Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 1

The Article is Skewed and anti-Gaddafi
Before I begin, let me tell you that I'm not pro-Gaddafi. It's just that I want to make this article neutral.

Though this article is claims to be about the History of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi, I don't find much information on Libya here.

Why doesn't this article talk about:


 * Education under Gaddafi
 * Healthcare under Gaddafi
 * Housing under Gaddafi
 * Infrastructure under Gaddafi
 * Humans Rights under Gaddafi

and a lot of other things?

You can't have an article about the United States which doesn't talk about these education or its media. Why should Libya be an exception?

Moreover, not even a single line is cited in the introduction section. What's more I don't even find any citation needed tag there. This is not what Wikipedia is about, isn't it?

Sin un nomine (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Humans Rights under Gaddafi" should be an interesting one. You are welcome to research and write it.
 * You are also welcome to research "Housing under Gaddafi" or anything else that strikes your fancy, just be aware that incorporation of material in the main article will be subject to WP:DUE considerations.
 * As for the "lack" of references in the lead section, please read the guidelines at WP:LEAD. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did some search and found some interesting materials on Libya. I have incorporated them into the introduction section. They are backed by references so I believe they will not be deleted without specifying a reason.
 * As far as WP:DUE considerations are concerned, just because a powerful nation doesn't like Libya and its leader doesn't mean one should not write about anything but wars and terrorism.
 * WP:LEAD doesn't say a word about not using references in the lead section.
 * Sin un nomine (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

bias
diff:

Here is a passage I removed as almost comical
 * "Gaddafi formed the essential elements of his political philosophy and his world view as a schoolboy. His education was entirely Arabic and strongly Islamic, much of it under Egyptian teachers. From this education and his desert background, Qadhafi derived his devoutness and his austere, even puritanical, code of personal conduct and morals. Essentially an Arab populist, Qadhafi held family ties to be important and upheld the beduin code of egalitarian simplicity and personal honor, distrusting sophisticated, axiomatically corrupt, urban politicians. Qadhafi's ideology, fed by Radio Cairo during his formative years, was an ideology of renascent Arab nationalism on the Egyptian model, with Nasser as hero and the Egyptian revolution as a guide."

I mean, personal honor, devoutness and  austere,  puritanical, code of personal conduct and morals? Whoever wrote this must either have been a very sarcastic soul, or perhaps used an antonym finder instead of a dictionary? Or machine translated Gaddafi's autobiography?

There is lots of similar funny material in the article still to be cleaned up. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Qadhafi vs. Gaddafi
The article uses both these names, are they the same person or am I missing some sentence where it explains the switch between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.76.110 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Title
This should have been known as "History of Libya under Gaddafi" as it is shorter to type in a search. -- 92.4.64.200 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is already a redirect from History of Libya under Gaddafi so no worries. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The recent undiscussed move by User:SuperblySpiffingPerson to History of Jamahiriya Libya was misguided in so many ways, I'll just say that please try to limit your edits to topics about which you have some sort of idea, or at least kindly read the article as it stands if you must edit it but do not yet know anything about it. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup on Main Libya article
Hi all. Hoping that someone familiar with the material in this article might have a go at fixing up the corresponding section in the main Libya article. Thanks all! -- Gnowor TC 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation
For Reference #47: The Middle East and North Africa 2003 (2002). Eur. p. 758,

Does anyone know where i can access this online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya under Gadaffi page akin to Spain under Franco?
Considering the similarities between the two, long dictatorships under the iron rule of one man, should there be a separate country page preceding the current Libya if Gadaffi is totally ousted and the rebels assume total contol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.118.244 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Article split
I propose that some portions of this article be split into separate articles titled; the Libyan Arab Republic, and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think i support this split. I did a search for articles with "history" "of" and "under", and these are the articles that have those words in the title:

Redirects with these words: Note that most of the articles are about nations ruled over by other nations, or groups of people ruled over by particular nations or leaders. There are lots of notable eras of many nations histories during which a particular person ruled, such as USSR under Stalin, China under Mao (a redirect), Philippines under Marcos (a redirect, seems a fair number of these article names turn into redirects), US under FDR or Reagan, and we usually dont have articles with that naming structure. We do, on the other hand, usually have articles for each separately named nation state. I dont know enough about the 2 different states that kadafi ruled over yet to say if there are more than cosmetic differences between them, but i do think that breaking out his states as separate articles makes sense. This article name seems to slant towards POV. I do understand, however, that if most observers, and the libyan people, have always felt that this is an illegal imposition of one persons power over a people, the article could stand instead of the 2 separate articles. Id lean towards an article for each named state, and an overview article (this one), which links to the two larger articles on the states. (PS if you check the history, youll see that i did not turn the "great peoples bla bla bla" redirect back into an article, but i did write the article content that the reverting editor described as a "coatrack". mea culpa, but i was just trying to fill out a new article i had just discovered, which had nothing but an infobox, and was hoping that others might fill it out with the full history, and restructure this article accordingly. thus, my "coatrack" was in good faith, if a bit excitedly focused on the minutae of current events.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * History of Egypt under the British
 * History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty
 * History of the Jews under Muslim rule
 * History of Lebanon under Arab rule
 * History of Mumbai under indigenous empires
 * History of Bombay under British rule, History of Lebanon under Ottoman rule
 * History of Lebanon under Assyrian rule
 * History of Lebanon under Babylonian rule
 * History of Lebanon under Roman rule (section History)
 * History of Bombay under Portuguese rule (1534–1661)
 * History of Lebanon under Hellenistic rule
 * History of Mumbai under Islamic rule (section History)
 * History of Hong Kong under Imperial China
 * History of Lebanon under Persian rule
 * History of Lebanon under Byzantine rule
 * History of the Puritans under Elizabeth I
 * History of the Puritans under Charles I
 * History of the Puritans under James I
 * History of the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Ottoman Empire
 * Greco-Roman world (redirect from History of Egypt Under Sasanian Persian Domination)
 * Arab slave trade (redirect from History of slavery under Muslim rule)
 * Magna Graecia (redirect from History of Italy under Greek rule)
 * Greco-Roman world (redirect from History of Egypt Under Sasanian Persian Domination)
 * I agree with the proposal. Perhaps there could also be a seperate article for the Libyan coup d'etat (1969). --143.238.91.206 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale given, or with the idea that a split would be beneficient at this point. If you are going to implement a split, do it along WP:SS. But it is much more important to maintain coherence and encyclopedicity than to implement a single page per "name change" of the Libyan state under Gaddafi. Focus on improving the present article. If a structure suggest itself that lends itself to a topical split easily, so be it. But forcing the current article into an essentially arbitrary division isn't a very promising approach. Gaddafi was the ruler of Libya for 42 years, and his regime has dominated the country throughout this period. He was not the ruler of three separate successive states, even if the name changes would suggest so at first glance. I am not saying it is impossible to implement this split and still maintain encyclopedicity, I am just saying that it would be a lot of hard editorial work, and as long as you are not willing to do that work, it will be better to maintain the current structure. --dab (𒁳) 17:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think the article should be split in principle, but your point about the editorial work involved is completely valid. Unless someone can take the time to make it a really nice split, better to keep as is.Ive split 2 articles that were much less complex than this, and it was hard work for small payoff.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be just as valid to rename this article Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (the country's shorter name, see this page at the United nations website) and keep just one article for the Gaddafi period ? True, the country had a formal change of nature, as well as a new official name, in 1977 when it became the Jamahiriya, but the period is still marked by the presence of one single man in power. The change from the Republic to the Jamahiriya is arguably an important step, but this was essentially Gaddafi removing the last restraints to his personal power. We could just as well have one article, which would use the regime's last name as a title, and explain in detail the changes in the nature of government without splitting content. Hence, just renaming and reorganizing it could be enough. However, I think that such an article could be merged with Jamahiriya, since the chances of another regime to use such a name and such a form of government again are slim. The intro could go something like "The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (long form : Great People's socialist bla bla bla) was the second name used by the regime headed by Muammar Gaddafi as leader of Libya. Gaddafi came to power in 1969, the regime was calles Libyan arab republic until 1977 and then changed its name to Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, while proclaiming itself a direct democracy, etc etc". (written differently, of course, but that would be the gist of it). The article could then describe the whole Gaddafi period, with different sections and the articles Politics of Libya (for example) detailing in dedicated sections the formal changes between the 1969-1977 and the 1977-2011 periods. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What i like about this idea is simply we would use the name of an actual nation state as an article title. i guess im fond of that concrete naming convention. I would be fine with this, if others like it more than my idea, status quo, or others. (mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Gaddafist Libya?209.172.228.7 (talk)
 * That would be a neologism, as its not used (yet) by any sources. it would be a good idea if it was already in use.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaddafist Libya would be feasible, as we already have Francoist Spain (but that's because the country was known, under Franco, as the Spanish state, which is too generic). Then again, if "Gaddafist Libya" is not used by sources, there's no reason we should either. Personnally, I think using the last (and best-known) name of the regime would be the best solution. We have just one article for People's Republic of Kampuchea and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, even though both regimes changed official names and constitutions (although the 1977 change in Libya was arguably more spectacular than in Cambodia, Gaddafi was in power before and after, and just dissolved any formal limits to his own powers with the pretext of creating a direct democracy). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the second proposal of Jean-Jacques Georges, use the Jamahiriya name for Libya under Gaddafi. The Jamahiriya was the final name used by Libya under Gaddafi just as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the final name used by Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. Perhaps a short-form "Libyan Jamahiriya" could be used for the title as a convenient short-form of the long name.--R-41 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like someone has unilaterally split the articles without removing the split proposal. While I understand the logic behind this, I still find it needlessly confusing. IMHO, we should remerge the articles into a single page, with the last official name as a title. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Source of "Coup" Section
Not sure if this is how pages on Wikipedia normally work, but in my research I found that the section "Coup d'état of 1969" is, except for the first paragraph, basically a paste of the entire contents of this page. I'm not a frequent editor/contributor - is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.25.76 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi → History of Libya under Gaddafi – It's a shorter title, it's consistent with other articles on this period in Libyan history, and "Gaddafi" is perfectly acceptable as a reference to Muammar Gaddafi; no one is going to think it might refer to another Gaddafi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's certainly not consistent with Muammar Gaddafi to which Gaddafi currently redirects. Can you give specific examples? Otherwise this request should lapse for lack of a rationale. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Requests don't lapse for lack of rationale; that's never happened. The presumption has always been that requests are completed in the absence of opposition, rationale or not. In this case there is opposition, but lapsing for lack of rationale is a fiction. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. But it explains this, anyway. A move should only take place if there's some reason for it. An unsupported request shouldn't be counted as a reason in itself, any more than "votes" which are unsupported by valid arguments should count against those that are well supported. If you can see valid reasons for a move that aren't given, then you should document them either in closing the move request or as a support vote, otherwise there's a risk that we'll just end up going over the same ground later on. If you can't see any such reasons, don't move it is my advice. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that a move should only take place if there's some reason for it, and that it's our job to enforce that, then you should suggest that the "move" button be disabled except for administrators, and that all moves be required to go through RM. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where I've brought this up. This prediction of "going over the same ground later on" has not been borne out, even though we've been closing uncontroversial and uncontested move requests without question for years. I've completed hundreds myself, and almost none has ever come back as a problem. We can trust editors more than you seem to think. This is nothing new. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy for the "move" button to work for non-admins, and agree we can trust editors a great deal, that's fundamental to the project. And perhaps I put it a bit strongly above... a request for a move does itself count as a reason, but only as a minimal reason, and I've closed several in this category as move recently myself. The arguments either way aren't that strong above, and I wanted to encourage anyone who had a better case to put it. Whether we call a no move decision in this case allowing the request to lapse if no better case is forthcoming or whatever doesn't concern me greatly, but I don't think it's a fiction to describe it in these terms. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in my years of closing requests, I've never failed to move an unopposed one for "lack of rationale", and this has never come back to bite me. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, and all of these may have improved the article space for all I know, but that also means that opportunities to improve the project space so that the guidelines reflect the actual practice have been missed. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an opportunity to me. Wanna be the one? Which guideline needs editing, exactly? When I started working in RM, I remember reading that the presumption was for moving unopposed requests, so it was accurate then, but I don't remember which page that was on. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose It would be also inapropriate since Gaddafi is fairly used name in Libya as many member of Qaddadfha tribe share it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge
See this section. Turns out the article has been split while the discussion wasn't resolved yet (granted, it hadn't been very active, so I don't really blame anyone for taking action and moving things forward). However, as I said before, I think we should have just one section for the whole Gaddafi period, since the changes in political structures had already begun before the formal change in 1977, and anyway it was still Gaddafi in power. My opinion is that we should use the regime's last name as a title (in the semi-short official form, Libyan arab Jamahiriya, which was used at the UN), as we do for Tito's Yugoslavia and the 1979-1989 Cambodian regime. See arguments above, again. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, and I agree with the merger, but I am not sure the renaming is such a good idea. Can we first clean up the article and see how it turns out? There is lots of content flying around that is now historical and needs to be updated. Basically all "$TOPIC in Libya" articles are now out of date and are at least partial merge candidates into this article. It is perfectly possible that after a round of mergers, we will decide to split this article again.

It makes sense to merge poor content so it can be cleaned up. Once we have fixed references and structure, it may make sense to create clean sub-articles about specific sub-topics. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Opinions are split 7:7, so as there's no consensus on moving the article, the article stays where it is. What's more, the arguments on staying under the current title are convincing, particularly WP:COMMONNAME. fish &amp;karate 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi → Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – Articles merged (the separate articles and the sections in this one were absolutely identical), now I have requested the article's move to Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, so we can use the regime's official name (in short or, shall we say, semi-short official form). Having a common article for the Gaddafi regime is better IMHO and using an official name as the title makes more sense. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was the shorter form used under international law, by the UN, in treaties, etc, see here, here, and here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Just as we have Kingdom of Libya section and not history of Libya under Idris Senussi this section should be named just as state entity was. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Libya under Idris had one official name. Libya under Gaddafi had three.  No water held. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 20:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have Libyan Arab Republic article and difference between those two names is just that Great part, yet under UN it was known as Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and that is proposed name. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It's time to create a separate "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" article. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Jeancey (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Tachfin (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gaddafi kept renaming his state. What makes this a single topic is the fact that Gaddafi was the strongman. Whether he called his state a "republic", or "jamahiriya", or "great" is of secondary importance. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current title seems to fit WP:AT far better than proposed; Multiple issues. Just as an example, the common name for this country is simply Libya, and has been right through the period concerned. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Vehement oppose. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi had at least three different names: Libyan Arab Republic (1969-1972); Federation of Arab Republics (1972-1977); Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977-2011). Having all that in a single article named for the last of these is misleading and ignores a significant chunk of Libyan history. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Non, Federation of Arab Republics was never the country's official name, nor Egypt's, nor Syria's. The Federation of Arab Republics was actually a proposed merger of the three countries, which never actually took place and was dormant from 1973. Libya did not cease to be the Libyan Arab Republic until 1977, nor did Egypt and Syria change names. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Gaddafist Libya then? The current title is unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That proposal would need to be tested against our normal criteria, and I would guess it's a neologism that wouldn't have a chance under current policy, but happy to hear evidence in its favour. Disagree that the current title is unwieldy in any relevant sense (see the last paragraph of the policy section linked to above). No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This article is about the state, thus thats what its title should reflect.XavierGreen (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is the English wikipedia and I doubt if anything other than a minority of users is aware of this (unpronounceable) title. The proposed title is neither recognizable nor natural (two of the WP:AT criteria). The current title seems to fit the bill adequately, let's just leave it here. --regentspark (comment) 02:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's so difficult about it? It is pronounced exactly like it is spelled. More importantly, how does it matter? The proposed title works because thats what the state was called for the vast majority of its existance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the English language wikipedia and Jamahriya is not what it was called in the English language. Per WP:AT, WP:ENGLISH, and WP:COMMONNAME. I see no policy reason to change the article title. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The name "Muammar Gaddafi" in the title is inappropriate because the Jamahiriya though now an de-recognized state is continuing to exist since Gaddafi's death, this will probably be short-term, but it is still relevant to point out. Plus a specific article on the Jamahiriya will allow more focus to be put on the state's Islamic socialist ideology that was suddenly adopted in The Green Book, a radical move away from his regime's previous policy of support and emulation of secular pan-Arab nationalism and regimes supporting it, particularly in Egypt, but abandoned this due to Egypt supporting a peace agreement with Israel that was unpopular in the Arab world.--R-41 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We would then need a separate article to cover the Libyan Arab Republic period, which isn't warranted. Most academics and observers regard the 1977 and 1987 changes as largely cosmetic anyway, as Gaddafi retained ultimate authority in the state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Pretty much agree with every other opposed poster here, but especially per WP:COMMONNAME Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Former country
It should be referenced as a former country as per the definition of statehood: "A sovereign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Currently: Defined Territory is a single neighborhood of Sirte and Bani Walid. Most of the population of those places have fled, the current "capital" is nearly entirely in NTC hands and the majority of the world either doesn't recognize it as a country or doesn't deal with it. Also, the leader is currently wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, so it's unlikely to ever be recognized again. Thus, not a country anymore.

Thanks!Jeancey (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as the ALJ controls even minor bits of territory they still fit the definition of a state, and if there are no people there then who is fighting the NTC aye? Recognition is irrelevent according to the Montevideo Convention and the delclaritive theory of statehood. Somaliland isnt recognized by any states yet is still considered to be one under the declarative theory of statehood. The statements of the ICC are irelevent when considering what polities are states, the ruler of the Sudan is wanted by the ICC yet i dont think you would care to argue that Sudan is not a state.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Move
Was there general consensus for this move? I, for one, am opposed to it, as the average Joe knows who Mo is but not the Jamahiriya. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think someone just moved it without consensus. Good faith move and all. Jeancey (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved back to original title. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the previous discussion above, but I think another discussion needs to be held in light of the fact that both Gaddafi and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya explicitly denied that he was ever Libya's ruler since the 1970s. The current title is thus completely misleading and therefore needs to be renamed to something that more accurately represents the ruling government/system during this era. I believe a title like "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" or "Libya under the Jamahiriya" would be the most accurate for this article. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He may have denied it, but Gaddafi was the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Reliable sources indicate he continued to hold power in Libya until this year (and Mathaba doesn't count, nor does Gaddafi's own disingenuous insistence that he didn't hold power - explicitly contrary to his former security chief Mansour Dhao's admission in a very recent New York Times interview). And I see no need, as I said above, to have separate articles for the jamahiriya period and the Libyan Arab Republic period in which Gaddafi also ruled. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your opinion. Gaddafi certainly had a strong influence, but that is not a good enough reason to claim that he was the de facto ruler of the Jamahiriya, which had never officially recognized him as their ruler, and nor did the United Nations for that matter. The "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" was the official name not only used within Libya, but it was also the official name recognized by the United Nations, as we can see here. Note in this UN report that nowhere is Gaddafi's name even mentioned anywhere, nor is there even any hint he has any authority in the governance structure for that matter. The fact that he was never officially recognized as the Jamahiriya's de facto ruler, both by Libya and the UN, is a strong enough reason why this article should not be called "Libya under Gaddafi", because that would completely contradict what had been stated by both Libyan politicians and official UN documents. I don't see any reason why anyone should be opposed to splitting this article into two articles, but if that's such an issue, we can always rename it to something like "Libyan Arab Republic and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", which wouldn't be any longer than the current (highly misleading) title for the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's just not verifiable, though. It also doesn't jibe with WP:PRIMARY. Gaddafi is named as the "ruler", "leader", "dictator", "strongman", "head of state", etc., of Libya in more sources than can be counted; officially he may have held no title, but I don't think he was fooling anyone, judging by the plethora of sources. Wikipedia doesn't just rely on primary sources; it also takes into account secondary sources, precisely to avoid pitfalls like the intellectual dishonesty of portraying Gaddafi as anything but the master of Libya from 1969 to 2011 regardless of title. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re "Wikipedia doesn't just rely on primary sources": This is an understatement. Per WP:PRIMARY, "material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." We use reliable secondary sources first and foremost. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And again, I should emphasize, that policy exists because of situations like this. There are probably over 100 countries in the world that are "officially" democratic but aren't actually politically free at all. Gaddafi's Libya was one of them. It remains to be seen whether the "new" Libya is or not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Denying that Gaddafi was the ruler of the Jamahiriya until 2011 is something quite embarrassing to read. I actually find this quite absurd. Is it even worth discussing ? Didn't Gaddafi deliver a speech at the UN on Libya's behalf ? Didn't he speak in the media as Libya's ruler ? Are we supposed to believe that Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai was Libya's real ruler when the revolt erupted ? Or Baghdadi Mahmudi ? If so, why did the civil war end when Gaddafi died and not when Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai was arrested (something the world barely noticed, actually) ? Words fail me. Anyway, the Libyan state was referred to as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in international treaties, so that settles the matter IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since when is the UN a primary source? The UN itself never recognized Gaddafi as the country's de facto ruler, so what basis do you have to say otherwise? The UN is a far more reliable source than the newspaper opinion pieces that you are basing your own opinion on. As for Jean-Jacques Georges's rather condescending comment, both primary (Libya) and secondary (UN) sources officially never recognized him as Libya's de facto ruler, so that's that. If the article is called "under Gaddafi", then it implies he was the de facto ruler, which he clearly was not according to both Libya and the UN. Jagged 85 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, are we pretending the UN isn't a primary source now? Even though it is constituted of officials and diplomats, issues press releases, adopts resolutions, etc.? A secondary source is like a newspaper or a book not published by a government agency or supranational organization. The UN is a primary source; it has a bunch of constraints on what it can and cannot "officially" say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If that's what you honestly believe, then I would suggest this article starts relying more on scholarly or academic sources rather than newspaper opinion pieces, which this article heavily relies far too much on in its current state. Jagged 85 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I seriously don't believe a sober and intelligent commentator writing a book about Libya, or North Africa, or the Middle East, or social democracy, would seriously believe the fiction that Zwai or another such puppet and not Gaddafi was the Libyan head of state and Gaddafi was powerless. (And no, Webster Tarpley doesn't count as sober or intelligent.) Even senior Libyan officials like the aforementioned Mansour Dhao didn't believe it. Libyans don't seem to have believed it, whether his supporters who held up portraits and chanted slogans about him, or his opponents who called him a tyrant and promised to free the country from his rule. For us to claim Gaddafi wasn't the 42-year ruler of Libya would be flouting an entire body of knowledge. It's exactly what WP:PRIMARY seeks to avoid. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretending that Gaddafi wasn't Libya's ruler is utter nonsense. Of course he did not decide everything himself - every ruler has cronies of some kind, by definition. I find this argument difficult to take seriously. No serious, academic book about Libya has ever pretended that Gaddafi was anything than Libya's ruler (de jure or de facto).
 * As for the article's title, I still prefer Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which fits better articles about political regimes, but Libya under Muammar Gaddafi might be better than the current one (shorter). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I seriously don't believe a sober and intelligent commentator would dismiss an entire complex political system like the Jamihiriya, including all its prime ministers, Basic People's Congresses, General People's Committees, General People's Congresses, and of course claims of direct democracy, as all just "fiction". The Libya during this time was much more than just Gaddafi, but this article in its current state seems to be much more concerned with Gaddafi rather than how Libya itself was like during this era. Whether or not Gaddafi really was pulling all the strings behind the scenes in secret is besides the point, because the reality remains that Gaddafi was not the sole ruler of the country nor was he even officially recognized as its head of state, unless you guys are suggesting the prime ministers, committees and people's congresses were all completely powerless? That sounds a bit too far-fetched to me. There are plenty of academic sources that do not refer to Gaddafi as the de facto or even de jure ruler but in fact suggest the contrary, such as this one which describes the Jamihiriya system, or this one, or this one which even points out Gaddafi criticizing the excessive repressive policies ordered by Revolutionary Committees, clearly indicating that he did not have nearly as much power as what the article is currently suggesting. Whether or not Gaddafi was the country's de facto or de jure ruler is a topic we could debate all day, but the article and especially the title is conveying only a single viewpoint and completely ignoring all other contrary points of view that do not go along with the general picture often presented by the news, which is a far less reliable source than books and academic sources. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of secondary sources refer to Gaddafi as Libya's leader during this period. We can discuss ways to include the content you want to see represented in a way that frankly doesn't come off as much like pro-Gaddafi propagandizing than some of the content you have added unilaterally (I mean no offense; we all have our own points of view, and the point of the Talk page is to make sure we have content that is agreeable and that any POV editing on any editor's part is caught out and moderated), but I don't think the opinions expressed in a tiny minority of sources that embrace the byzantine concepts of The Green Book and view Gaddafi's commentary on how Libya works as credible are sufficient to warrant a name change that 1) excludes the 1969-1977 period in Libyan history, and 2) isn't WP:COMMON. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the only reason my recent edits may come off like that is because most of the articles on Libya, and especially the civil war, seem to be overwhelmingly anti-Gaddafi/Jamahiriya and overwhelmingly pro-Rebels/NATO, almost to an excessive extent, so the Libya articles clearly need some balance. As for the extent of Gaddafi's power in Libya, I only posted a small sample of sources, but there are many more sources which also don't conform with the view of Gaddafi as the country's ruler. Anyway, since it seems I'm in the minority here regarding the naming issue, then there's probably no point in me continuing this discussion any further. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I can't use this to add anything to the article, as it is OR, but my room mate is Libyan and he says there was never any question that Gaddafi was their leader. Everyone always knew he was.  Jeancey (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the best way of describing him would probably be either the unofficial "Brother Leader", or simply the "unofficial leader". I think that would probably be the best way to describe someone who is unofficially acknowledged as the leader but holds no actual governmental position as one. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would a neologism not work for this instead of the current title? There is a Francoist Spain page, why can't their be Gaddafist Libya? Both had different official names, both lasted around the same time...


 * Sounds like a good idea. Other similar titles I might suggest would be "Gaddafian Libya" or "Gaddafi-era Libya". Jagged 85 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A neologism would violate WP:NOR. I tend to use "Gaddafist" but I haven't seen it very much if at all in reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with what Jagged 85 said back in October of 2011. I believe the relevant sections should be merged into "Libyan Arab Republic" and "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", respectively. This article is getting a bit too clunky and long as is. This would make it easier for those who want to read about the respective subjects. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

recent edits
I recently made this edit and was asked to explain it. Besides being POV pushing and giving WP:UNDUE weight, it seems the 'source' is a self publishing website. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent Changes
(Gaddafi and international terrorism) I think this article has been some how kept really one sided and there's a lot of misleading information has been involved, like there is quote of ronald reagan given, when it's no where needed otherwise we would be also adding what Gaddafi had called him back, then the berlin bombing has been never proved. The most of the the text in the article has been taken from a unverified book which can mislead. Even the US's bombing part from 1986 is really absurd, because that action from US was condemned by most of the nations of the world, there were huge protests, there are even videos in youtube, while you can't see anybody tearing off Gaddadfi's poster like this article has added. Again, A lot of the information in this article has no other source except the unknown book which can't be searched on internet. There should be a probe in this sub article. 204.93.60.146 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The title "Gaddafi and international terrorism" should be changed to "Freedom movements and international terrorism". As most of these acts were condemned that time as the terrorism act by only a limited about of sources, but they were also regarded as freedom movements.Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the article, Much of the content has unsourced and unverified information.Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The stuff was sourced, then the sources were removed. The discussion at RSN confirms that this source is fine, it is from a proper academic publisher. It is a fine source, if it does not fit your POV that is another matter. (You might consider reading the posts at RSN, it actually says the opposite of what you think it does). . This discussion should not be, by the way, held at someone's talk page but here Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough false and made up information in the book, in RSN it's noted that the info is fine enough for using as reference for reagan's policy, but this is not his page, and the book has included most of the illogical stuff, which should be referred as either "according to book" or not referred.Clarificationgiven (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, today, I added a source for the idea that mercenaries were involved in the war, from an RS. This was removed.  I have reinstated it.  This is bordering on vandalism, please learn how things work around here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the reference given to supposedly debunk the mercenary idea is much older than the one I inserted.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unproved allegation, total myth, so no need to use them as facts at all. See:-  Clarificationgiven (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked for input at the Libya project and the Africa project. We need more eyes on this.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an outside set of eyes, my first instinct is that both claims should be inserted, though figuring out due weight will take a bit more research. Clarificationgiven's source mentions "widespread" media reports of mercs; this is enough to justify its inclusion, but with the caveat that HRW and AI investigations later disputed these claims. However, I should note that this opinion is only based on what's been presented in this thread--I haven't done any independent research. Khazar2 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like tendentious editing to me; there are multiple strong sources which mention mercenaries. No doubt there's room to fine-tune the wording, and if there's another good source which disagrees we could actually contrast the two viewpoints rather than just removing the better-sourced side of the story... bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that mercenary claims should not be removed. But given the reports cited here from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that dispute the claims (and were picked up by mainstream media reliable sources), I think it's worth mentioning that counterclaim, too; I'm not sure that's so much tendentious as just giving the full picture. Khazar2 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed nothing, just made it more detailed, hope you all will check. Basically did it like the main page of the leader. Clarificationgiven (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd personally say that's undue weight for the Amnesty report. No reason to value it over the Atlantic's reporting, for example, and expound on it at such length. One line mentioning the HRW and AI rebuttals should suffice. Khazar2 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Atlantic has only reported, while Amnesty International/Human rights watch have made the investigation, which is essential to put, just like they did on the main page of the leader, that's what i meant.Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarificationgiven, could you please discuss your changes before making them so we can come to a consensus rather than making them first? It would make things easier. I agree with Khazar about weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse we do, but remembering that how the actual scene was, it should be described what really happened as well, i know it might weight, but i am only trying to make the page neutral and informative.Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith. That said, you have edited a great deal, and as can be seen here, not all of your edits seem to be ones that people agree with.  I think it might just be wiser to get a version people can agree on first, and then post it.  I have no idea what 'remember that how the actual scene was' means.  We are not in a rush.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and i will try for it, also i would like to note that this page has been handled by some of the people who are obviously against the subject, so the page has included a lot of negative information or just one sided. I hope we all will contribute together on making this page better.Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How a unreliable source from 2011 are claiming the things about 1999 without any backup and allafrica is mistaking as usual with the real story but if you read the whole thing properly you will get the meaning behind it, some more backup that the title wasn't claimed by him, but given to him:-, Read properly ..."being declared 'King of Kings' by over 200 African kings and rulers, Muammar Gaddafi has been killed by rebels that despised his rule. This title, King of Kings, was bestowed upon Gaddafi in August of 2008, during a meeting in the Libyan town of Benghazi"... There's no dispute about it, and no proof that he self proclaimed it himself, just like it's added in main page.Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sources which say he had himself declared "king of kings"; the article should reflect that. What's the alternative? That a crowd of African chiefs collectively - of their own accord - decided to fly to Libya to anoint him? That's just silly. It's just another self-aggrandising Gaddafi gesture - there are many others. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw the latest edit, although i still support the source of BBC which has directly put it as 'african leaders bestowed', you are pretty much supporting your opinion i think but i would like to add that any further changes in this regard should be discussed here first. As for the 'gesture', it's nothing compared to rest of the leaders and politicians around the world. Hope i will be collecting more information regarding this whole article. Thanks for sharing the image btw.Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Great / Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
why don't we mention both names on the infobox ?

3bdulelah (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Anycan can edit,but we pay the CIA to do so.
So yeah I am rading through this junk...  It is a messed up article... I hate to see bias and propaganda on wiki but some of this stuff here is so blantly unfounded that one can only source it with the CIA world hand book.

To be frank, I am not even sure why this article exists. I don't think it should be deleted but this libya article and the other 10 articles on Lybia and recent changes there should all be consolidated into one article.

Having an article for muammmar is one thing of useful relevence and having a seperate article on Lybia is of useful relevence.

The other 8 articles regarding Muammars Lybia is redundent and takes away from the useful relevence of all the articles on the subject matter.

I am being a little exaggerative with my numbers but not with my context. This article should of been consolidated and refined already. Alas, US tax dollars really do fund US public servents to make wikipedia entires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Economics, demographics for the period missing
This article should be renamed to reflect that it only discusses the politics of the era. 0 info on the economic situation within the country or the standard of living for citizens during the time etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.236.43 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal
Some one recently proposed separate articles for the Libyan Arab Republic and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. I would like to express my support, and I would also like to propose a separate article for the 1969 coup. Charles Essie (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - other articles about countries follow a similar scheme. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a fan of voting so soon without a discussion, but I'd be against it. The name-change was purely decorative; note that we have Francoist Spain, not "Spanish State" + "Kingdom of Spain (under Franco)."  If you want to make spin-off articles with "History of Libya under Gadaffi from 1969-1980" and the like of course because there's lots of information to add, that's fine of course, but I don't think the name change is a very relevant way to split, and there should be some overarching article on "Libya under Gaddafi" regardless.

If you want to spin off an article on the 1969 coup, that's totally fine of course. (And it should still be prominently linked to from here.) SnowFire (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If those are "former countries" in a sense, they would need to be split off in any case, so I support. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But there's no functional difference between them. It's important to distinguish name shifts because the government collapsed and was replaced (such as Rhodesia-> Zimbabwe) and name shifts that are cosmetic (such as Libyan Arab Republic -> Jamahiriya).  I'll again note Francoist Spain as an example: it actually changed its name halfway through, an entirely cosmetic change that had little effect.  (Franco DID lighten up later on, but the name change was entirely incidental to this shift.)  As a similar example, Egypt continued to call itself the United Arab Republic from 1961-1971, but the country was clearly Egypt, it controlled modern Egypt's territory, etc.  The actual joint-state of the 1958-1961 UAR was no more, so while separating the 58-61 period in Egyptian politics might make some sense, it'd make no sense to separate the 61-71 period from the 71-present period because there was a cosmetic different name.  Nothing interesting happened in 1971 for Egypt, and while Libya had more of a shift in 1977, it was really just an evolution of Gaddafi's rule and entirely merited to be kept in the same article. SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am less ethusiastic about separate articles for the Libyan Arab Republic or the Jamahiriya, but I am adamant about the creation of a separate article for the coup. Charles Essie (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the example of Francoist Spain is quite instructive here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, as done by Nazi Germany and Ba'athist Iraq. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to make the split? Op47 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)
Does this section really need to be this long now that a separate article on the topic exists? -&copy;2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 15:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622215522/http://www.sadat.umd.edu/archives/Egyptian_Israel%20Negotiations/4.pdf to http://www.sadat.umd.edu/archives/Egyptian_Israel%20Negotiations%5C4.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030301031212/http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/282/Libya-return.html to http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/282/Libya-return.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420212851/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/libya/trouble.html to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/libya/trouble.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612064251/http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990614123p1003.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990614123p1003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

per capita stratified
"Under Gaddafi, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth highest in Africa, but was highly stratified and concentrated within elite ranks loyal to Gaddafi." Does this mean that e.g. 1 person made a million dollars and 99 made $100? if it is something like that, it would be more useful to use language of mean and median than "per capita". The link is not helpful as it doesn't work. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://news.sky.com/home/article/15958004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110922185620/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-01/world/libya.war_1_moammar-gadhafi-national-transitional-council-libyan-people?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-01/world/libya.war_1_moammar-gadhafi-national-transitional-council-libyan-people?_s=PM%3AWORLD
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021164217/http://jang.com.pk/jang/oct2011-daily/21-10-2011/main.htm to http://jang.com.pk/jang/oct2011-daily/21-10-2011/main.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQl5H0x2?url=http://www.dailytimes.com.ng/blog/remembering-gaddafi-hero to http://dailytimes.com.ng/blog/remembering-gaddafi-hero
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804224233/http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102145842/http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/31/article_10027.php to http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/31/article_10027.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807181001/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/africa/libya.html to http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/africa/libya.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarian
Totalitarianism (n.) a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. (or) a system of governance in which every aspect of it's citizens' lives are overseen by a government or other governing force

Do we have any actual evidence that Libya from 1977-2011 was a totalitarian state, or did someone just say that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gaddafi.AFP .jpg

Merge
I believe "Federation of Arab Republics" should be merged to this article. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? The topics are quite distinct. CMD (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Could I please create a separate article for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, I think it deserves a sperate article. Sincerely VolgaDnper1488 (talk)


 * - can you go into some more detail? It's not a matter of "deserves" or not.  It's a matter of organization of content.  Gaddafi renamed Libya slightly, but this wasn't a meaningful shift - it was still essentially a dictatorship with him in charge, before and after, hence being a single topic.  If we did decide to split out this article due to size concerns, it's not clear it'd be around the name change anyway - it might well be around politics vs. other topics and the like.  SnowFire (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * - I believe it should have its own article because the History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi page is a long page already and the content in the section Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011) could be put in a separate article to shorten the page. VolgaDnper1488 (talk)


 * Per WP:SIZE - this is a bit hefty of an article, having ~65K readable prose or so, with 60K being the "consider breaking this up" amount. That said, it's only just over the suggested limit, and it's difficult to see what could safely be removed.  More generally, as I said before, I don't think a split based off "name of the country" necessarily makes any sense.  While the regime changed over time, as all governments do, the renaming to Jamahiriya was not particularly relevant as far as said evolution - pre Cold War / post Cold War would be a far starker shift if anything.  See Francoist Spain for another example, which is covered in a single article for all of Franco's rule, despite him making some window-dressing changes during his rule.  I'm firmly in favor of covering this as one topic, and if we need to split things off, split them off on an individual, per-topic basis ("Economy of Libya under Gaddafi" or the like).  The name change just...  wasn't important, unlike say Russian Empire -> Russian Republic -> Soviet Union -> Russia, all of which were very different states.  SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly though, this article doesn't go in-depth on the government and rule of Gaddafi as its the history section. There is much more that can be discussed. I'm not advocating that each and every government Gaddafi presided over to have its own article. My request would be that an article that goes only over the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and has the post-coup republic mentioned in the background section. Making a separate article describing the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya seems appropriate given it lasted for a very long while (1977-2011). The proposed article could go more in depth with the government, the economy, the demographics, etc. Just describe the country, not Gaddafi and the country. (FireboltLegend (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC))


 * - Okay, Thank you VolgaDnper1488 (talk)

black civil rights movements
What "black civil rights movements" did he support? --105.12.7.165 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The ANC and Mandela in apartheid South Africa, famously. Supported Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, and Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael of SNCC via the AAPRP. Also, SNCC itself and the Black Panther Party. Fantasmaguerico (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not have different articles?
Why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan095678 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Allahu Akbar - Former Libyan national anthem.oga

Undiscussed copy-paste move
Apparently you want to move this page to Libya (1969–2011). The way to do this is to request the move at Requested moves. You can't just copy-paste entire articles like you did, so I've reverted that. Lennart97 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your requested move is malformed, as you can clearly see at the top of the article page. Please read the instructions at WP:RM carefully (they're quite clear) and try again. Lennart97 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the article
Hello I’m Rakeem may I suggest that this article be splitted to the Socialist people’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Arab Republic it might help with words that are spelled before getting to the country info. So please reply if your interested. Rakeem Abdiel Gunawan (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011) section is certainly an absolute mess, and splitting may be useful for that if there is no better home. However, this is not splitting the entire article. The Libyan Arab Republic (1969–1977) section seems relatively appropriately written for this article. CMD (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Allahu Akbar - Former Libyan national anthem.oga

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Libya GDP (PPP) per capita comparison.svg