Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya

Strength
Its needed in the battlebox a streght ondicator of teh opossing force...at lest indicating how many US ships have taken part or how many planes gadhafi poses over libya, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011

Title
2011 military intervention by who? This should be renamed to 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, for two reasons. One, to specify who is intervening, and two, to remove the unnecessary word "military" from the title, as it is redundant. I will probably make a move request in a few days when I have time, or somebody else can move the page. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B532:8FDB:8C6D:90E6 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

2011 military intervention in Libya → 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya – per WP:PRECISION, as NATO is by far the biggest contributor to the intervention forces, and the role NATO played in Libya is a major point of focus, both the Wikipedia page itself and the news sources that talk about this. Alternatively, if 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya is too wordy / over-disambiguated, simply NATO-led intervention in Libya could be used, or you can opt to keep the title if that’s more preferable. DJ (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should renamed. Quellenbrunnen (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The intervention is the consequence of a UN resolution. Multiple countries that are not part of NATO were involved. NATO itself was not part of the intervention at its beginning but only join after a while. So limiting the name of the article to NATO alone would be misleading. --McSly (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from here, but NATO is still a major, consequential (arguably, the most consequential) participant of the intervention. So much to the point that NATO themselves acknowledge that their actions (either knowingly or unknowingly) may have contributed to Ghaddafi being killed. Per the Wikipedia page on his death:
 * "According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. […] NATO later learned 'from open sources and Allied intelligence' that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike was likely to have contributed to his capture and therefore his death."
 * And it's true they weren't the only participants, yes, but that's also why I specified the change to be "NATO-led intervention," not just simply "NATO intervention." DJ (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NATO was the main contributor and every single source mentions NATO significantly. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NATO was the main belligerent in this conflict. Merely stating "military" is not enough. desmay (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment copied from WP:RMTR:
 * I don't agree with this move. Adding "NATO-led" is unnecessary as it was the only such intervention and WP:CONCISE favours the current title. Saying "NATO-led" is not even entirely accurate given the UN mandate, as was pointed out by an "Oppose" !voter at the discussion, which you don't seem to have mentioned in your close. Please could you reopen the discussion? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After the above comment by Amakuru, an initial WP:RMNAC RM closure by Mellohi! describing the action simply as "moved." was reverted by XTheBedrockX, saying "per admin request". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I Oppose this move request, for the reasons given. The present title is both more accurate and better. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was asleep, sorry for the lack of response. The forced reopening was unacceptable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE. This is a clear case of over disambiguation. Was there more than 1 military intervention in Libya in 2011? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was not, no. Then again, it could still be WP:CONCISE if it was titled "NATO-led intervention in Libya." It would also be WP:CONSISTENT with other intervention titles on this site like: Turkish military intervention in the Second Libyan Civil War, Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, Chadian intervention in northern Mali, ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia, etc.
 * I think the question of who, in particular, is doing the intervening is still important information in my opinion (and I say this as someone who has no real love for Gaddafi). DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support "NATO-led intervention in Libya" for the above reasons. The original suggestion is too much of a mouthful. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose current proposal 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya as overly disambiguated, as pointed out by others. Other proposals may have more justification. Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * if 2011 was removed for brevity, would that be more a preferable option? DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I like 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya better than the backup, because it fits WP:NCEVENTS (which is primarily about consistency rather than disambiguation). If that fails, oppose NATO-led intervention in Libya, as I believe it a downgrade from the current title due to the naming convention. Pilaz (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Operation Unified Protector is already the article for the NATO specific component of the intervention, and IMO a large chunk of the details here should be moved there. Calling this article NATO-led.. means it becomes almost a dup of "Operation Unified Protector".  There is room for a broader article about NATO plus non-NATO intervention within the broader topic of First Libyan Civil War, and thus it should be Foreign military intervention in First Libyan Civil War or maybe 2011 foreign intervention in Libya if we want to shorten it a bit, but IMO that looses the important context of it occurring during a civil war.  Timeline of the 2011 military intervention in Libya is an article which should mention NATO in the title given its strict scope. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's the issue, isn't it? Even though it wasn't just exclusively NATO, NATO has such a prominent role that its almost inevitable that they come up. NATO is mentioned (through Wikipedia's find-and-replace visual editor) a total of 92 times in the article text, and even the very first line begins with "On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya." "France" / "French" is mentioned 44 times total. "United Kingdom" / " UK" / "British" is mentioned 37 times total. "United States" / " US " / "U.S." / "American" is mentioned 50 times total. All three of these countries are part of NATO, and NATO itself is listed as a belligerent. The only non-NATO member to be mentioned prominently here is Qatar, which is mentioned 12 times. There's even an "Actions by other states" subsection in Enforcement to distinguish between NATO and non-NATO contributions to the intervention
 * So I guess it just seems strange that, out of nearly every conflict I've seen with "intervention/military intervention" in the title (even manually searching for pages containing "intervention" in the title), this is one of the only ones that doesn't mention who the intervening parties are. Maybe some info here can be moved to Operation Unified Protector, but I don't know. Non-NATO participation shouldn't be ignored, obviously, but it also just feels a little silly to not mention NATO very clear role in the title, all things considered. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not sure why we are talking about WP:CONCISE; it's the same length. It's helpfully more specific as a descriptive title and also isn't longer, which is an improvement to me. I considered the possibility that in some cases "X-led intervention in Y" without "military" could be vague about what kind of intervention it is, but when X is the name of a military organization, it seems clear by implication. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

inclusion of Queen Elizabeth II as a military leader
This is the only modern war I'm aware of where the British monarch is included amongst the military leaders, either of the UK or Canada. As the head of state of those countries has no political control of whether those states go to war, it seems absurd to include them. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Source 31
Source 31 is no longer a working link that directs you so the source therefore should be removed. 185.219.9.227 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)