Talk:Battle of Bin Jawad

Battle of Bin Jawad

The BBC are reporting this town is control of the government forces. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Already marked it in the infobox as a pro-gaddafi victory.EkoGraf (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So what happened to the 50 rebels in the mosque? Would be useful to state it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.41 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is becoming unclear again; some callers on Al Jazeera Arabic state the rebels have retaken the two or are in the process of doing so. —Nightstallion 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to attribute such claims, as in, an a unnamed person telephoned al jazeera and said ...... was happening, which is not really worthy of adding to an encyclopedia is it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Gaddafi forces.

There is something wrong in the battlebox. I have read in the article that an helicopter was shoot down and that 9 progaddafi soldiers were captured and 1 died. However in the infobox only apperas 1 killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, please think on the possibility of beein faked by gouvernmental propaganda. A german journalist, Gerhard Wisnewski debunked all that rubish lies together with the swizerland TAGESSCHAU-Journalist Helmut Scheben. Check yourself and decide yourself. I'm a german who believed all gouvernmental lies in the past.

Potemkin-Villages 2.0: The Battle of Bin Jawad (in german) http://www.gerhard-wisnewski.de/Politik/Geopolitik/Schweizer-Tagesschau-Redakteur-enthullt-Die-meisten-Bilder-aus-Libyen-sind-gestellt.html Thank you for thinking yourself from now on, without Reuters and others Desinformation Services. -78.34.80.209 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Wisnewski. He basically complains that images and footage from the conflict in many cases is not real, that is, rebels are posing in front of the camera, or even engaging in staged "battles" when journalists arrive. He also says that - based on the reliability of, or absence of, footage, nobody actually knows if the battle of Bin Jawad even took place. While there are some valid points in this, I would still argue that a criticism along these lines would have to be very specifically applied, rather than a sweeping generalization. Otherwise we end up asking if we can be sure that the insurgency in Libya actually exists, or if Libya itself exists at all, etc., etc. Alfons Åberg (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

March 27 recapture

There is a consistent vandalism by anonymous users trying to overlay the March 27 recapture of the town into this battle-related article. If this continues, semi-protection is in order.Ihosama (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Move

• I have moved the discussion along with the article to First Battle of Bin Jawad.Ihosama (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have history-merged it back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

700 hundred unconfirmed missing rebels

• This is such rubbish - they ran off , have they turned up at home yet. According to - yes you quessed it - an unnamed rebel http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/3/10/nation/8224848&sec=nation - what a quality article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have templeted this article as NPOV violation -article is totally opinionated - Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific claims beyond a single unconfirmed statistic? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur the POV tag removal. However I also suggest the 700-missing be removed from infobox and just mentioned somewhere in the text. When the further development of the conflict is taken into account it is now clear that those just ran away without politely asking their commanders.Ihosama (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Bin Jawad. 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/web/20111122034233/http://news.sky.com:80/home/world-news/article/15946506 to http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15946506
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/3/10/nation/8224848&sec=nation

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) 13:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)