Talk:Zawiya skirmish

Casualties

100 killed for government forces? It would make the casualties for the pro Gaddafi forces bigger in the past 2 days of skirmishes in Zawiyah than in the whole first battle who lasted 2 weeks and was much more violent with more troops battling from both sides. It put some doubts into the credibility of the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geromasis (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's a really sketchy claim. But the only numbers we have for casualties as of now are "rebel claims", so the best we can do is indicate that these are not official numbers, just claims. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, but the 100 number is obviously a propaganda attempt at boosting moral. As far as I know, in war, when we have defenders and attackers usualy the attackers are the ones who get more killed than the defenders. 100 defenders in contrast to 30 attackers? Look at Misrata, 500+ attackers against 350+ defenders. That's why it is mentioned in the notes section. The only possibly reliable numbers are reports by one side on their own fatalities. EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, where did you get these Misrata numbers from? Last I checked, the figures in the article, which you diligently compiled, show a maximum of 545 loyalist (attacker) dead versus 1000+ rebel (defender) dead. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know it's hard to get reliable news on such events which evolves quickly and which have risks of propaganda. Instead of rewriting everything I think we should keep out of the article the claims which seem the least likely and which are in addition not reported by a minimum number of sources. This is a question for the credibility of the articles.--Geromasis (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see why 100 killed is an unreasonable number. However, I find the government claim of only 2 killed to be equally fishy. The claim of 24 loyalists dead does not seem unreasonable to me. Thoughts? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Over/Not Over? Does it deserve its own article

Two points I would like to talk about:

1) There seems to be a editing war on the current situation of the battle. Some says it's ongoing based on 1 day dated rebels claims from Benghazi others as Gaddafi loyalists and western reporters say it's over and a Gaddaffi victory. Since the only source that can qualify as independant tend to confirm that Zawiyah is under government controls, I think that the article should go in that direction.

2) If we throws out unconfirmed casualties claims, it looks like more as skirmishes than as a battle. Libyan governement even claim it was only an attack by a few dozens of fighters. If the fights are indeed over and if the city completely under loyalists control in less than 2 days, then I don't think it is necessary to have a whole article dedicated to it and even less an article called "second battle of Zawiyah". It could just be noted as an aftermath of the first battle, or as a rebel raid.--Geromasis (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Splendid, wiki just deleted my comment I had.

1, Reuters crew confirmed shooting in vicinity of centra square. Therefore battle is not over and therefore we cannot say wether they were or were not pushed out of Zawiya. Reuters article suggest that it wasn´t.

2, In article is written that casulties number are baised on unconfirmed rebel sources. And this wasn´t rebel raid as nearest area controled by rebels are 100km away, this was inside job. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1 Reuters confirmed hearing gunfire but saw no fighting. It could be distant and coming from the distance ouf of Zawiyah. They are themselves calling theses events skimishes, not battle in their article.

2 Rebel spokeman from Benghazi said that the rebels came from outside and trained in Nafusa mountain

I guess we can wait one more day before calling it a victory for Gaddafi forces. However I am still very skeptical over the interest of a separated article. --Geromasis (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1, Neither did journalists which were taken by government forces on trip to outskirts of Misurata. We know how that ended. Also he heared shooting. You can´t hear shot from AK-47 from 4km (what is distance from central square to al-Motred district which is still part of Zawiya).

2, He said they infiltrated, smuggled weapons and communication devices and gave means to rebel units within the city to start armed rebellion. Just as in Zliten. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the part that was deleted in process - rebels claim that they control al-Hashra and al-Motred districts of Zawiya, east of central square what so far matches with what Reuters crew saw on ground (ie shooting in vicinity of central square). Therefore the part about rebels beeing pushed out of the city remains only unconfirmed localists claim. If true we´ll know tommorow when another bus trip should be organized by government. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The rebels also claimed to had surrounded the loyalists at the square/center. How could the reporters get in if the square was surrounded? :) I agree with Geromasis, the shots that were heared were most likely from the direction of the surrounded rebel force which is still resisting. By the way, the reporter heared only three shots during the whole time he was there, check source. If it is heavy fighting as the rebels claim, wouldn't it be more than three shots? We will know by tomorrow, however I am also sceptical of the rebels claims of success (they are known of exagerating their success). Also, there has been no reports of major fighting from Zlitan for two days now (and no rebel claim of capturing the town). I think the rebel offensive is faltering, but, again, we will know by tomorrow. Also, Germoasis is right, most of the rebels are from Nafusa, not Zawiyah, confirmed by rebels themselves, source here [1]. EkoGraf (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, loyalists make ridiculous claims as well (shooting down NATO aircraft, passing off automobile accident victims as bombing victims, claiming the capture of Misrata's port, "No demonstrations at all!", etc., etc.). Both sides want to seem legitimate and strong.

To claim that the offensive is "faltering" is exaggeration as well. Regardless of who controls Zawiyah after this, the fact that a battle even took place here after months of loyalist occupation is a death knell for the regime. So is the apparent uprising in Sabha.

Zenithfel below is also correct in his characterisation of the rebels as former residents of Zawiyah, if I recall correctly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In a way, we are all kind of wrong: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/libyan_rebels_claim_success_in.html

The Zawiya attack was directly authorized by NATO, according to a rebel in Zawiya "we don't move unless NATO tells us to".

NATO had in fact struct targets near Zawiya http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/11/libya.war/

The rebels entering Zawiya are x-Zawiyan citizens who got weapons in Nafusa and stayed there temporarily, and are in part guided by NATO itself. Zenithfel (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Most civilians evacuated Zawiya apperently, especially in the center. Other then two old men, not one non-goverment civilian was seen in Zawiya except in the very eastern parts. http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFN1210191420110612?sp=true Zenithfel (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It finally seems that the offensive of rebels have been given too much importance compared to their reality due to a lot of reports from rebel spokesmen. Yesterday, Reuters called the "second battle of Zawiyah" skirmishes and it appears that the rebels are not a lot, around 100 fighters and that they had been repelled. Their offensive on Brega yesterday was led by around 130 fighters according to a rebel. And now the reality of the battle of Zliten is questionned too as no big fighting are confirmed. http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE75B0EM20110613?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 Reuters is now calling rebels operations in the West raids, not battles. I think we should merge the second battle of Zawiyah as an aftermath of the first or as line of Nafusa campaign since rebels made their raid from there. Merging the "battle of Zliten" article with the Misrata frontline article seems the most logic choice at this point if we stay with the facts available at this moment.--Geromasis (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think both Second Zawiyah, Zlitan, Sabha and Brega should all be merged into one article, something like June 2011 Libyan rebel offensive. Who agrees with this? EkoGraf (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe not, because than we will have crossmixing with the fighting on the Misrata frontline. Hmmm, actualy now that I think about it, we better wait a few more days. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we should create a new article about the coordinated raids attempted by anti Gaddafi forces. It would make the reading more confuse with the mixing of battlefronts. But I do think we have too much articles about events that are too minors to deserve their own article. Keep the attack on Brega in the Brega-Ajdabiya article, as it's only a new attempt by rebels to end the stalemate. But the "second battle of Zawiyah" has been too short and too light to be called a battle. It's more a raid and it does not deserve its own article. We should merge it as either an aftermath of the first battle or either a raid made by Nafusa mountains fighters who would be mentionned in the Nafusa Mountain campaign article.

Same goes for the battle of Zliten. It should only be a part of the Misrata frontline article. Nothing suggest it is separated and recent articles say that loyalists control the town and that rebels of Misrata are trying to advance to this city and hope that a revolt will happen in the city. --Geromasis (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

News coming out today suggests the rebels have definetly been defeated at Zawiyah (rebel spokesman can not be contacted anymore and highway reopened). A second attack at Brega was also defeated this morning with another 23 rebels killed and 26 wounded, yesterday it was 4 dead and 65 wounded. There has been no new information from Zlitan for three days now (another rebel defeat?). Also no new information from Sabha for two days (?). The only place the rebels managed to make some minor gains during the last few days is this morning at Dafniya/Misrata. A Reuters reporter confirmed they managed to advance some 10-15 kilometers up to 10 kilometers from Zlitan. But that's about it. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger/Deletion

For what we know by reports:

A group of around one hundred rebels made a raid on Zawiyah and after a few skirmishes were defeated and pushed out of the city in less than 2 days. This is not a major development of this civil war and does not, in my opinion, fullfil the criteria of importance needed for the creation of a new and separated article on a battle.

I read again the article of the first battle of Zawiyah: in the aftermath section all the new events were described perfectly in a few lines. It does not need more really.

I suggest to either delete this page, as everything is already in the first article, or to merge it with the aftermath section of the first article. --Geromasis (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please merge with aftermath. Rebels have been attacking Zawiya every week http://townhall.com/news/us/2011/04/19/misrata_shelled_again,_casualties_seen, as this article suggests

Only recently did they attack it enough to gain some temporarily ground

Zenithfel (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya is in strategic urban area, closely controlled by loyalist troops, given its location on highway and only oil refinery that left in loyalists hands it is important place and although it lasted only for 2 days rebels were able to infiltrate large number of fighters, weapons and communication devices to control parts of the city till loyalist brigades came to help. What was happening before in both Zawiya or Tripoli were just random insurgent attacks, but only as part of guerilla warfare (hit and run), nothing on scale of establishing controlled territory (rebels at one point controlled main hospital). I suggest to keep this article as it is, in its matter its too important event to have it as aftermath of the first battle. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The claims reported by rebels made it look like it was an important event. They talked about heavy casualties (100 among loyalists, more than the first battle), they said they controlled part of the city and the hospital. But there are no confirmation of that. Everything suggest they exagerrated what happenned.

We have to go by the facts and the independant reports. Reuters called it skirmishes. Only a road was briefly closed and byt the evening of the second day, rebels had deserted the city. This is a simple raid. Nothing suggest it was just more than that. And we have not one article per military attack or operation. When Gaddafi troops attacked Adjabiya and entered the city after the third battle of Brega, it lasted around 2-3 day before they got repelled. And we decided to cancel the article called "third battle of Ajdabiya". This is the same principle here. The event is not important enough to be called a battle and not important enough to deserve its own article.--Geromasis (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not quite the same situation as Ajdabiya. This battle took place months after the original battle, while the Ajdabiya raid was a direct continuation of the Brega battle. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Ajdabiya raid article was never "cancelled", it was just renamed to Battle of Brega-Ajdabiya road to include the skirmishes that happened and are still happening on the highway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a proof of rebels controlling main hospital [2], that is no unconfirmed claim. Ajdabiya battle was not merged to aftermath section of Brega battle, nor repelled. It was merged to new article which dealt with both the battlein Ajdabiya and other battles which than took place on Brega-Ajdabiya road. Most of the reports provided in article call it a battle, not skirmish and I hadn´t seen one which called it raid. Wether the battle was small or shortlived it doesn´t matter. There was one. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided a report from Reuters calling it a raid and the previous day they called it skirmishes. There are not a lot of reports about this supposed battle and all of them were based on suspicious claims by rebels who turned to be untrue. This page breaks the Wikipedia policy about the value of the content of articles. The event are too minor to deserve their own articles.--Geromasis (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Geromasis and Zenithfel, this was not a real battle. It looks more like a raid than a battle. Merge to the aftermath section of the original March battle. EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, actualy, why not simply re-name the article? The whole event has been notable and covered a lot in the news. Why not rename it to something like Az Zawiyah raid? EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the recent events in Zawiyah deserve their own article on Wikipedia. The events are too small and are already perfectly described in the aftermath of the first battle. Also, it seems that for this war, raids or small operations don't have their own article. Like I said it had been decided to delete the 3rd Ajdabiya battle article because it was a raid. It is the same for the Nafusa mountain campaign. Also, the east lybian desert campaign is an article reporting a serie of raids. Not one article per raid or operation. Wikipedia is going to be flooded by articles about small military operations if it continues on that road.--Geromasis (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the 2nd (not third, only two 'battles' happened in that city) Ajdabiya article was never deleted. It was renamed to Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road on April 17. Second Battle of Ajdabiya remains a redirect to the Brega–Ajdabiya article. It was not merged in its entirety to a mere aftermath of either the first Ajdabiya or the 3rd Brega. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge. The events were too small and short to deserve their own article. The Aftermath section of the first Battle of Zawiyah article already describe the totality of the events wrote here making this page without utility. Small operations should not have their own pages. --Geromasis (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename per EkoGraf. This is a separate battle from the first one and has different implications. It is a very big stretch to claim that these battles are one and the same when they have been separated by so much time and loyalist occupation. Libyan rebel raid on Az Zawiyah or something similar would be a good solution (we can discuss precise names later). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Zenithfel and yourself provided elements showing that the raid was led by rebels who were defeated during the first battle and went into exil in the Nafusa Mountain. It would make this operation an true aftermath of their defeat in March. --Geromasis (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Az Zawiyah raid. EkoGraf (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreement with Geromasis - it is an aftermath. We can expect fighting around Zawiya until the conflict in general ends. Zenithfel (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. This is a separete battle. It was short, but it was a battle. --Ave César Filito (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sooooo three oppose merger or are for renaming and two are for merger? EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note I count two for the merge, two for renaming and 2 opposed to any change. If it can help to chose, here are Wikipedia guidelines for creating page about new event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28events%29 This event does not meet the guidelines as this is only a footnote in the Libyan Civil War. It does not meet lasting and historical signifiance critera so it should be merged. It is Wikinews worthy, not wikipedia. --Geromasis (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Zenithfel and Geromasis are for merger. EkoGraf and Lothar von Richthofen are for renaming. EllsworthSK and Ave César Filito are against merging but haven't said if they are against renaming. So, according to the numbers, 4 people don't see it as a battle. So in eather case, the article will not stay the same, it will be eather renamed or merged. So it's up to EllsworthSK and Ave César Filito to say if they don't have a problem with renaming it to just a raid and not a battle. EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, the battle/skirmish is signifcant enought. Lybia has a population of only 6 millions and few battles in the war have involved thousands. Battle articles of the Falklands War (Raid on Pebble Island, Skirmish at Top Malo House) and of WWII (example: Battle of Gratangen). So size is not equivalent to relevance. Dentren | ^Talk 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In what the skirmish is signifiant enough to warrant an article? The articles you provide have low importance but at least are well detailed and well documented so we know what exactly happenned. Here there is nothing of that. You can sum up the page in two lines. That's the level of real information in this page. If this event is worthy of a page we could have actually more than one hundred page on Libyan "battles". --Geromasis (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge This started three months after the last one ended. Furthermore, we do not know whether this one is really over yet. For all we know something new could come out in a couple days. Lastly, merging just for the sake of eliminating smaller articles can be annoying to readers, who often prefer wikipedia to be more specific with its articles. --Yalens (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSAL Listen, I rethinked it once again. I think both Second Zawiyah, Zlitan and Sabha should all be merged into one article. Since it is obvious now that all three were raids, and all three ended in failure since there have been no reports of fighting from eather town for three-four days now. But it is obvious they were all co-ordinated, so they were connected. What does everyone think? EkoGraf (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources say these are all connected? If not, there is no grounds for such an umbrella article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ok, than just change the name to Az Zawiyah raid or something like that, because it most certainly wasn't a battle. EkoGraf (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So finally it changed as a raid? My problem is still that we have not enough information to describe this event. All the raids or small operation without strategical importance on Wikipedia are at least very well detailed to make up their lack of real importance. This page has little information about the raid.--Geromasis (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Name...

Per WP:MILMOS#NAME, "raid" is "non-neutral" and "should be used with care". Basically, this means that we need sources calling this a "raid" in order to retain the label. The rationale for originally choosing this term was that raids do not involve intent to capture territory. However, this is contradicted by the article, which states that rebels "managed to take control of the western side". Moreover, I do not see much in the way of similarity between this and some actual raids in the war (Ra's Lanuf raid, Ghadames raid). This looks to me more like a botched insurrection or uprising than a raid. No sources that I have seen call it a raid, either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed to the more neutral and source-supported "skirmish" in lieu of any responses for over a year. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zawiya skirmish. 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) 16:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)