Talk:Tripoli clashes (mid-October 2011)

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 Mid-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 met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Uprising

I think that we should move this article to other name, like Tripoli clashes (mid-October 2011) or something like this.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also we dont know what was intention of pro-Gadaffi forces in this momen. Did they planned uprising and than rebel victory can be qualified like Loyalist uprising quelled or this is some lonely incident (I believe that second option is more probable).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Second Tripoli clashes might be a better name. Also, if loyalist uprisings become more widespread, perhaps rename to Loyalist insurgency in Tripoli, but not yet.Fancyflyboy (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Once again we have yet another article which deals with one minor situation and few clashes. I propose merging this article into 2011 Battle of Tripoli aftermath section just like rebel insurgency in city was merged with 2011 Tripoli clashes. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Tripoli is over. Just as 2011 Tripoli clashes is a separate article, so should this be. Fancyflyboy (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? Once again, rebel insurgency in city was dealt with in aftermath section of Tripoli clashes article why should this be any different? If we continue in this trend, giving article to every minor event, raid and basicly anything this civil war will soon have more articles than WW2. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're over-reacting. Any further loyalist uprisings can be merged here, perhaps renaming the page to "Loyalist insurgency in Tripoli" or something. Either way, this is a separate conflict to the Battle Of Tripoli.Fancyflyboy (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not overreacting but Im simply tired of repeating myself over and over. Rebel insurgency which lasted for 6 months was covered well enough in Tripoli clashes article. So what is reason for one clash which lasted for several hours, with 3 casulties in city of 1 milion, for having its own article and not merging it with aftermath section of Battle of Tripoli article as this is just aftermath of that battle and events which have taken place, ie regime change. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself? I don't believe anyone's made this article before. Either way; 2011 Tripoli clashes covers pre-battle of Tripoli uprisings and this page should cover all post-battle of Tripoli uprisings. It's one extra page, is it really that big a deal? Also, there was a substantial lull in fighting in Tripoli in between the battle and this. Fancyflyboy (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, repeating myself. First - this was the same issue with Douz skirmish, than Ras Lanuf raid and than Ghadames raid - all articles which exists only pro-forma and can be very well covered in others (in first case Douz article, in second - Second Gulf of Sidra offensive and third Fezzan campaign). Second - I have to repeat myself fourth time. Was there rebel insurgency in city? If so it was covered in Tripoli clashes article? If all answers on this are yes why in same scenario, just on other side of the conflict, cannot be that covered in Tripoli battle? And dont say that those are two different events, this is direct result of regime change which happened in Tripoli during Battle of Tripoli just as rebel insurgncy was direct result of supression of opposition into underground after Tripoli clashes. So why can one scenario be applied to first 6 months of war in the city and not in the rest? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Douz, Ras Lanuf and Ghadames. I didn't create any of those articles and didn't so much as edit the second two, so that's not down to me. Regarding this page, granted these uprisings are in the same place as the battle of Tripoli and part of the same war, but should we merge French resistance into Fall of France? Granted the French resistance was of a larger scale, but this might turn out to be. Either way, my point remains that this uprising was related to the battle of Tripoli, yet not strictly part of it.Fancyflyboy (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly Oppose merging this article. Why we can`t make articles about minos events when we have information about them? --Ave César Filito (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NNEWS EllsworthSK (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But this event was covered by lots of media: Reuters, Al Jazeera and lots of newspapers. It`s relevantand we have enough information, so the article, in my opinion, is correct. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it was minor event, well covered or not. Or does this event have widespread effect? Nope. Was duration of coverage long enough? Nope, it fell off headlines day after. Wikipedia is not wikinews and this minor thing does not meet WP:GNG. And for the record neither does Ras Lanuf and Ghadames raid. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support per nom. Merge the article. Although I don't agree with the nominator's oppinion on the Ras Lanuf and Ghadames raids. EkoGraf (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose We don't have any information is this clashes related to main event battle of Tripoli. It is not strange that we have articles about minor event during war because main source is media reports. When war end, and some political and historical research would be available, we can use tham to make better articles but now we mostly depend on sources. I believe that most solutions about this events coverage on Wikipedia are provisional. After them we can discuss to better organize materials, delete some articles or something like that. There are not reason to rush. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose for reasons stated above.Fancyflyboy (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support I just don't see WHY this is an article... its pointless really. Maybe we should make an article about Pro-gaddafi attacks in anti-gaddafi controlled areas, and include the Ghadames and ra's lanuf raids, as well as this article and any future attacks. I think that would be an acceptable compromise. Jeancey (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This attack was different in nature to the attacks on Ghadames and Ra's Lanuf. This was a civilian uprising, the other two were military operations.81.98.167.142 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder This discussion is about 2nd Tripoli clashes, not Ghadames raid or Ra's Lanuf raid. If you think those two shouldn't be articles, please go discuss it on their talk page, not here.81.98.167.142 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It has enough information about it, plus I don't think there will be a major Loyalist insurgency now that Muammar Gaddafi is DEAD. (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]