Talk:Second Battle of Zawiya

City center taken?

Reuters reporters observed rebels taking the city center. [1] Al Jazeera reporters stated (in a report after the Reuters one) that the city center has not been taken. [2] These are both from reporters, not rebel claims or whatnot. The city situation appears to be rather confused at the moment... Seleucus (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera - Rebels say they have lost a tank and four fighters in a "friendly fire" air strike during their attack on Az-Zawiyah. "Our forces are in control of the western and southern gates of Zawiyah, and have pushed three kilometres (1.8 miles) into the city," Bashir Ahmed Ali, commander of the battalion fighting to wrest the town from loyalist forces, told AFP. "Regime forces are in control of the east and main centre of the town, where snipers are stationed on top of many buildings. We have suffered many casualties from the snipers," he said, without giving a precise number. --Ave César Filito (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels are in the city centre. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

No. According to Al Jazeera and to the own Rebels, the city center is Gaddafi´s. --Ave César Filito (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that Reuters and its sources consider the city center to be controlled by the rebels, while Al Jazeera and its sources say it's contested (not Gaddafi's, as Al Jazeera also says rebels are inside the city and now control the main highway running directly through). Probably just comes down to a difference in where their reporters are situated, who they're talking to, and what their definition of "city center" is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels have raised their flags in the city centre. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

They raised them yesterday. Reuters journalist said yesterday that the rebels were in the city center, today Al jazeera and a rebel commander said loyalist hold the center. By all accounts after yesterdays loyalist counter-attack the rebels withdrew from the center to the western part of the town. If it was only al jazeera saying it than the situation would be in doubt but a rebel commander also today said that loyalists were still holding the city center. EkoGraf (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

80% of Zawiya has been liberated now. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

From who? From peace fo sure, that I believe you. Otherwise if you believe a several thousand-big force of mostly untrained rebels can actually _hold_ such a big area, then you are naive.

The main reason rebels were actualy able to "get into Zawiya" is that even the Gaddafi gov does not have several hundred thousand soldiers that woudl be needed to control every single town, village and subburb.

There is however one VERY important point mentioned, one many seem to miss - those 150 soldiers did not surrender but were withdraw via sea. That points to a very strong spirit and/or discipline in the pro-Gaddafi ranks. We should also take note that, beyound several high-profile desertions in the east in February, there was not a SINGLE surrender, desertion or change of sides by a pro-gaddafi unit worth a mention. To me this indicates that the gov forces are anything but desperate. Actually it looks to me more and more like a carefully orchestrated withdrawal strategy to reduce frontline length. Basically, the advance on Zawyia, was FAR TOO EASY, considering the fairly limited air cover compared to say Brega, to make any predictions on.

We will see but my bet is on Zawiya to stay in Loyalist hands for far longer than many here are anticipating. Though I do not expect it to be defended with such a ferocity as Brega is. Zawyia is not really a strategic town. The road that goes throught it is, but that road can be controlled without rebels controlling Zawiya, thus making Zawiya just a convenient city-fortress for Loyalists which is not worth holding if it gets surrounded.89.102.1.194 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Per rebels, not independently confirmed. And since some rebel commanders say they still only hold the southern and western part of the city and not the center, east and refinery north, I would not say its 80 percent, more like 45 percent. And please don't use the word liberated, non-neutral word. EkoGraf (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources say all but the eastern part has been liberated now. (92.7.18.204 (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Should be "Third Battle of Zawiya"

The name of this article should really be "Third Battle of Zawiya", as there was a local uprising in the city in June.Nwe (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a raid into the city by a rebel force (maybe less than 100 with some support from within) from the mountains. It didn't fit the category of a battle. It ended in just over 24 hours. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. I think it's odd that we call one a "raid" (which usually has a specific objective) and the other two "battles". -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The battle is now over

All of Zawiya was liberated by the heroes of the revolution on 18th August. (92.10.135.207 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Two things. First, please include links to reliable sources instead of coming here, making a one-sentence claim, then leaving us to dig through the news to find the story you're apparently referring to. Two, as EkoGraf advised, fellow editors are more likely to take you seriously if your language is neutral. I think most editors on the English-language Wikipedia are hoping Gaddafi is ousted, but this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We have saved all of Zawiya from the clutches of the African mercenaries in the pay of the brutal dictator Gaddafi. (92.7.17.9 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, suit yourself. It was a friendly suggestion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sabratha separate page?

I wasn't sure where to put this comment but the battle for the historic city of Sabratha which is 23km east of Az-Zawiyah was a fairly major fight with 200 rebels fighting around 4 days to capture the city. If anybody could write up an article on it, it would be a big help. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not enough information on the battle to warrant an article. Almost non-existent. EkoGraf (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sabratha is covered in 2011 Libyan rebel coastal offensive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, if you really want to make it a separate page, you are welcome to try it out in your sandbox, and if it turns into a pretty good page with 5+ citations (or at least considerable citation per material) and at least one other editor thinks so, you could give it a try as a full-fledged page then. A page for battle of Sabratha would probably be much better than some of the pages we already have, so I see no problem with teh alleged lack of information. The one issue is significance, but hey, there is the military base there that the rebels captured. If the 2nd Battle of Az Zawiyah gets a page separate from the coastal offensive, then Sabratha is fine for a page, provided you can make it turn out well. --Yalens (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that Sabratha has anywhere near the significance of Zawiya. They are strategically and symbolically incomparable. Tiji had a base, too; you don't see a Battle of Tiji article, though, do you? No, it is part of the broader Nafusa article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was as significant as Zawiyah, I said it was significant enough that if Semi-Lobster is able to make a pretty decent article in his sandbox, we might want to consider integrating into the main wikipedia. It's certainly more significant than Msallata or Taworgha, for example. If (s)he can't make it into a good article in their sandbox, then conversely, we wouldn't integrate it in.--Yalens (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (on that note, is anyone else wondering whether we should make Mezda into an article or make it part of the Battle of Gharyan? We should probably discuss that at Gharyan's page, but still...)

I think creating articles like Battle of Sabratha, Battle of Mezda or Battle of Tiji is a good idea. If we can make some paragraphs about the battle and we have some references, let´s create the article. Maybe now there will be stubs, but later they might be long articles. --Ave César Filito (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to create a "battle" page for every village/base/outpost/hut that was fought over. It's just confusing and useless in the vast majority of cases. For example, if we take the Nafusa campaign and make individual pages for all the battles, we'd end up with Battle of Wazzin, Battle of Ayn Ghazaya, Battle of Tiji, Battle of Nalut, Battle of Ruways, Battle of Badr (2011), Battle of al-Jawsh, Battle of Jadu, Battle of Shakshuk, Battle of ar-Rujban, Battle of Gasr al-Hajj, Battle of Bi'r Ayyad, Battle of Zintan, Battle of Yafran, Battle of al-Galaa, Battle of Kikla, Battle of Rayayna, Battle of al-Qawalish, Battle of Assabah, Battle of Bi'r al-Ghanam, and Battle of Gharyan (if not more). It's kind of obscene. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the battle, the significance of it, and most importantly the information available. I think the standard first and foremost should be the quality of the article. If someone can write a good article on any of these battles, I don't think we should be stopping and saying it should go here or should go there. Shorter versions can always go into the longer thread with a link. As for 'useless,'this is a highly relative term dependent upon what one's use is. For example, one who uses this for general trivia may not benefit from multiple articles, while one who uses it for a basic overview of human rights abuses in order to prepare to assess a refugee claim might find separate articles quite useful. Personally I think therefore that multiple standards should be set, and that it should depend upon the apparent significance of the battle (especially if this is included in the article) and the detail and quality of the article. For something like the Battle of Kikla, which was one of several battles ongoing in the area at the same time, it would be hard to present a case on the significance level that highlights the battle as a specific moment in the campaign. But if someone was able to produce a well documented article outlining the background, the chain of events, the aftermath, including more specific details, then this becomes clutter if its put into the Nafusa mountain article, but would make an outstanding article on its own. Other articles, like the battle of Gharyan, given the expected significant, it is worth creating as a stub, so that information can be added, as it is reasonable to expect that such information will become available. In addition, it is a significant point in the campaign, and other more minor victories such as Al-Gwalish, could be included in the 'background'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Decisive?

A decisive Anti-Gaddafi victory? How can you know if it is decisive when the battle has finished today? --Ave César Filito (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Because he's finished now, and all of Zawiya is liberated. (92.7.31.85 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

It would be decisive if Anti-Gaddafi forces are able to attack Tripoli as consequence of this battle, but not if they remain in Zawuiya without moving further or if the city is recaptured by Loyalists. We can`t know what is going to happen. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels are already attacking Tripoli. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

There is an uprising in Tripoli (and we still dont`t know if there are only some protests or heavy fighting), but, according to Al Jazeera, the Rebels of Zawiya are in the 27 Bridge. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

An offensive has been launched against Tripoli. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

As this battle marked the beginning of a slew of major anti-Gaddafi victories plus the cutting of contacts and oil to Tripoli, I would say it was probably one of the most decisive of the whole civil war. --Yalens (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This is absolutely decisive in a military, economic and political sense. The most recent battle for Zawiya opened the door to Tripoli, as well as boosted the morale of Tripoli's residents to the point where they were confident in their ability to revolt. They also captured one of the only operable oil refineries in the country. There can be no doubt that the battle of Zawiya was decisive. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The battle is over and won

Gaddafi's mercenaries have been completely driven out and they are now six miles away, low on ammunition and deserting in scores. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

Source? --Ave César Filito (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All over the Internet. They are six miles from the town and in no position to attack. The battle for Zawiya is over. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Second Battle of Zawiya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118004940/http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/ap/august/298125/Libya-rebels-capture-coastal-city-of-Zawiya to http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/ap/august/298125/Libya-rebels-capture-coastal-city-of-Zawiya
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121103173645/http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/2011/08/20/D9P7RIL80_ml_libya/ to http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/2011/08/20/D9P7RIL80_ml_libya/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Battle of Zawiya. 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/20110810054905/http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/P2F7mQoXiJTw/en/117282/ to http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/P2F7mQoXiJTw/en/117282/

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) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)