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Edit

The changes have been made after verifying the given sources, for most of the changes, some unverified book has been given which has no other source, for the line "The Libyan government was alleged to have ordered the hijacking of Pan...in a generation"'s source is not working and it's misleading since only this page contains such claim. The other line where it's written "The attack was condemned by many countries.." the citation has been already given in the end of the paragraph. So i think my changes should remain.Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAYWALL regarding the source, it's not required to be free. You're welcome to take the reliability of the book to WP:RSN, it seems reliable enough to me. 2 lines of K303 14:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since there's no book seems to be including such information, and if there is, then there's only one source and it is this book only, in other subjects and articles the facts are added by the sense "according to the book :..........." so there's no such thing added in whole article either. Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This unreliable/made up source has been already disputed in the main page of Gaddafi, i don't think any more explanations are needed, anyone will come and add some made up/unreliable sources then you will treat them as facts? I don't think it should be done.Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN is over there. 2 lines of K303 15:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

It is very unclear what the true outcome was. Was killing Gaddafi our main intention? Would you consider this an American victory or a Libyan Victory? Please reply as soon as possible. The result has been causing controversies on articles that list this particular operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseConsider (talk • contribs)

The US succeeded in retaliating for the discotheque bombing by destroying huge parts of Libya's military infrastructure and terrorist facilities in Libya. Killing Gaddafi was not really one of the goals but it was a retaliatory strike by the US against Libya for their role in the terrorist attack. Also if the US actually wanted to kill Gaddafi they wouldn't have dropped only one bomb on his compound and left the rest standing, they would have leveled it. There is no real evidence to support the assertion that killing Gaddafi was the intention. - SantiLak (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseConsider (talk • contribs)
@PleaseConsider: Now removed. Clearly no identification of victory or defeat in any of the reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for 'Libyan air defenses'

I am not a frequent contributer to wikipedia but by accident I stumbled over a piece of evidence that might improve the 'Libyan air defenses'-section of the article, which is flagged as 'in need of citations'. I hope that the following paragraphs are no redundant information and that it might help someone to improve the article, otherwise I am sorry.

The numbers seem to match this account of a soviet airforce Marshall, who investigated the incidence for the soviet side (a synopsis of this analysis for the east german Ministry for State Security (in german) as well as an english translation are available from the parallel history project): http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=16231&navinfo=15709

There are some other interesting aspects like the suspected use of drones as well as Bullpup MCLOS by the US. Furthermore, the HARM is deemed ineffective and finally it is stated that 10 US planes were destroyed. The anaylsis also includes reasons for the malfunctioning of the lybian AA-network.

To sum up, not all information from this source seems to be reliable but -- with the events unfolding during Cold War -- the report adds a further perspective, which -- given that all other sources are 'US-affiliated' -- might improve the article. 129.70.85.122 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: SR-71 overflight for bomb damage assessment after the strike

The U.S. sent in an SR-71 to do bomb damage assessments after the strike. The crew said that they saw the outbound F-111s over the Med on their inward track --- and noticed the missing F-111 in the formation. They crossed Qaddafi's "Line of Death" at over 2,000 mph, collected the intelligence they were seeking then headed for home, outrunning 3 missiles on the way out. That's a story in itself. Rosattin (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F-111 shot down

There are two issues with the reference to the F-111 being shot down. Firstly "An autopsy conducted in Spain confirmed that he had drowned after his plane was shot down over the Gulf of Sidra" is inherently false. An autopsy can only confirm that someone drowned, not that "his plane was shot down over the Gulf of Sidra". Secondly, "Libya denies that it held Lorence's body". The statement "However, Lorence's brother said that he and his mother saw television footage of a Libyan holding a white helmet with the name "Lorence"" implies that this is false. However Lorence's helmet may have been recovered - that did not mean that his body had been as well.101.98.74.13 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Child killed

According to this email: Qaddafi is quite concerned about the security of his family, telling one senior official that he never recovered from the death of one of his children during the U.S. bombing of Tripoli in April 1986, in retaliation for an ESO attack on US military personnel at a nightclub in Berlin.) Surely there must be other sources on this, unless it was kept hidden? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this was Hanna Gaddafi.Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gaddafi never had an adopted daughter. (81.159.7.121 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1986 United States bombing of Libya. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1986 United States bombing of Libya. 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) 04:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

The French decision to deny overflight rights set off a fairly major wave of anti-French sentiment in the United States in 1986, with various protests etc... See [5] etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1986 United States bombing of Libya. 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) 00:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1986 United States bombing of Libya. 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) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rerouting in doubt

The rerouting away from France has been negated by some sources, I may offer some references to that in the near future. --Zaleski (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1986 United States bombing of Libya. 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) 19:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how someone in India who wasn’t there deletes info and seems to be the topic expert and judge

You weren’t there 68.4.238.77 (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Military victory?

Should be changed to 'Both sides claim victory' as Libya also claimed victory based on the fact that Qaddafi's compound was bombed, yet he survivedAngele201002 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-French sentiment in the United States (again)

It's completely ridiculous that this article only mentions a song by an obscure punk band, since there were fairly widespread mainstream expressions of anti-French sentiment in the United States in the aftermath of the Libya raid. It was pretty much the beginning of modern Francophobia in the United States (as opposed to vague fading stereotypes left over from WW2). AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya