Talk:Battle of Ra's Lanuf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Africa / Libya (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


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. —Nightstallion 10:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ra's Lanuf clashesBattle of Ra's Lanuf — The current title is a compromise solution because of the POV of one editor and goes against the normal form of articles on batles. An editor already moved the article from Battle of Ra's Lanuf to Ra's Lanuf skirmishes without discussing it first. A compromise solution was found in the name Ra's Lanuf clashes, however this has become a war and all media outles called this a battle for Ras Lanuf.EkoGraf (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the sources given in the first paragraph say "clashes at Raslanuf". The title is per the reliable sources, not "the POV of one editor". Your claim that "all media outles called this a battle for Ras Lanuf" is entirely fallacious. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia has a manual of style. We are NOT limited to calling things only by the precise and verbatim wording used by someone else. —Nightstallion 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with style. It has everything to do with factual accuracy. Not every single engagement between opposing forces in a conflict is termed "the battle of xxx...". This article is about "a series of clashes" - should that be a "a series of battles" or was there one single great battle? What do the sources say? They refer to "clashes between opposing forces" not "the battle" or "a series of battles".--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Nightstallion and EkoGraf. John Smith's (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency with all of the other "Battle of ..." pages (e.g. on Template:2011 Libyan protests) Ansh666 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for now, at least, but review later; as with the similar argument on 2011 Libyan uprising becoming Libyan civil war it is perhaps too soon to call it "the Battle of ..." - until the situation settles down, I'd maintain the Status Quo. The situation is changing rapidly enough to keep editors busy, without needing to debating the finer points of an article name while the battle (if that is what it is) is still raging. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it is time now. History will determine what it eventually becomes known as - depending on who ultimately prevails, but for now, it seems to me very much like like a battle. Lynbarn (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - actually all these newsy stubs could quite easily be integrated into the main article. All of this battle for this and battle for that is excessive claims of what is actually going on and verified. Consider the issue in historical claims, battle what battle. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
And what is it that's been verified? You claimed these were ONLY just skirmishes and I asked you for sources to back up your claim. However you have not provided any sources and stated all of the foreign media like BBC and CNN are just making excessive claims of what is actually going on and thus they cann't be counted on as independent observers and can not be used as sources according to you. Does that mean that you have been there and know for a fact what is going on? I will take this opportunity to provide sources where the battle at Ra's Lanuf is called a battle.
Guardian - Along the highway to Sirte, charred ruins from the two battles fought last week for the strategically vital oil towns of Brega and Ras Lanuf could clearly be seen.[1]
Euronews - Battle rages for Ras Lanuf[2]
Reuters1 - Gaddafi forces battle rebels at Ras Lanuf[3]
Globalpost - Libya's battle for Ras Lanuf. After fierce battle, Libya's rebels take strategic oil port.[4]
BBC news - Libyan rebels battle for oil port Ras Lanuf. Libyan rebels have defied their commanders in Benghazi to begin a battle for oil port Ras Lanuf.[5]
Reuters2 - Battle for Ras Lanouf photo gallery. 17:25 Reuters reports at least 4 dead in the battle of Ras Lanuf so far.[6]
CBS news video - Battle for Ras Lanuf[7]
As far as I can see nobody is calling it a skirmish user Off2riorob. Your personal POV on the definition of this fight doesn't count on Wikipedia. I tried to politely make this clear in our discussion from a few nights ago but you just didn't want to listen.EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, and should there be a new Second Battle of Ra's Lanuf now with the fighting yesterday and today? (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • NoteWhat does everyone suggest we do? Since it looks like Gaddafi may retake Ras Lanuf in a day or so and there has been fighting there for the last four days, should we create an article named Second battle of Ras Lanuf or should we reopen the old one and say when the rebels took it it was phase one and now, two days later, it's phase two?EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Support, clearly separate battles, each with different implications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swalgal (talkcontribs) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims of 7000[edit]

this POV link appears to be claiming 7000 rebel soldiers , its completely unconfirmable and basically false a dream and fantasy and in our article - it won't help anyone - we need to report ther strongest detail - not the false claims of propaganda without attribution as if theere are 7 000 rebel soldiers in some attack force - its utter rubbish - false propaganda - Off2riorob (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If a source says it's 7,000 we put 7,000 and if it was a claim we note it was a claim, but don't remove it or it would be favoring one side, which you seem to be doing since claiming it to be propaganda. I myself think it's propaganda and rubish but it doesn't matter, Wikipedia doesn't have favorites in wars and reports both sides views and sticks to a neutral position, and that's what we should be doing. In any case, the issue here is the name of the article not how many rebels there are.EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You think its rubbish and false but you want to add it - hilarious. yes, so add it to the body of the article not the info box and attribute it very close to the source and to the publisher. That might be your idea - my idea is to take care and err on the side of caution what we claim I am not interested in Libya at all. I am interested in NPOV and reporting as high a quality we can - yea I saw 1000000 according to bladibla and thousands dead according to bladiblas mate. Off2riorob (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree, we achieve NPOV by using only reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, this claim came from here which says "Eyewitness to Al Jazeera: between 6000 and 7000 well equipped revolutionaries armed with heavy weaponry and rifles headed to Ras Lanuf right now." However, already in the article we have a source saying "Some of the injured rebels being treated in Ajdabiya told AFP they had been heavily outnumbered and under-equipped compared to the loyalists. 'Kadhafi forces had heavy weapons. Most of the rebels just had Kalashnikovs.'" So we have an eyewitness who has a contradictory claim as the rebels possession of heavy weaponry. Is this eyewitness likely to be competent at estimating crowd numbers? Do we have any corroborating accounts? Did this eyewitness suggest the forces they saw represented the entirety of the rebel forces? Do we even have any claims from the rebels of their numbers? In the absence of answers to these questions I'm removing the claim until we find more sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Sources given in infobox say "At least eight people were killed and more than 20 wounded in the clashes at Raslanuf" and "left two rebels dead and 24 injured" and "20 pro-government militiamen who refused to fire on the rebels were killed by their comrades".

However the infobox says "Rebels: 24+ killed, 24 wounded" "Pro-Gaddafi Forces: unknown". This is not supported by the sources given and quoted above so I removed it until we can agree total casualties on this talk page. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This reliable source reports contradictory claims: "We won the battle when the people joined us," said al-Zawi, who took part in the fighting. He said 12 rebels were killed in the fighting, in which rocket propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns were used. Officials at a hospital in the nearby city of Ajdabiya, however, said only five rebels were killed in the attack on Ras Lanouf and that 31 others were wounded. There was no explanation immediately available for the discrepancy in the figures." --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the reliable source that you found from newstimes, good work. Based on the reference I stated in the infobox the toll to be 5-12 killed, since one rebel source said 5 and the other 12. I also put on the rebel side in addition but separated from the 5-12 killed the 20 defecting loyalists that were killed, along with it's source.EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see much evidence of the 20 executed actually defecting - just refusing to fight, which is a subtly different thing. Heroes of the rebellion they may be, but I've also moved them from rebels to pro-G in the infobox, as they would have been counted in the relative strengths at the beginning of the event. Just beingbold. regards Lynbarn (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It has already been established that in this war if you are refusing to fight against the rebels you are seen as a rebel,there is no third side,in Benghazi we had 130 soldiers who were executed for refusing orders and in the end they were later counted as opposition casualties by everyone. But will change that they were mutinous and not defecting. Also the 9 killed that were added from the 8th, battle ended the 5th. If loyalists attack Ras Lanuf and take it back we may expand the article to include the current fighting and state the battle had two phases the first being the one where the rebels took the city and the second where the loyalist perhaps take it back. Ok?EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This comment is completely opinionated and imo false completely - "It has already been established that in this war if you are refusing to fight against the rebels you are seen as a rebel" - there are clearly a vast majority of people that are simply hiding oij theor houses terrified and not involved in any way. This rebel force is not like in Egypt where the people demonstrated on mass - this is a small number of armed rebel militia. All of these claimed are unverified completely, and should be attributed as someone unidentified on a mobile phone, we are not here to add unconfirmed propaganda from either side. Also - wikipedia is not rolling news that needs to sell papers and publish every unconfirmed propaganda and titillation and false claim. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, the persons EkoGraf refers to were soldiers, & if they were executed it was for disobeying orders. (One of the few certain facts of military organizations around the world is that soldiers will be punished for disobeying orders; punishments like decimation or summary execution are only resorted to when faced with an apparent mutiny.) And there have been numerous confirmed reports of Libyan military personnel refusing to fire on civilians. As for his "completely opinionated and imo false completely" assertion, I believe he is expressing the attested state of mind of Qaddafi: he sees this revolt in black/white terms. Either you are for him -- or against him. There are no innocent bystanders in his eyes. (No, I can't read his mind; all I know about him is what I learn from the media, & from earlier reports.) There's a lot of sloppy reasoning here, so can all parties remember to assume good faith? -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've checked again, the nearest cited ref says: He also reported that 20 pro-government militiamen who refused to fire on the rebels were killed by their comrades No mention of defecting, so I've changed that sentence to reflect the citation. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Sorry, I thought I changed all of the defected words to mutinous. Missed one. :) EkoGraf (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Two Articles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, both sides almost evenly matched in votes and discussion has been running for three months now with little activity or interest. EkoGraf (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As this article covers both clashes at Ra's Lanuf, should it be split into two articles (eg 1st and 2nd Battle of Ra's Lanuf) as the front line moved onto Bin Jawad before the rebels retreated and were beaten during the second clash. --LordAdama (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Instead of "... – 1st Brega – Ra's Lanuf – Bin Jawad – 2nd Brega – ..." it should be "... – 1st Brega – 1st Ra's Lanuf – Bin Jawad – 2nd Ra's Lanuf – 2nd Brega – ..." becase those were two separate battles of Ra's Lanuf between (first) two battles of Brega and with battle of Bin Jawad. This would also more clearly show how initially rebels advanced and were later retreating. -- (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you would read the previous discussion on the naming of the article you would see it was agreed since there was only a one day break between the two clashes to name them the first and second phase of one battle. The first clash lasted from March 4 to 5, the second started the very next day. So in essence it's one battle that had two phases. This had already been agreed upon. However, since the rebels are now advancing on Ra's Lanuf, a Second battle of Ra's Lanuf may need to be created in the future, which will be about this potentional second battle. EkoGraf (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rebels never kept hold in Bin Jawad, I think the front was fluid between both places. So until a new Battle takes place, if occurs, in the comming days I would keep it as it is. (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose One article for both. If it gets long then maybe. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EkoGraf. However, there has been no "Second Battle of Ra's Lanuf", as Gaddafist forces vacated the town without a fight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. What most commenters are not taking into account is the lag time between the Gadhafi repulsion and their eventual retaking of the city. Those are the two battles, not the most recent rebel recapture of the city. Please take this into consideration. --23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta1989 (talkcontribs)
Again, like already discussed above, there was only a one-day break between these two battles as you put it. The first being March 4-5 and the second March 6-12, thus it doesn't warrant by any account to be considered as two battles. Two phases of the same battle yes. The loyalists counter-attacked in less than 24 hours, in effect the battle was still far from over when the rebels took the town temporarily. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support OK, if you are arguing that the two phases are one battle where the front line moved away and then came back, surely that means that the fighting near Bin Jawad should be a part of this same battle. It seems that it must be categorized as one whole battle or separate engagements but it needs some consistency. --LordAdama (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, there was a 24-hour break in ground fighting, during those 24 hours the fighting was temporarily at Bin Jawad, but the fighting quickly came back to Ra's Lanuf. In any case, even if the ground fighting temporarily moved to Bin Jawad, loyalist air-strikes on Ra's Lanuf continued during that 24 hour period. There were no two battles, there was only one, and the article how it is now is just ok. One more thing LordAdama, please don't cast a support vote as to seem more people are for the change since you already cast your vote at the beginning by nominating the change. This way you voted twice. As it is now 4 editors are against the break-up of the article and 3 are for. EkoGraf (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologises for counting my support twice, it was not meant to influence the outcome in any way. However I have accepted that the battle is not fixed see how the two "phases" as they are described in the article can be classed as one battle, but it just seems odd to me to that if this is all one battle to have the beginning and the end in one article and the middle somewhere else but that is probably a different argument. --LordAdama (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Having read the article through, it sounds like two battles to me so I think it should be split.-- (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This article definitely needs to be split. -- (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support When I read this article it gives the impression of two incidents being stitched together in one battle and therefore I think that it needs to be divided into two.--Lex1927 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly separate battles with different implications; no reason to group them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swalgal (talkcontribs) 22:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose What sources use the terms "First Battle of Ra's Lanuf" and "Second Battle of Ra's Lanuf"? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Its not a matter of what the sources say, they are conflicted enough about what happened as it is, its about discussing from the information we have available whether the content of this article constitutes one battle or two and it seems that opinion is split roughly down the middle on this.--Lex1927 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It is about what the sources say - we don't make up the names of events ourselves. If this article had properly been called The 2011 Libyan uprising in Ra's Lanuf or similar, we wouldn't have this problem.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
At this early stage the sources themselves are flawed as events are often ongoing and when someone is talking about the "Battle at Ras Lanuf", they could be referring to when the rebels drove out loyalist forces or when the loyalists drove out rebels or both. Therefore you could use the fact that they say "battle" in singular form to argue that there was only one battle overall whereas I could argue that they are referring to one of the "phases" as a battle which would therefore make two battles overall. Events are named by the people of the time and whereas historical events are already named for us we have to come up with a logical name for the article ourselves, and we very well may be overruled in the future. But for the present we are debating the issue and will hopefully come to a consensus and our little disagreement shows how split on the issue people are and how interpretations differ between individuals.--Lex1927 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • don't split. reports on the progress of this conflict need to become less, not more scattered. Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive is a step in the right direction. These aren't actual "battles", they are skirmishes that from a distance will become clearer as one aspect of this conflict. What we need is coverage of "Ras Lanuf during the 2011 Libyan conflict" (focus on the place), and "Gulf of Sidra clashes during the 2011 Libyan conflict", focussing on the to and fro along the gulf coast. What we don't need is a random enumeration of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. "battle" every time there is some troop movement. "third battle of Ras Lanuf" is not a term used anywhere, and generating articles with such titles is on-wiki WP:SYNTH. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Just so we get this straight, are you for keeping the article as it is or for combining it with Battle of Bin Jawad etc into a general article covering the first rebel advance in the war. Also, is this just a comment or are you opposing the split in the article. --Lex1927 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think he was crystal clear when he said don't split. And Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive was created because the clashes that happened during that offensive were even smaller in scale than those during the Battle of Bin Jawad and the fight for Ra's Lanuf in the period from March 4 to March 12. So we needed to bunch them all up into one article instead of creating multiple articles on made up battles that never happened. While in contrast this battle as well as the battle at Bin Jawad on March 6 were much larger in scale and were real battles. Anyway why is this discussion still going on since the nominator of the move himself has said he has changed his mind and regards this as one battle? EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What I actually said in my comment was that I can understand how you can see this as one battle because of the fluid movement of the troops, I didn't actually change my mind as I still think that the article can be split, my apologises if that wasn't clear enough. I also crossed through my support because you said that my opinion was counting twice, if I had wanted to fully change my mind I would have put an "oppose" so that everyone knew what my opinion was and I thought that my support by nominating this discussion still stood. I have left myself open to the opinion that we can class this as one battle but what I also said was that this didn't make sense in having the Bin Jawad part in a different article which references Dbachmann's point that he made, if the status quo is maintained with regards to splitting the argument, it appears we may be discussing joining the battles into one single article which I would support as a second option. Also Lex1927 just wanted to clarify Dbachmann's point and even if it was crystal clear to you then that doesn't mean that it was for him and he may want to understand what Dbachmann's exact position was. Furthermore, speaking for myself I would rather be left to state my own opinion rather than having someone say it for me, if you misunderstood what I said then I apologise. One last point, even if I had changed my mind, I do not think that that should be the end of the debate as it has clearly gone further then just me and there is clearly a consensus that we need to reach. My apologises if this sounds like a rant but there were several points that I needed to clear up. --LordAdama (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Quoting you However I have accepted that the battle is not fixed see how the two "phases" as they are described in the article can be classed as one battle. Per my understanding that was confirmation that you thought the fight was one battle. My appologise if you ment differently. However, still, I want to say that I am even more opposed to Bin Jawad and Ra's Lanuf being bunched up in one article than I am to splitting this article because unlike the other late March offensive, where the clashes at Bin Jawad were much smaller in scale than the one from March 6 (plus there was no fighting at all at Ras Lanuf), these were real battles and not just skirmishes like in that other article. In any case, for now, the situation is that 7 editors are for the split while 6 are against it. That cann't be counted as a concenssus for which an overwhelming majority is needed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see what's wrong, I put see instead of and for some reason, which would make "However I have accepted that the battle is not fixed and how the two "phases" as they are described in the article can be classed as one battle". That changes the whole meaning of the sentence doesn't it, sorry about the confusion that caused. I also haven't phrased the consensus bit very well either, what I meant was that we need to find a consensus on the matter and as you said we are split right down the middle on this. --LordAdama (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support It isn´t one battle, they´re two. --Ave César Filito (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I second that.-- (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Situation right now on the number of votes - 5 against 5 among established users, in essence a tie; and 3 against 1 among non-established users (anonymous users) in favor of a split. We still don't have any consensus among established users at this time. Will see what the situation is next week. Would like to point editors to another discussion that was made recently at this discussion page [8], where it was determined, for the sake of not breaking up multi-phase battles into dozens of smaller articles, we would be merging articles on small-scale battles into large articles like we did with the article Late March rebel offensive and Battle of Brega-Ajdabiya road. The time break between the first and second phase of Ra's Lanuf battle (or first and second battle per some) was just 24 hours, that can not be the only thing per which we can say that these were two different battles. Also, most media at the time noted this event as one continues battle in which the rebels tempereroly took the town before the loyalists re-took it. And also, during the 24 hour break there was no pause in air-strikes on the town. EkoGraf (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Does that mean that mean that you would merge the articles on the Battle of Ras Lanuf and Bin Jawad and other articles into a article similar to the Late March rebel offensive, instead of splitting it up as has been suggested by other users. I can see the point of not having many small articles but that might also mean that this article might need to merge with other articles. As no consensus is in sight on splitting the article, perhaps that might be a solution to this debate. I personally hold no view on the matter and I'm just throwing it out there to see what other people think. --NinjaQuail (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am personaly against a merger between Ra's Lanuf and Bin Jawad, because they were separate battles and Bin Jawad is a notable battle, separate from Ra's Lanuf, because that's when the whole rebel euforia stopped dead in it's tracks with the loyalist ambush that happened there. EkoGraf (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, it was just an idea that had already been out there as this discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.--NinjaQuail (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support They were two different battles. -- (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Based on what? In any case, will somebody close this discussion? Obviously no concencuss on a renaming can be reached at this point. EkoGraf (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)