Talk:2012 Bani Walid uprising

Uprising to Clashes

In accordance with all such pages, like those relating to Yemen and Syria. Zenithfel (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree for the moment. Uprising is a correct word as it seems that pro Gaddafi fighters in the city are revolting against NTC rulers. Bani Walid insurgency would be fine too.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think insurgency then is the proper term, because of the highly militarized nature of the conflict. Zenithfel (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it's simply clashes. I think it should be moved back to that. There is no evidence of any major coordinated action. This seems like a reactionary attack to the arrest of pro-gaddafi fighters, rather than a concerted anti-NTC effort. Jeancey (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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 to 2012 Bani Walid uprising, least OR most neutral of the choices and supported by reliable RS. Mike Cline (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

2012 Bani Walid insurgency → 2012 Bani Walid clashes – All of the news articles are using clashes. Using the word insurgency is WP:OR and isn't supported by the current references. The page should be moved back to clashes until references can be provided that it is, in fact, and insurgency or an uprising.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Jeancey (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. All sources are available and it seems that local pro Gadaffi fighters have overrun NTC fighters and took control of their city. Calling it an insurgency it the best way to describe what happen and will allow to add all further developpement.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Our job isn't to take in information and decide what to call it. If news sources are calling it clashes, so do we. If they call it insurgency, then we do too. It's not our place to judge for ourselves what something is or isn't. If, in future reports, it is referred to as an insurgency, then likely it would involve all of Libya, not just Bani Walid. In any case, clashes is more appropriate as it is sourced. Does that make sense? You might want to read this WP:CRYSTAL. We don't predict the future. Jeancey (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an insurgency ongoing in Bani walid, and it did not begin with this attack only, eventough it is the major event. There is absolutely no reason for the moment to name this article clash rather than insurgency or uprising.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The article title is a name derived from reliable sources, not a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. In this case, insurgency is descriptive, while clashes are reliable. Jeancey (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree once again. I don't see how clashes is more reliable and less descriptive than insurgency. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's more reliable because there are sources for it. "have seized control of Bani Walid after clashes with a group loyal to the new" from Al Jazeera, "The fierce clashes" from USA Today, "Reports said at least four people were killed during clashes" from The Guardian. I haven't seen insurgency used anywhere. Jeancey (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Using your logic, the title should be "Bani Walid capture" since it is the most used title by press.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jeancey. "Insurgency" is WP:OR unless reliable sources are calling it an insurgency. And no, Mathaba and RT don't count as reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is calling this armed uprising, so it could be changed to that, that was my original title. For the moment, local fighters ousted the occupying NTC forces and are in control of the town. We have to remember that Bani Walid was a Gaddafi strongholh and that people there were supporting him so the NTC forces occupation was not welcomed by residents.

Clash does not correspond to the fact that there have been a takeover on the city and the abolition of the NTC local council.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

support, but uprising should be better--Reader1987 (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that since it is now claimed that they do NOT support gaddafi, insurgency is completely inappropriate. I still support clashes, as this was reactionary fighting, not a planned event. Jeancey (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Gaddafi is dead, the revolt in the town is obviously not to restore him. The fact is that a big majority of the population in Bani Walid were pro Gaddafi and that they did not welcome the NTC forces are liberators. They clearly want to control their own city and they are in insurgency against NTC for the control of the city. Clahes are not the correct term because it does not highlight the politcal issue. NTC forces were routed out of the city, locals NTC officiels fled, and the city is now controlled by tribal/elders locals who will set up their own local council.

The best title now would be 2012 Bani Walid uprising as the local NTC council has been abolished, and the 2012 Bani Walid insurgency title would be more suited if NTC retakes control of the city. Clashes is good from fighting between libyan factions, like bewtenne militia from two cities, but here, the major event is not the clash but the political issue.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To end the name debate

It seems that the takeover is fully completed. The Minister of defence just recognised the tribal council instead of the NTC one. The insurgency seems to have been successfull. I think that at this point clashes are excluded for the political issue.

What should be the correct name?

Bani Walid insurgency? Accurate, but the insurgency lasted only 2 day before they succeeded.

Bani Walid uprising? Accurate too.

Other propositions?--ChronicalUsual (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think that clashes are at this point inaccurate and not being used any more by the newer media articles. They have been using uprising, so that might be the best choice. Insurgency is completely out though, since it has never been used by any of the media sources. Jeancey (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (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.

Belligerent:: Pro Gadaffi, local militia, tribe

There are contradicting information about local insurgents who took the control of Bani Walid and ousted the May 28 Brigade.

From what I have read, the consensus is:

The local insurgents are fighting in a group called Brigade 93 and their leader is Colonel Salem al-Ouaer.

Then the story split:

Local NTC officials said that the brigade is a pro Gaddafi militia and that al-Ouaer was a Warfallah pro Gaddaffi

Al-Ouaer deny it and said that he lived in exile after the attempted coup and and went back after the war to form his brigade 3 weeks ago

On the other hand, residents of Bani Walid are heavily pro Gaddafi and the uprising started when a suspected pro Gaddafi fighter was arrested. There is a good chance that former Gaddafi fighters are in Brigade 93.

But the motivation is only local. So what should say the infobox on belligerents with this contradicting versions?? Brigade 93? Local insurgents? Should it mention the local NTC claims of them being pro Gaddafi?--ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it is currently unclear, it should mention only what is known: that some local militia fought against NTC, and that there are allegations made by NTC that this militia is pro-Gaddafi (emphasis should be that it is only an NTC allegation (possibly an attempt to attempt to assure others of the false dichotomy that everybody against them is pro-Gaddafi, but that's (currently) irrelevant and WP:CRYSTAL applies)). --93.142.214.189 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the claims should be mentioned in the text, but not in the info box. It is extremely likely that some if not more of the local fighters supported Gaddafi, but I don't think that that is why they are fighting now. They WERE pro-Gaddafi, but now they are just looking out for the interests of their tribe. I don't think any of them want to oust the NTC completely and put Saif in charge or anything like that. Jeancey (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Brigade 93 article should be fixed according to this, because it is currently claiming that they are NOW pro-Gaddafi. --93.142.214.189 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"The conflict was originally reported to be an attack by Gaddafi loyalists by local NTC officials. However, tribal leaders and residents have denied any affiliation with Gaddafi's remnants, stating their goal was the establishment of their own council in the city"

^^ Paragraph of the article, Let's look at these links:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091144/Libya-Gaddafis-green-flag-raised-Bani-Walid-bloody-uprising.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/gaddafi-loyalists-bani-walid

I have put those sources because we have been watching that so much of wikipedia has used those sources they have no where mentioned anything like the paragraph here, So we can come to the point as well as replace the para by targeting that Bani Walid was retaken by pro gaddafi/fighters of green resistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.27.36 (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sources come from during the actual event. Later articles clearly state that those reports were false. You can't pick which articles you want to use, especially when later articles are more reliable and contradict earlier reports by the same sources. Jeancey (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Which source you are talking about? And dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.27.36 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

---

2012 Bani Walid insurgency → 2012 Bani Walid uprising – Simply put, there is no insurgency. An insurgency would mean there is an ongoing guerrilla campaign against the government, which there isn't. This article is about the two-day event which can most clearly be defined as an uprising with the sole purpose of driving out NTC forces from the city. The result section of the article itself states Successful uprising. The article was previously renamed to uprising but a indefinitely banned block evader reverted it back to the current name. Who agrees with this? EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree per nom. I think we coalesced around the current title when it appeared armed fighters in Bani Walid would continue to harass the NTC's forces in the area. Instead, it looks more like a Wukan scenario wherein they rose up, pushed the local government out, and quietly reached a resolution with authorities allowing them to install their own government. Not an insurgency at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree per above. The reasons provided seem comprehensive enough. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2012 (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.

Uprising and siege

I think that uprising in January and siege in October are two specific events, not for one article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, an article has been created for the separate event (the siege). Here it is Siege of Bani Walid (2012). EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)