Talk:1969 Libyan revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I noticed article banner says reqires more referances, so i found some. As I didn't write teh article, i'd prefer not to add the references into it, but list them here for the author to decide. --Andys'edtits (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Possible wiki link & refs (Andys'edtits 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

re 'Palestinian and Israel'[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_in_Israel titled 1969 in Israel, has section ' Israeli–Palestinian conflict'

Possible refs - for 1969 coup[edit]

Bruce, St John, Ronald. "Revolutionary Command Council (Libya)". Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa |.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Current 2013 issues political, economy, resources[edit]

Novotny, Dr. Daniel (February 6, 2013). "Libya's Post-Gaddafi Transition: Facing Challenges but Avoiding 'Arab Winter'". The North Africa Post. Retrieved 16 October 2013.

Wiener-Bronner, Danielle. "Libyan factions far from secession as U.S. raid highlights unrest". Reuters US.

arab nation[edit]

"Way out of Mideast mess". refers Nasser's United Arab Republic. Desert News- Salt lake telegram 1958.

fixed disabig links[edit]

(Andys'edtits 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1969 Libyan coup d'état. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2023[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Libyan coup d'état → Al-Fateh Revolution – The page should move to the WP:COMMONNAME title in scholarly literature (current alt name and redirect), and away from the descriptive title that has been bestowed upon it editorially and which may be clear but has far less prevalence in the sources, both scholarly or general - see Google Scholar results for Al-Fateh Revolution (115 hits) and 1969 Libyan coup d'état (20 hits, including a large share of wiki mirrors). A similar pattern plays out in a straight google search, with 8,640 hits for the proposed, and 4,440 hits for the current title. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Africa has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Apologies for a slightly lengthy comment here! First of all, searching for a WP:COMMONNAME in a descriptive titles is slightly misleading here. The point of a descriptive title is that it describes the topic in question, using the language commonly used to describe that topic, but in a Wikipedia-specific format (as described in WP:NCE, usually <year><place><event>). It does not mean that the exact title in question (in this case 1969 Libyan coup d'état) must appear verbatim in the sources. So when assessing whether to move to a proper name title, such as Al-Fateh Revolution, the question to ask is whether that name is predominantly used in lieu of any generic title describing it as a coup that took place in 1969. What strikes me when I look at general sources concerning this topic, is that in general they seem to not call it the Al-Fateh Revolution. See for example [1][2][3] for news and book sources not using that term. More formally, I've looked at an ngram to tally all book usages over time: [4] . As you can see, terms involving "Libyan coup" or "coup in Libya" (general terms which aren't precise enough for the title of our article, but which nonetheless describe the 1969 event in nearly all cases, particularly if one looks at pre-2010 sources) dwarf occurrences of the "Al-Fateh Revolution" name by orders of magnitude. Indeed, the alternative name given in the article of 1 September Revolution also exceed the usage of Al-Fateh Revolution. Re Google scholar, I've never used that very much as evidence in an RM, as it reflects usage in a narrow field rather than the common name across all sources. So all in all, I don't think there's evidence that sources predominantly use the proposed title. As a final note, there might be a case for switching this to an alternative descriptive title of 1969 Libyan revolution. Adding the revolution variant (rather than coup) into my ngram - [5] - shows that it enjoys a strong lead over everything, including the coup variants, and through to 2010 as well (the last year in which 1969 was the only real revolution in the country's history). So I could probably get behind that if others want to, but not a proper name title. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, as the Ngrams you provided shows, and as I also checked, just "Libyan revolution" is the most common term overall, but obviously it is general and now we have two major "Libyan revolutions" in play, so it doesn't work disambiguation-wise. In the context, "Al-Fateh Revolution" is the most prevalent naturally disambiguated title (per WP:NCDAB) after the generic "Libyan revolution". While "1 September Revolution" also exists in scholarship, it has little more prevalence than the current title (at 30 hits). 1969 Libyan revolution would also be an improvement, since revolution, rather than coup is clearly the more common terminology overall, so it's also a better descriptive title, but I don't really see the benefit of deferring to WP:NCE when viable proper names exist. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Viable proper names exist, but it seems clear that neither "Al-Fateh Revolution" nor "1 September Revolution" are the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, given the ngrams I've presented. A substantial majority of sources discussing this event do not use that terminology, and they also fail an aspect of WP:AT policy in being not recognizable to most people. Far better to simply call it what it is, using the standard WP format.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably best not to use "revolution" as well as the majority of sources I've seen (including the ones Amakuru linked) use "coup". Frostly (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the sources used on the page, there are two that use the phrase "Libyan revolution" prominently in their titles, while "Libyan coup" is nowhere to be found. See also the Google Scholar hits for the exact phrase "1969 Libyan revolution" versus little to nothing compelling for the current title. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Amakuru. In the absence of a clear commonly used name, a descriptive title is best. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The ed17: You haven't addressed the question of the alternative descriptive title of "Libyan revolution" raised by Amakuru - it would be useful to have your input on that also. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iskandar323: Thanks for the flag. This and this calls it a coup d'etat, so there are sources out there to support "coup d'etat". But per the ngram, I think it's clear "revolution" is used more often. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 17 August 2023[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Libyan coup d'état → 1969 Libyan revolution – Page should move towards majoritarian language for this event, which is as a "Libyan revolution", as can be seen clearly from Ngrams, and in the presence of sources on the page with "Libyan revolution" in the title, but none with "Libyan coup d'état" in the title. Plugging related terms into google scholar also largely throws up "Libyan revolution" in the produced titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1969_Libyan_revolution&oldid=1220573278"