Talk:Battle of Bani Walid

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Bani Walid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Africa: Libya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: African

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Ongoing?

Considering anti-Gaddafi fighters retreated yesterday and have no plans to advance today, or any set date at which they intend to renew the attack, I'm thinking maybe this battle should be considered over. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article I read indicated they were still in the town, focusing on specific areas known to have fighters in them, rather than trying to sweep in all at once. I would leave it for atleast another day, and if nothing still has happened, we can change it to be over as of today. That may not have made sense to anyone but me! Jeancey (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for this info? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a post at Al jazeera AFTER the post about them falling back and reassesing. Plus, the most recent article of the BBC indicated that while they said they were going to stop, they came under attack and fought back. That indicates to be that the offensive may be over for a bit, but there is definately still fighting in certain areas. That might just be me though! Jeancey (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to a definition applied to battle. In my mind the battle is still going on, even though there is a lull in the fighting. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday: Fighters storm back in: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/idINIndia-59404220110918 Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, either battle won by Kadafi or rename to siege. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no confirmation Bani Walid is _effectively_ besieged. While rebels are all around the desert, there seems to be no real and maintained(!) rebel line cutting Bani Walid from outside. This is turning into another Brega more than a siege.195.212.29.190 (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Daniel, please DO NOT MOVE ARTICLES ON YOUR WHIM. Especially such politically sensitive ones as this. The current title is WP:OR by any measure. I understand you are an experienced editor, but been following the Libya crisis on WP and such unsubstantiated and undiscussed moves were outright considered malicious before. And considering the sensitive nature - people's live indirectly affected - I believe is was rightly so.195.212.29.190 (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At wikipedia we don't go by confirmation, we go by wp:verifiable. The rebels claim to have it surrounded and a few news sources have used the same characterization. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/09/2011913142437846240.html Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyans Adopt Siege Strategy . Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As only one user proposed (and moved) the article, without the support of any other (and it`s a controversial move; eg. I oppose to that move) y will revert it and create a WP:RM. --Ave César Filito (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Move it back and open the discussion for a proper move. Jeancey (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can´t move it because the page Battle of Bani Walid is a redirection with more than 1 edition. So I opened the discussion below to change it to Battle of Bani Walid. --Ave César Filito (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, as mentioned, I have been following this crisis for half a year. And as far as Libyan War goes THERE IS NO SINGLE VERIFIABLE SOURCE. We are all forced to play hide-and-seek with the reality in the fog of war. From all sides. I do not like it either, but as far as this war goes, nothing can be taken at face value. Especially any direct citation/claim of people associated with NTC or Qaddafi factions. That includes NATO. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: Moved per near-unanimous discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bani Walid → Battle of Bani Walid – In all the battles of the Libyan War we had put battle, not Siege, even when some battles as Misrata´s or Brega´s were of long duration. The move from battle to siege was done by an user without the support of any other (without clear consensus). Personally, I think battle is more apropiete. A lot of sources say battle (eg. Reuters) against a "few sources" (as the user who had made the move without consensus said) that say Siege. Ave César Filito (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom.--Paracel63 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support 94.113.101.38 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. :P Jeancey (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Always best to propose these moves prior to enacting them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the majority of news sources now saying seige. Honestly, ask yourselves, is it more appropriately described as a battle or a siege? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the point is that it's described incorrectly or not, but that there are ways of doing things on wikipedia that you completely bypassed. Our intent is to switch it back to battle. Once there, you can open a move request back to siege if you really want to, but there should be a real discussion about a move on a article like thisJeancey (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you don't agree with wp:bold. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't agree with it, its just a very contentious issue. I would also like to point out that in the article for siege it describes it as "Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies." In this case, they have been actively trying to get civilians out and the UN has tried to drop supplies into the city for civilians, which is NOT a siege, as people can leave and supplies are going in. I think that the problem here is that siege carries a connotation, and it really ISN'T that. It's an extended battle that isn't going the way that the NTC wanted it too. There are definite arguments for both namings. Thus, there should be a discussion if it should be changed. To quote WP:BOLD "To use the words of Edmund Spenser, "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold", but "Be not too bold."Jeancey (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undersigned. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BRD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per nom.--EllsworthSK (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of battle

I supposed that we can put that this battle is over. Several days there are no any movements. If NTC launch second attack we can start Second siege of Bani Walid.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep the (i believe WP:OR) Siege moniker, then any lull in fighting is entirely inconsequential.

If we rename to Battle of ... then You better look for Misrata or Brega where there were weeks of stalemate yet those are still considered single battles with multiple phases. Same goes for Stalingrad or Leningrad in WW2.195.212.29.190 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we really want to keep the name of the article than I am against simply because siege wasn´t lifted. Otherwise in my opinion it should be renamed to Battle of Bani Walid and just as 4th Brega devide it into phases.EllsworthSK (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:RS supports a split. Most accounts have the battle dragging on for over a month now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most accounts do NOT acknowledge several phases in the 4th Brega. They do not acknowledge or explicitly number the Brega Battles either. Further more my most accounts Breag was take 20-times or more during the 4th Brega period ... :) 94.113.101.38 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gaddafi Victory

Tony Birtley live on AJE from Bani Walid confirms the city is effectively under NTC control. 38.112.107.215 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the AJE Article http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/2011101713437351911.html 38.112.107.215 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]