Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi

Africa: Libya Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Top-importance).

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Mandela on Qaddafi

"This man helped us at a time when we were all alone." 1 "Libya was one of those countries that supported us during our struggle when others were working with the apartheid regime." 2 "It was pure expediency to call on democratic South Africa to turn its back on Libya and Qaddafi, who had assisted us in obtaining democracy at a time when those who now made that call were the friends of the enemies of democracy in South Africa." 3— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.82.252 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Arab Republic

Opinions on a separate page for the Libyan Arab Republic? If none are given, I shall go ahead and make it one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinkeiff (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamahiriya split, again

@XAELOR: - Can you explain why you want to split off the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to another article, and why you used the awkward full name nobody uses rather than just Libyan Arab Jamahiriya?

Various editors have crawled out of the woodwork to do this without ever explaining why they think this is better, just doing it instead. Maybe an artifact of them being separate articles on other language wikis? Anyway, I remain opposed. Nothing interesting happened in 1977. The country was still referred to as "Libya" in English. Gaddafi was the dictator in charge before, and he was the dictator in charge after. If the argument is length, then it should be something like History of Libya, 1977–2011. This wasn't a "new country" that sprung up out of nowhere and then vanished: it was just Libya, and the era was that of Gaddafi, so it's appropriately covered in this article, which this change now makes appear as if Gaddafi's rule stopped in 1977. Which is not true. Even if there are summary-style spinoffs made, this article should still cover the entire period under Gaddafi as a relevant topic. I will again use the example of Francoist Spain, which covers all of Spain-under-Franco, and does not subdivide by the title he was calling it at the time, because the title really doesn't matter that much. SnowFire (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire honestly, it sounds like it needs it's own page, in a nation format Cash713 (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~True! WikiManUser21 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)~~ strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Libya" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Old Libya and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9 § Old Libya until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2023

I think we should split this page into 2 new articles: Libyan Arab Republic and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Why? Well, @SnowFire, those two republics aren’t the same as the current one. For example, the Socialist Republic of Romania isn’t the same republic as the current state of Romania. Plus, it feels cleaner to have these 2 pages instead of this one. For example, there’s no History of Romania (1947-1989) page, but we have the Socialist Republic of Romania page. WikiManUser21 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my opinion above. If I ever have time, I'd love to rewrite the existing article's structure. But the scale of the change in 1977 is not remotely comparable to the fall of Ceausescu in Romania. In November 1989, Romania was governed by a communist dictator in Ceausescu, and by January 1990, it was governed by completely different people. In all of 1976, 1977, and 1978, Libya was a dictatorship governed by Gaddafi. He changed a title, that was it. SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi be renamed and moved to Gaddafist Libya.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi → Gaddafist Libya – Shorter name per WP:COMMONNAME as is in line with Ba'athist Iraq and Ba'athist Syria. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A History article is a different topic to a former state article, but in this case it does appear the article is (mostly? A bit of a mess) a former state article and not a History article, so a move would be appropriate. CMD (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the listed arguments. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the listed arguments.Suriya247 (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SupportBabylonian1963 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the arguments above. Skitash (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply in this case because "Gaddafist Libya" isn't the common name. "Gaddafist" is not a common label because "Gaddafism" is not a common way to describe Gaddafi's ideology, i.e. the Third International Theory. Accordingly, none of the reliable sources in this article uses either word, and the word itself doesn't appear in this article. This is in contrast to Ba'athism, which is the only name for that ideology, hence the common usage of it as a descriptor for Assad's government. Yue🌙 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about just "Libya under Muammar Gaddafi"? CMD (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

another name could be "Socialist Libya" as all changes during the regime still kept the basic value of being a Socialist regime. Babylonian1963 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the current name is too long of a page name and should be replaced with a shorter alternative. Heck, even Green Libya is a such one. The best other alternative to Gaddafist Libya tho imo is Libyan Socialist Jamahiriya or similar. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 18:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: A rare designation. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Africa, WikiProject History, WikiProject Libya, and WikiProject Former countries have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: While the move has more "support" replies, they are not expanding upon any reasons why we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME, which in this case is a prevalent argument and could result in a no consensus close. Alternatives would be worth looking into. (The nom cites COMMONNAME, however it looks like they may have meant WP:CONCISE, unless we have sources we are missing) ASUKITE 15:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few scholarly uses of the phrase "Gaddafist Libya" ([1]) but both "Libya under Gaddafi" ([2] and "Libya under Muammar Gaddafi" ([3]) are significantly more common; I would support moving to Libya under Muammar Gaddafi as a more WP:CONCISE version of the current name but I think "Gaddafist Libya" is sufficiently rare that it would not be an improvement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is far clearer and commoner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Libya under Muammar Gaddafi per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. As shown by Yue and Caeciliusinhorto, "Gaddafist Libya" is not the common name and so does not apply in the latter case. Loytra (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a history page, removing that from the title would mean the reader would expect a former country page, which I guess this could be turned into Kowal2701 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the current page makes it feel structurally like a history page? There are chronological history sections, but there are also topic-specific sections. CMD (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually there's a history section, government section, foreign policy section, culture section, and economy section like at Ba'athist Iraq, Zaire, and Ba'athist Syria. International relations and the insignia sections are the only non-history ones here Kowal2701 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]