Talk:Battle of Wazzin

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 Low-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 not met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Tunisia?

How is Tunisia a belligerent?

Hmm, fair point (Page author here). The Tunisian army aprihended Gaddafi's men after they fled. Granted they were released promtly but still. Maybe have them a combattant 3. Thoughts? Fancyflyboy (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't really fight though, did they? The pro-Gaddafi forces just surrendered and/or defected to them. Sovetus (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sovetus, no source provided where it is confirmed that Tunisian forces were involved in the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia is officially a belligerant. Gadaffi forces invaded this morning ArcherMan86 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree now. Sovetus (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The loyalists didn't invade Tunisia. That's going a bit over the top. The went in pursuit of rebels who fled over the border. As far as the shelling goes they were firing at the rebels on the border and the shells were landing over it into the border town since it was only a hundred meters or so from the crossing. Grad rockets are known to be highly inaccurate. Plus, Tunisian forces didn't directly engage the loyalists, despite initial claims. It was confirmed by the Tunisians they only fired in the air and both the rebels and loyalists ceased fire among them and volountarily surrendered to be led back over the border. EkoGraf (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Is there a reason for this battle to stand alone in its own article? I don't see enough here that warrants a split out from Battles of the Nafusa Mountains. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as promptly as possible. Per C.Fred. It was previously agreed that all Nafusa-related battles be merged into one article. Furthermore, article was created by what appears to be an editor with a single-purpose account created at the same time as the article. For a previous discussion on merging multiple small-scale battles in the Nafusa mountains into one article that was held see here [1]. The result of the discussion was to merge all of them with overwhelming majority concencuss. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article can be merged doesn't mean it should be; this battle may come under the umbrella of The Nafusa Mountains but was a separate battle with separate implications. Also; this account was not created just to make this article and even if it was i don't see it being relevant. Whether or not this article is notable, i'm sure you can see it's a good-faith edit. Please refrain from personal attacks and focus on the pros and cons of the article rather than myself, thank you. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An even larger battle like the Battle of Zintan, which is more notable than this one, has been merged into the Nafusa mountains campaign compleatly. And the Wazzin battle was not separate from the Nafusa mountains campaign, it is directly related to it. And I don't see how pointing the obvious is a personal attack. Furthermore, I don't see this battle as much of a battle at all. The rebels attacked and in just a few hours all of the soldiers retreated. Not much of a battle.EkoGraf (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zintan should have it's own page too Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm not according to 99 percent of the other editors. EkoGraf (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is not a democracy :) Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        However, verifibility is part of Wikipedia, and there are no sources to prove there are real battles for those towns like for Misrata. There is just the siege of a series of towns. The Loyalists are not trying to capture them at all, just surround them. And for that series of sieges an article has been established. And this so-called battle for the border post is part of those sieges. EkoGraf (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There are many sources. There WAS a battle. The rebels took Wazzin and the border post by force, surely you're not deying tthis Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not much of a battle, two or three-hour firefight with a prompt retreat over the border. Sounds more like a clash or a skirmish than a battle. EkoGraf (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps a rename then? 'Wazzin Clashes' seem more apropriate? (After Tripoli Clashes) Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Couldn't see a comparison between a border post skirmish (resulting in 15 deaths claimed only by rebels and not confirmed by reporters) and large-scale demonstrations/clashes for control of a capital city (resulting in 300 deaths). EkoGraf (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I was simply comparing names Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per nom and EkoGraf. Part of the Nafusa battles. No need for a separate article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wazzin is a border town to tunsia and is not actually in the nafusa mountains, so it does not count as part of the nafusa mountain battles/clashes. Nsxi13 (talk) 23 April 2011 (UCT) —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The rebels fighting at the border were from the mountains. The loyalists at the border had been attempting to strangle Nalout and the other mountain towns by holding the escape route closed at the border. Refugees fleeing the warfare in the mountains go through Wazzin to Tunisia. Wazzin is important to the rebels because it is a vital choke-point for their supply lines into the Nafusa towns. Even if Wazzin is not "in" the mountains per se, it is certainly very close to them. This brief firefight is inextricably a part of the Nafusa battles. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, the border post has been a vital part of the Nalut siege, thus directly linked to the Nafusa mountains campaign. Also, argument by Nsxi13 is incorect. Wazzin is part of the Nafusa mountains range. For confirmation of this please read the Nafusa Mountains Wikipedia article which clearly states and I quote It extends from the city of Gheryan which is south of Tripoli and continue West past the Libyan - Tunisian border and ends in the Tunisian city of Thala.. So Nsxi13's reason for keep is uncorroborated. At the very least, based on the images provided, the town is at the foothils of the mountains. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Maps seems to confirm that the city is situated very, very close to the mountains along what appears to be a wadi within the Nafusa range. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article from today [2] says and I quote The conflict in the Western Mountains has received little international attention. Rebels there captured a border post two days ago and had begun been rushing supplies to towns under attack, saying they were cheered by reports from Misrata. Obviously everybody regards it as part of the Nafusa campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Battles of Nafusa mountains covers all battles that happened/are happening or will happen in that area, Wazzin included. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think debating where the mountains end is productive, i think it only really matters how signifignt this battle was and how over-simplified you want wikipedia to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.165.235 (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is productive when a !voter makes the erroneous claim that since the town "is not actually in the nafusa mountains", that makes it not part of the Nafusa campaign.
- This is not over-simplification, this is consolidation of closely-related information. Having a separate article breaks apart the continuity of the Nafusa battles. There is nothing in this article that cannot be accounted for in the main article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to misunderstand my intentions. I wasn't adovcating it's merger or it's preservation, i was just speaking my mind about something. I'm a neutral party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.165.235 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One more link from the New York times confirming the border crossing is part of the Nafusa campaign both militarily and geographicly, here [3]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no real reason to get rid of it, it's a battle like any other and deserves a page 84.12.119.214 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to vote keep and saying it's a battle like any other isn't enough. You have to state why do you think it deserves a page, and why do you think it's even a battle (since it most definetly is not on the level of Battles of Brega or Bin Jawad or Ra's Lanuf) because up to this point no real reason has been given for keeping this article except for some editors saying why not keep. EkoGraf (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the "battle of wazzin" was too miniscule, making an individual article for this is like making a separate article for fighting at abdeleen on the brega road. Zenithfel (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unless it escalates tremendously or a lot more information becomes available. Consolidation of tiny articles is generally a good idea, and this is all part of the same campaign (I still support Nafusa Mountains Campaign over Battles of Nafusa Mountains, but so be it.) 140.247.146.241 (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think that merging this article is very good idea because there are not many information about this battle.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, i'm aware i've commented before, but i think that given how mercurial the situation is it might very well become a llarger battle than the 2nd Battle of Brega so i think we should wait until the situation cools down a little before deciding if it's notable or not. 81.98.165.235 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd battle of Brega was a battle for a town between almost two thousand troops on both sides, this is just a battle for a border post, between no more than several hundred both loyalists and rebels combined....How can it be larger? Besides, Zintan is larger than this battle and we have already agreed to merge it into the combined article, and we did. EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to refute EVERY point, just let people say things without jumping down thier troats once in a while. 81.98.165.235 (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm yes I do, if the points deserve refuting. Also, I am one of those people, and I have things to say also. :) The point of this page is to discuss and state opinions and facts, and that's exactly what I'm doing. And why are you attacking only me? Lothar refuted you several times also. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to get dragged into an argument with you, but i will say that since this comment was made, confirmation has some though that Tunisian troops were infact involved in the battle. I think the fact that this is (So far) the only battle that has involved Tunisia and is the only battle that has spilled over into another country makes it worthy of a little extra note. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia about battles and conflicts that COULD be merged into the context of a larger conflict, it doesn't mean that they are.

I think you are looking for a little agro here but sadly i'm not the one to give it to you, i just think people should wait before merging this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.165.235 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is a merge discussion. We are discussing. That's how things work here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait This is beginning to develop into a separate affair in some ways from the fighting in the Nafusa region. To begin with, there is the role of Tunisia. It may be good to merge it in the long run, but let us see how it develops further before we make a decision.--Yalens (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you see it separate from the Nafusa fighting since it's happening in the Nafusa region/mountains, fought by the Nafusa rebels, and the post is used as a supply line for Nafusa towns. If Tunisia does get involved than we just add them as a third combatant, however, so far they haven't fired a shot (not been involved in the fighting) and have returned all rebels and loyalists that crossed the border back to Libya and not kept them as prisoners. EkoGraf (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf is right. This is still inextricably tied to the Nafusa battles. It just happens to receive more coverage because it is in a more accessible location to reporters. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard week that's needed has passed since the discussion opened. Anybody going to close it? 7 editors are for the merger, 3 are against the merger (one of which didn't give a valid reason for not merging) and 2 are for waiting. If we look at the numbers and the reasons for or against merger that have been presented (or have not been) it's obvious what should be done. EkoGraf (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gaddafi forces attacking Tunisia makes this an "international ground forces" and "crossing-an-international-boundary" battle. These two characteristics make the conflict in Wazzin/Dehiba unique in the whole Libyan civil war AFAIK. There are plenty of claims of mercenaries, e.g. Algerian etc military officials being captured by anti-Gaddafi forces, but no official confirmation. UNSCR1973 intervention is certainly international, but in principle it's without ground forces. So that makes the Wazzin/Dehiba conflict notable on its own, IMHO, even though of course it should be crosslinked appropriately with the Nafusa mountains article.

Keep three reasons. Firstly, its significant because of the cross border actions. The other battles didn't involve the Tunisian army. secondly, unlike other battles in the region we have much better information on this one, because access is less restricted. third, this battle is directly related to the flow of refugees, supplies and other transfers between the rest of the campaign and therefore of strategic significance. That being said, I would also be in favour of making a separate Zintan one, if enough information on the battle exists to put together a good article. Grant bud (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial rebel takeover of Wazzin sounded like a militarily and temporarily quick event - the merger proposal made a lot more sense back on 22-23 April. IMHO this discussion has been taken over by events. Boud (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The loyalists weren't attacking Tunisia. They were firing at the rebels on the border and the shells were landing over it into the border town since it was only a hundred meters or so from the crossing. Grad rockets are known to be highly inaccurate. Plus, Tunisian forces didn't directly engage the loyalists, despite initial claims. It was confirmed by the Tunisians they only fired in the air and both the rebels and loyalists ceased fire among them and volountarily surrendered to be led back over the border. Also, 95 percent of what is already in this article is already in the Nafusa battles article making this article a fork article. EkoGraf (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Can we please just do this already? It's obviously part of the Nafusa Mountains campaign. —Nightstallion 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Eight editors are for the merger five are against, I agree with Nightstallion, can somebody merge this already? Majority rules in this case FOR merger. EkoGraf (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It´s part of the Nafusa Mountains Campaign, but a campaign has a lot of battles. If there´s a battle of the campaign that is well documented, it can have a separete article. --Ave César Filito (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already well documented word-for-word in the main article. There is almost nothing from this article that isn't aready in the main one on the campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalist Shelling

I've found evidence that loyalist forces are now making a renewed offensive in the form of preliminary shelling that likely as not will be followed up by a ground assault. As such i've changed the result to 'ongoing'. 81.98.165.235 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like every other town in the Nafusa mountains, eh? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under Gaddafi control

According to this article Battles of the Nafusa Mountains town is now under pro-Gaddafi control.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Do we have any reports of casualties during the re-taking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.165.235 (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

~~Hey everyone, i've uploaded a picture of the Wazzin conflict from Libya Live Blog but i can't seem to get it to work in the infobox, help anyone? Fancyflyboy (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Okay... cancel that, i made a copyright related mistake. I've found a good collection of Wazzin related images but sadly i know nothing about their copyright. Here's a link, can someone upload them if they're not copyrighted, thank you :) http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.153027828096375.40721.133738650025293 Fancyflyboy (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi Force Still Continuing to Shell Tunisian Soil

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE74009920110501 --Thegunkid (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victory?

With the rebel gains it doesn't look like Gaddafi will be able to take the border crossing back anytime in the near future. So should this battle be considered 'over'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.105.33 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are reports that the Khamis Brigade is massing nearby, possibly in an attempt to retake this very strategic position [4] [5]. I wouldn't end it so soon. Jetpower45 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the fact that the rebels have taken Ain Ghezeya, the location from where the loyalists shelled Wazzin, I think that the battle is pretty much over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Battle of Wazzin. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Battle of Wazzin. 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:

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} 08:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Result" in infobox

The result in the infobox has been subjected to persistent disruption and edit-warring since February 2023. I've restored the last stable version before that. Per Wikipedia's policies, please discuss proposed changes here and gain consensus instead of unilaterally changing the result to your own interpretation over and over again. R Prazeres (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]