Talk:2011 Sabha clashes/Archives/2011

Did it really happen?

This article is based on a single report by an AP journalist (Hadeel al-Shalch) that have been republished by some other news outlets. So far after 4 days no one else have reported of the situation there. Now, Sabha is a major city with a population over 100,000, yet when you compare it to the situation in the extremely isolated Kufra 2 months ago you'll find that we had major news agencies covering the battle there. I would suggest moving this article to a user domain until we have more confirmations.--Rafy talk 11:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The fighting in and around Kufra received pretty sparse coverage. If you check out the sources, they are all reports of rebel and government claims. Also, Kufra was rebel-controlled before the battle, and news flows more quickly in opposition-held areas. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rafy. No reliable source of something happening in Sabha. I don't think Wikipedia can have page on a supposed event based on very few rebel rumors. Rebels don't even talk of Sabha anymore. No coverage, no news no material to do a Wikipedia page on this. This is very misleading for the readers --Geromasis (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"No reliable sources" is a false claim; a few reliable sources did give this brief coverage, just see the sources given. None of this is sourced to Libya Alhurra, libyafeb17, Wefaq Media, or other rebel-aligned media outlets which are considered to be "unreliable". This "rumour" is different from the rumours of uprisings in Sirte that echoed around on twitter for a while, but turned out to be bogus. Those were never picked up on in the media. but this has been to some extent. The sourcing is scant, granted, and nothing new has come out in a few days. I admit that I am wondering about what is going on here as well, but all that is in this article is from news sources which are generally considered to be reliable. We can make our own speculations about al-Shalchi, but AFAIK the AP is generally considered reliable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right, AP is a reliable press agency alongside with Reuters and AFP. The first link is a announcement from NTC who never spoke about Sabha again. The second is from AP and they published resident comments and it was worthy to be mentionned in their article. But seeing how no more info have appeared since a week it can be questionned if something happened or was worthy of the creation of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geromasis (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Geromasis and Rafy, there is no information that anything is realy going on at the moment in Sabha. My personal belife is that the rebellion that was in the city was crushed. Othervise the rebels would announce a victory for propaganda purposes. EkoGraf (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Personaly I am also suspicious because Sabha is known to be one of the key Gaddafi support city because of the heavy presence of his own tribe. And that fact was not even mentionned in the articles. But outside of that, there are very little reports to create a page about "Sabha clashes". Maybe there were some protests but I don't know if this is page worthy with the current sources.--Geromasis (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Awlan Suleiman tribe revolted, not gaddafi's tribe, and that is why Gaddafi lost control of it. http://www.taipeitimes.net/News/world/archives/2011/06/13/2003505691 Zenithfel (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of info right now doesn't mean the lack of conflict. If it was under Gaddafi's control, the gov would have denied the claims, as they did with Zawiya (though they denied claims of Misrata as well), and sent a government coordinated trip. Take Al kufra for example, for weeks we did not really know who controlled it, but then we found it that there was constant clashes, until the loyalists were finally defeated a month ago there. So the absence of evidence is not exactly evidence of absence Zenithfel (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actualy your source doesn't say anything about Gaddafi loosing control of Sabha. It says that the protesters only liberated several streets....wouldn't call that loosing control of an entire city. I still belive that it's the same situation with Zawiyah and Zliten, where you had rebels attempting to take control of the city with the uprisings crushed and the rebels eather defeated totaly (Zawiyah) or managing to retain only a neighborhood or two (Zliten). Given that there is a major military base at Sabha and pro-gaddafi loyalists are in large numbers in that region I would say that the protests were most likely suppressed and that is why we aren't getting any info from there. Sabha isn't Kufra, one has a majority pro-loyalist population while the other a majority anti-loyalist population. EkoGraf (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't definitively say that whatever has happened in Sabha has been "crushed". Nothing of the sort has been reported, AFAIK. A few days ago, residents and rebels said that they feared that Gaddafi was readying a force to reestablish control of the city, but there has been no word of this happening. The city is in the middle of the desert in Gaddafi-land. News flows slowly in the desert, which is too remote for most reporters to bother with, and in Gaddafi-held areas, where media access is more restricted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the Nafusa mountains and Misrata, there is no radio communication to protesters in Sabha, or even journalists. One should remember that in January the entirety of Libya was 99% pro Gaddafi. At this point it doesn't matter who is pro or anti, because both civilian populations are submissive to who ever controls the security. Even Sirte has its protests against Gaddafi, and Tobruk had its protesters in favor for Gaddafi. But in the end its whoever controls the military complexes.Zenithfel (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sabha is an important city for Gaddafi as his tribe is the majority in this city. Losing the control of this city would be a so big blow that we would already know if it was the case. Rebels would claim it every day. Here not only there is a lack of source but even the sources don't say Gaddafi lost the control of Sabha. That's why I am very skeptical. This event would be very big if it happened. With so few sources, even from rebels it mean likely that id dit no happen at all. It would be like losing Syrte.--Geromasis (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sources don't say anything about Gaddafi loosing control of the city, they say loyalists lost control of only a few streets, one district at best. And the sources don't state the protesters were readying for a counter-attack by Gaddafi to re-take the city. Rather to re-take the one district they lost. If there are no new sources in the next couple of days to confirm that clashes are still going on in Sabha than I will close this article since there will be no sources to confirm there is ongoing fighting. EkoGraf (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Geromasis/EkoGraf: By "reestablish control", I did not not mean that Gaddafists lost the entire city. I meant that they do not have full control of the city, which is/was true based on the sources.

Geromasis: Few sources≠"nothing happened". Claiming that nothing happened is pure, unsubstantiated speculation. Reliable sources say that things happened. Until you can produce reliable sources that say it was all a hoax, talking about "nothing happened" is unproductive and contrary to how Wikipedia works. If such sources fail to materialise, it is your WP:OR versus WP:RS. RS always beats OR, even if there are only a few sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lothar, saying nothing happened is wrong since something did happen. But the question now is - is it still happening? By all accounts, no it's not. But we will see in a couple of days. EkoGraf (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We can be sure of nothing in this case. As far as we know the AP reporter could have been lied to by a supposed resident. The fact that no other media, not even AP itself has talked again about that or have updated the situation is telling a lot. It is an important city for the reason I have written but nobody is talking about it like if nothing happened there.--Geromasis (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"As far as we know the AP reporter could have been lied to by a supposed resident"=WP:OR. It is our business on Wikipedia to report what reliable sources say, not report on our own speculations. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not wikipedia policy to create page about an event that is so bad sourced that there are big doubts about its existency. --Geromasis (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are these "big doubts" coming from? Reliable sources? Or personal opinions of editors? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the complete lack of source in a war where the smallest gain is showed to the whole world as a trophy. Same apply for the pages about Zliten battle and 2nd battle of Az Zawiyah have been created way too soon before anybody could know what exactly was happening. This page is even less sourced and I have never seen a whole Wikipedia page about an event based on only one source. Here goes the notability criteria and the multiples sources.--Geromasis (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am pointing to a more bigger question again if this event is still ongoing. In my opinion it is not. And if by tomorrow there is no reliable information to back-up the article that it is still ongoing I will close it. It is my strong belife, since there is a lack of information on rebels expanding from the few streets that they did take in the city, that loyalists re-established control just like they did in Zliten. We haven't heared anything about any ongoing fighting there for three days now since rebels claimed that a massacre would occur there. They are suspiciously silent now. I belive they thought they would take Sabha, Zliten and Zawiyah in one big swoop but got crushed so now they are playing dumb like it never happened. EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and close it in a few days, but don't make any claims of it being "crushed" if no sources report it being so. Just say that no information has come out in some time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion?

@EkoGraf: Sorry for not using the talk page earlier, I was under the impression, looking at the title, that only the first topic (whether it actually happened or not) was being discussed. @all:Basically, my take is that we are violating wiki policy by assigning the city to Gaddafi victory because it is original research (as it would be if we assigned it to the rebels), as we have no sources to confirm it. --Yalens (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The existance of this article is violating Wikipedia policy. The event is so badly sourced that it may have never have took place in the first place. And even if something took place we have absolutely no information on how it was so a page is pointless anyway.--Geromasis (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I question the need for the article, not on the basis IF it happened, but on the basis that it is a non-notable and badly sourced event. The non-existent communication from the rebels in Sabha and the continuing air-strikes on the city can prove only one thing. EkoGraf (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically, the city could be under divided control, so the NATO airstrikes don't necessarily mean that it is under Gaddafi's control. Anyhow, we at least have 5 sources, so its not like we are necessarily in violation by having the page at all, although the page's credibility is arguably questionable (but then again, we do at least have sources this time). If we do decide to delete it, it should be saved into someone's sandbox/userpages beforehand so that we can revive it once the situation clears up, I'd say. --Yalens (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we incubate the article "temporarily" until further information is made available. The main point in favour of this action is that the whole article is based upon a single report by an AP reporter.--Rafy talk 22:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rafy's idea sounds good to me. --Yalens (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is five sources but most are recycling of the same story in a different wording. In any case I have no problem with Rafy's proposal with incubating the article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources did pass at WP:DYK, and nothing in the article is not reported in a source. The sources are not unreliable; the BBC and AP are top-tier organisations as far as reliability goes. "Badly sourced" only is valid if the reliability of sources are in question or there is a lot of unsourced material. Right now, the arguments against this article seem to be based mostly on WP:OR opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: "Recycling the same story with different wording" by various sources does not take away from that stories credibility- rather, it strengthens it. On the other hand, one could argue there is an issue of balance here, but given the sheer lack of sources due to lack of communication, that's acceptable. It could get a tag for being a current event too, or something (if there's one available) along the lines of the situation being "fuzzy" due to lack of communication. But none of these things warrant deletion. --Yalens (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just one question....do you have a source to confirm there is ANY fighting in Sabha? Or if the rebel movement is even still alive in Sabha? In any case I thought we agreed that the article should be put into incubation? EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, originally I had agreed to incubate, but Lothar persuaded me to switch by noting that the page was successfully nominated for DYK (meaning that it clearly fits wiki guidelines, and better yet, its an article that gets to be noted on the main page). As for your question, four of the five sources (all except the BBC article which cites Gaddafi's tribe) speak of fighting in Sabha. --Yalens (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, all four of those stories are recycling of the same story FROM THE SAME ONE DAY. You have not provided any reliable sources that confirm that the event that happened on that day continued into the next. As far as recycling goes I will guote word for word the text from two of the sources:

Source number 1 [1] - Meantime, a new front could be opening in an unexpected southern Libyan salient as well, as residents reported growing anti-Gadhafi sentiment in the once-quiescent city of Sabha. Young men and members of a big anti-government tribe were protesting in the streets and readying their weapons — some brought in from rebel forces in the north —to join the fight...
Source number 2 [2] - A new front could be opening in an unexpected southern Libyan salient as well, as residents reported growing anti-Gadhafi sentiment in the once-quiescent city of Sabha. Young men and members of a big anti-government tribe were protesting in the streets and readying their weapons -- some brought in from rebel forces in the north --to join the fight....
These two sources are actualy not even recycling, but copy-paste of the same word-for-word text so in essence you have only three sources not four. Also, this source [3] talks about possible massing of rebels in Sabha (and has been the only source to use the word massing) and about protests in Sabha, bud doesn't mention anything about clashes. I never said that the sources are unreliable. I said that the sources (now revealed to be only three, possibly even only two) only confirm an event where a bunch of (almost unarmed) protesters took over a few streets and that's that. After communication ceased and the uprisings in Zlitan and Zawiyah were crushed no word ever came out of Sabha again, what does that tell you? In any case, on the issue of this article, three editors are not content that the event is eather enoughly sourced or even notable enough to have an article of it's own while two editors oppose this notion. Two of the three editors not content agreed on a proposition to incubate the article and one of the two content initialy agreed but than backtracked on the deal. If the article was put to a vote I wonder how things would go. I am again urging Rafy's suggestion to incubate the article. It is less radical than Geromasis idea to merge or even totaly delete the article. I am agreeing with Rafy's suggestion because if it is revealed that the event had more to it than it might be notable but as it is now it's not notable and by all things considered was a much smaller event than what the press (only one reporter as Rafy said) originaly presented. EkoGraf (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, I see nothing wrong with incubating...on the other, that the article was successfully nominated for DYK (as Lothar pointed out) makes me feel like it is worth something and shouldn't be taken off the public view. --Yalens (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What the sources say... here's a compilation:

Source number 1 (ABC News-June 13th): Tribal fighters opposed to Mr Gaddafi have also clashed with his forces in the oasis city of Sabha - a first since the outbreak of an uprising against him in mid-February...

Fighting also broke out in Sabha, 800 kilometres by road south of Tripoli and a bastion of support for Mr Gaddafi, the rebel National Transitional Council said.

Fighters of the Awlad Suleiman tribe, a rival to the Gaddafis, "liberated several streets" on Saturday, the NTC said in a statement. Mr Gaddafi's forces had opened fire, killing one man.

The fighting in Sabha, with a population of about 100,000 people and home to an important military base, followed two days of anti-Gaddafi protests there, the statement said.

Source number 2 (AP-June 12th): Meantime, a new front could be opening in an unexpected southern Libyan salient as well, as residents reported growing anti-Gadhafi sentiment in the once-quiescent city of Sabha. Young men and members of a big anti-government tribe were protesting in the streets and readying their weapons — some brought in from rebel forces in the north —to join the fight.

The lightly populated south of the country was long believed solidly behind Gadhafi. Much of the population in Sabha, for example, was originally from Chad, Niger and Sudan, brought to Libya by Gadhafi in the 1980s. They were given government stipends and jobs in return for mercenary support of his regime.

Many of those men now have gone north to fight with Gadhafi forces, leaving behind heavily armed and restive young men who are native to the region and the anti-Gadhafi Awlad Suleiman tribe, the largest in the city and a force throughout the country.

Reports filtering belatedly out of Sabha said protesters had set up checkpoints in a main residential district, Souk al-Namla. Last Wednesday, security forces fired into the air to disperse the crowd, sparking a bloody clash. Residents said they feared Gadhafi was readying a mercenary force in the north to return to Sabha and subdue the uprising.

Source number 3 (BBC News- June 13th): no mention of Sabha, this was used for Gaddafi's tribe.

Source number 4 (Bloomberg Businessweek- June 12th): A new front could be opening in an unexpected southern Libyan salient as well, as residents reported growing anti-Gadhafi sentiment in the once-quiescent city of Sabha. Young men and members of a big anti-government tribe were protesting in the streets and readying their weapons -- some brought in from rebel forces in the north --to join the fight.

The lightly populated south of the country was long believed solidly behind Gadhafi. Much of the population in Sabha, for example, was originally from Chad, Niger and Sudan, brought to Libya by Gadhafi in the 1980s. They were given government stipends and jobs in return for mercenary support of his regime.

Many of those men now have gone north to fight with Gadhafi forces, leaving behind heavily armed and restive young men who are native to the region and the anti-Gadhafi Awlad Suleiman tribe, the largest in the city and a force throughout the country.

Reports filtering belatedly out of Sabha said protesters had set up checkpoints in a main residential district, Souk al-Namla. Last Wednesday, security forces fired into the air to disperse the crowd, sparking a bloody clash. Residents said they feared Gadhafi was readying a mercenary force in the north to return to Sabha and subdue the uprising.

Awlad Suleiman tribesmen bear a special hatred toward Gadhafi. Shortly after he took power, a group of tribesmen were accused of plotting a coup, and many were executed, with others dying in prison. (Yalens' notes: EkoGraf is right that this source takes a lot from the AP article. I suspect the reason it was originally put in as a separate source was that it does add its own info, most notably the history of the Awlad Suleiman tribesmen being accused of plotting a coup in the past)

Source number 5 (Scotsman- June 13th, now deleted by Ekograf): The massing of tribal fighters in Sabha could kick away another finger of Col Gaddafi's weakening control of Libya. It had until now remained untouched by the revolt that erupted in mid-February. Sabha, an oasis town in the Sahara desert with a population of 100,000 people, is also home to an important military base.

(Yalens' notes: EkoGraf was right to delete this- it adds nothing new.)

I put these all up here so that we can see the sources in question in full without everyone having to go and sift out the mention of Sabha in each, I just did it myself.--Yalens (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we finally conclude that it is not Wikipedia's own page worthy?

Here are the resume of this article:

1) A reporter from AP is told by a resident that an anti Gaddafi protest happenned

2) A rebel spokeman say that some tribesmen took the control of some street and feared represal.

And that's all. No continuation, no idea of what happenned after.

The reason why I doubt that it deserve its own article:

1) No other reporters or news searchers has reported about and event that would have been a big developpement.

2) The Libyan governement never spoke about that, not even announcing a victory.

3) No word on Sabha from the rebels since more than one month.

4) In a war when each skirmishs is know and widely reported if Gaddafi had crushed the rebellion it would have been reported.

5) A big pro Gaddafi rally was held on 8th July and it would have not happenned if the city was not under its control.

Like I said, it does not meet the credibility required to become a page of an encyclopedia. It does not provide any checkable information. --Geromasis (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know my answer is "no.", as there is no harm in having the page- there was a failed uprising in the city by those with pro-NTC sympathies, that merits an article), but I;m here to correct something. You say there was a big pro-Gaddafi rally there. However, the source you gave on the main page said nothing of the sort- it merely said that Gaddafi spoke to a crowd of 50 thousand- which in my opinion is not necessarily any sort of spontaneous "pro-Gaddafi" rally, but rather more likely what Gaddafi has done in the past, forcing his citizens to attend these things. At the very least, it is presumptuous to call a Gaddafi-organized event a "massive pro-Gaddafi rally" when in fact he, let me emphasize, organized it.--Yalens (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are reaching. http://www.africanews.it/english/libya-anti-nato-rally-in-sabha/ Maybe the video convince you it is a pro Gaddafi demonstration? The first article was alreay clear. I will revert any reversion you will do on that subject (the rally) because it is obviously biased.--Geromasis (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, if you have a reliable source that says pro-Gaddafi rally, then you are fine to add it, its just that your source didn't. In any case, it doesn't belong in the sidebox (it is fine in the article though), as it was not part of the battle, in my opinion.--Yalens (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've partially reverted you as to keep the number of people there preserved (50 thousand rather than "tens of thousands"), and keep the rally (not part of the battle) out of the battle's side box. I've added in the pro-Gaddafi rally thing again, but with the source you posted here, in order to avoid the SYNTH violation. Is that fine? --Yalens (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)