Talk:Raid on Ras Lanuf

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 Low-importance).

Military history: African C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Loses

If pro-Gadaffi forces had 150 fighters and 10 was killed 15 killed and 10 captured it is at least bad formulation t say that most of pro-Gadaffi soldiers was killed or captured.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one NTC source reported that 15 loyalists were killed, and that source at the time said no opposition forces members were killed. Later, all reports said 15 rebels were killed, but made no mention of loyalist casualties. Anybody thinking propaganda? The one NTC claim deserves a mention, but only in the notes section, since nobody else made mention of the loyalist deaths. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. We should keep it in the correct column but clearly label it as an NTC claim, and if you want to then use the notes section to remark on the casualty claims only coming from a single source, I think that would be quite reasonable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim has no weight, 99 percent of the world media disregarded the NTC source's statement outright and didn't even made a mention of his claim in their reporting. And if you realy want to talk about NTC statements, they themselves later admitted they had 15 of their own dead but they themselves made no further mention of loyalist fatalities. One more thing, 15 equals 15? Anybody thinking here that that one, and I repeat, just one NTC source maybe tried to make the 15 dead opposition fighters seem as dead loyalists. In any case, since you are so adamant in wanting the number of loyalist dead be based on NTC claims than how about the other half a dozen NTC sources since than that made the statements? Like the NTC minister, or the NTC refinery worker, or all the others, who clearly confirmed the deaths of 15 rebel fighters, but made no mention of 15 dead loyalists. Half a dozen NTC sources in comparison to just one NTC source make no mention of any loyalist fatalities. THAT'S the reason it only deserves a footnote mention. If a few more NTC sources made a mention of the loyalist casualties I would agree with you that it deserves a place in the coloumn, but as it stands, half a dozen opposition figures don't agree with the NTC commander's statement. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:SYNTH unless you can produce a reliable source saying they disputed the claim. It seems improbable to me that 17 anti-Gaddafi fighters were killed in a firefight to zero pro-Gaddafi casualties, and we have at least two rebel commanders saying there were pro-Gaddafi casualties. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not synth, it's fact. I can provide 30 sources or more that make no mention of loyalist casualties, while you got only one rebel commander (not two) saying 15 loyalists died. By the way, the source you are providing at the moment in the article on the loyalist casualties also makes no mention of the loyalist dead, so better you find a proper reference or it can be removed alltoghether by someone because it is unreferenced as it stands. I provided a preaty fair compromise solution by not writhing in the infobox that there were none loyalist casualties, instead I put unknown with the note about the 15. I think that's a preaty fair 3rd solution. EkoGraf (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Seriously, is this even articleworthy. We´re dealing with one minor raid which killed 15 guards and lasted for several hours with no damage to refinery, no major gain, no major battle et cetera. Dont we already have enough articles as it is, sometimes even about skirmish which happened outside Libyan territory (Douz skirmish which I had to redirect 3 times now), cant this be merged into timeline section or sirte offensive? --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's entirely separate from the Sirte offensive, as the sources quoted here have made clear. This incident took up most of a full news cycle on Libya, largely eclipsing even news about Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi in Niger and Mustafa Abdul Jalil's speech in Martyrs' Square. It resulted in over 30 deaths and may signal the start of a deadly and protracted insurgency. It was a bold raid into territory thought to be squarely under the former rebels' control. This is definitely notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EllsworthSK, minor raids like this are not even close to notable. Remember: WP:NOTNEWS. --Crusio (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So 32 people dying in Libya isn't notable, but a snowstorm in the United States is notable? That just doesn't make any sense to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Kudzu1 on this one, it seems that this is a one off event, maybe we should fold it into Ra's Lanuf's article for now. Keep in mind, while it might BECOME notable, it currently isn't all that notable. Jeancey (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kudzu, the event was notable (had a lot of coverage in the mainstream media and showed loyalist capability to still conduct large attacks behind enemy lines). There are dozens of battle articles on one-day battles from the Vietnam war that didn't have more than half a dozen fatalities. Why shouldn't we make this article than? I am against merging the article with anything else. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]