Talk:Second Battle of Benghazi

Name

Eh, where did the name for this article come from? Does any verifiable literature at all reference it? --109.57.122.98 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Old chat

Later, Al Jazeera reported that it believed French fighter jets had destroyed four of the regime's force's tanks; however, this was not confirmed by France.[10]- is there some precise source for this statement.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Two progadhafi jets were reported shoot down by the rebels two days ago. There is a video of one of them shoot down, i will get the source soon. It looked like a mig-21 190.118.9.11 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68AaMmsaa7k&feature=player_embedded its in arabic but here says that it was shoot down on Bu Hadi.(http://www.libyafeb17.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Status of the battle

This page says the anti-Gaddafi forces have won. This has been confirmed by rebel media, but has not been confirmed by independent sources (as far as I know). Rebel media said that they are on the advance towards Ajdabiya. Independent sources have said the city was calm and firmly in control by anti-Gaddafi forces. Do we go ahead and chalk this one up as a win for anti-Gaddafi forces, and move this article into the past tense? Currently it has it as an anti-Gaddafi victory, but aside from that the article is conflicting, with many places saying the battle is still ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernoapple (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As of March 20, reporters on the ground confirmed that numerous government vehicles were wrecked and that citizens of Benghazi were driving out to see the wreckage, which seems to indicate that the attack was repelled. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Decisive?

I think this should be labeled as a "decisive Anti-Gadhafi victory", as this not only kept the rebel capital safe, but also was the first time in recent days that a pro-Gadhafi attack was repelled, as well as the first time that foreign troops gave close air support to the rebel troops. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think we should label it decisive. Especially with the destruction of the convoy by French airstrikes. It was a major defeat for Gaddafi forces, and if the numbers are right, 14 tanks and 20 APC's is a large number, and will probably have lasting effects on the conflict for some time. The rebels are on the offensive now, it was a major turnaround. Infernoapple (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a bit. If there is no fighting anymore in Benghazi in next weeks the it was decisive if en some days there is again an attack from pro Gadhafi forces then clearly it was not decisive.Nico (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that it was a decisive battle. The rebels are on the offensive again and have reach Ajdabiyah today — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBOlite (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was already changed, and I believe rightly so. It should be left as a "decisive" anti-Gadhafi victory. If pro-Gadhafi forces return, it will be recorded as the Third Battle for Benghazi, as this battle seems to have been concluded. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Violation

The fair use guidelines say

Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).

Therefore I think using the image File:Libyan MiG-23BN shoot down.jpg is a violation of these guidelines. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

France in battlebox

Was France really with the rebels here or did it attack per the UN resolution? The whole thing seems a bit gray here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

France, under the resolution 1973, intervened in the final stage of the battle, destroying Gadhafi's armour and decisively changing the tide of the battle in favor of the rebels. So yes of course, France should be kept in the battlebox as it did take part in the second battle of Benghazi. Maybe we can add France acted under resolution 1973 and not on its own ? --BOBOlite (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

France is already separated from the rebels by a bar; there is no need for anything more. They were unquestionably participants in the battle. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No matter if france was acting under the resolution, the fact is its actions were benefical to the rebel side. Some members of the United Nations think they were a bit beyond the resolution. I think que question here is if France was acting as a member of the UN or lonewolf. Hegemn (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro Gadaffi casualties

More than 70 vehicles destroyed, 14 tanks destroyed by Franch air force, that makes more than 27 -30 killed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyHaBi (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It would, if these were truly "Gaddafi" tanks. The other possibility is that the armor had been taken from Libyan Army warehouses in Benghazi and positioned on the road for a staged event. So far I have not seen any proof for a single Libyan Army soldier killed or captured. Unless we have a reliable source, we cannot speculate on the number of casualties. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Petri. EkoGraf (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Map of Benghazi

Since parts of Benghazi were captured before they were reeled, I think it would be useful to include a map of Benghazi with the areas that were captured in green and red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabolisk (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Battle of Benghazi. 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/20121019130610/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F3%2F19%2Fworldupdates%2F2011-03-19T114652Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-557097-2&sec=Worldupdates to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F3%2F19%2Fworldupdates%2F2011-03-19T114652Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-557097-2&sec=Worldupdates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)