Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
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
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 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)
- Oppose the example of Francoist Spain is quite instructive here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:30, 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)
- Support, as done by Nazi Germany and Ba'athist Iraq. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
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.