Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Miscellaneous

WHy is this article so pro-Gadhafi? At least include some reasons for his controversial image and something about his CIA files (see: VEIL by Bob Woodward). Also write somethigna bout his hating political opponents and things of the similar.--Unsigned edit by 69.208.158.244 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to use four tildes to sign your name on the discussion forum. I think the last section of this article does seem NPOV, any suggestions for possible revision? (SeanMcG 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

I haven't scoured the Gaddafi info completely, but I'm not seeing any reference to his change of heart (vis-a-vis the world community and his militant opposition to the West) being influenced by the attentions of his son. My understanding was that Mr. G. was well on his way to rejoining the world community long before George W. even got into the White House, prompted to apologize for the Lockerbee crash, and prompted to gain raprochement with Europe by a son who wanted his country to be respected again. George W. and his silly adventures, post 9/11, were incidental to Gaddafi's change of heart, far from the cause. I'm sorry, I can't cite chapter and verse now, but this is what was being written long before we got into Iraq.

WHy does this article praise gadafi? why doesnt it tell of the people he killed trying to get and stay where he is? he is a ruddy bastard.

Agreed, please visit www.stopgaddafi.org <- another link this site has taken down a few times.

Hmmm, is there any truth to the rumor that G's infant son was killed in an air raid?

Remember April 15 1986 from his official site says of the US air raid "The aim of the strike was to kill him. Instead, his daughter was killed...some would call it murder." There is a photograph. --Dhartung 06:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is bogus as well, and it was alleged that it was his adopted daughter. The word in Libya is that he made up the story to gain some kind of sympathy.

---

Because the name is properly written in Arabic there are a number of alternatives using the Roman alphabet. The BBC prefers Gaddafi, ABC News prefers Ghadafi.

A search on Google shows, 25,400 hits for Gaddafi, 9020 for Ghadafi and 7,740 for Qadhafi. I think that Qadhafi should be moved. The following site http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/ortho1.html lists distribution found on Google at some point in the past, but I think he must have got the first two entries reversed.

Don't forget Khadaffi, Kadaffi, etc.

Not forgoteen, see above website.

Could we at least decide on one spelling for the article? Danny

Eh, I just did a search, got 68,000 hits for Gaddafi and 35,000 for Gadhafi (not Ghadafi, as you did). ugen64 00:07, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)

In reviewing this Wikipedia article, I have noticed that it is almost an exact match to a copyrighted bio of MQ posted on the ABC news site. Did ABC get it from here, or vice versa? Does this issue need to be addressed? Please view the text in question at Gadhafi Bio by ABC -- polaris999

He (or a son of him) is a heavy investor in Italy, including a top soccer team which I don't remember (Parma?). He even managed to get the final match of the Italian championship played at Tripoli. Please research this. -- Error

His son al-Saadi has just been signed by Serie A side Perugia. Also, in 2002 the Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (Lafico) bought about 8% of the shares in Serie A champions Juventus. I would like to add information about this, and other recent events, but hesitate to do so because of concern about the matter re ABC news which I have explained above. Am wondering whether we should continue to work on the Qadhafi article as it currently exists via correcting more of the errors it contains and adding recent news, or plan to do a major re-write ...

Would appreciate very much your thoughts on this -- polaris999

I did the initial creation of this article way back when, and unfortunately my memory is somewhat vague - I seem to recall copying significant chunks of it from a US government page, which would make it public domain. But unfortunately I was an idiot and I didn't explicitly mention the source in the summary field, and I can't seem to find it now, so I can't trust that memory. Since this potential problem appears to be primarily my fault, how about I take an hour or two when I get home tonight to completely rewrite the article, preserving all the information but putting it into a brand new form? That should distill out any copyright that may be present on the current text. I don't have time to do it right now, but if there's new information you want to insert just make a note here and I'll integrate it all when I do my rewrite. Bryan

That sounds great to me! The only major addition I would suggest would be a review of his recent involvement in promoting African Unity, i.e. encouraging establishment of a United States of Africa, trying to negotiate peace agreements between/among the warring factions in many African countries, etc. It might also be interesting to mention his swift denunciation of the 9-11 attack (first Arab leader to make such a statement, I believe) and his expressions of sympathy to the American people.

Polaris999 23:20 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Eep! I've managed to put this rewrite off for a full month now. Turns out it's a bit more than a few hours' work, it's hard an annoying trying to rewrite this much text to say the same thing without being the same thing. :) Back on it now, though, in case anyone thought I'd forgotten. Bryan

We should move this to "Moammar El-Gadhafi", since that's apperently his perfered spelling; see [1]. - Efghij 05:40, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That may, or may not, be his preferred transliteration. Since the latest official Press Release distributed by Libya's UN Mission transliterates his name as "Muammar El-Qaddafi", perhaps one could conclude that this is his preferred version? I would hazard a guess, however, that he is only concerned about the correct spelling of his name in Arabic. Therefore, I don't think that it matters which variant we use as the title of the wiki article, so long as the most common spellings are all cross-linked to it.

Polaris999 01:03, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let's just keep it where it is forever. If someone tries to move the article, there will be a large amount of defective redirects. WhisperToMe 00:01, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That can easily be fixed. --Jia ng

His website uses "Muammar Gadafi". --Jia ng

Hmm, and all along I though he was a bad guy. This article has certainly disabused me of that notion. Kent Wang 19:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move page

This page should be moved to Muammar al-Qaddafi, which is what the whole article uses. An admin will have to do this. --Cantus 00:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OMG that was quick! Thanks Hephaestos! --Cantus 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edit War

Dear lord. VV, if you're going to get into a massive revert war, you ought to have some written justification of it beyond "reverting misinfo". Why are 172's additions misinformation? I've protected on 172's version. john 05:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls. (a) The new text is slanted (e.g., merely having a "stance" on Palestinian independence, like, say, I don't know, Saudi Arabia?). (b) It repeats the unproven assertion that Qaddafi's daughter was killed. (An adopted daughter may or may not have been killed.) -- V V 06:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's substantial evidence that Mossad placed a transmitter in Libya to convince the US that the Libyans were responsible for the German bombing, resulting in the US raids. This should be reflected in the article.

Colourful Muammar

I think this article needs some reference to his extravagant, colourful lifestyle and appearance. His wardrobe comes to mind, his blue clad female bodyguards, the bedouin tent he had set up in Brussels, etc. He is also said to write poetry. The guy may be a dictator but he's an interesting, multi faceted person nonetheless.

that's nothing. he absolutely killed at this year's Arab League conference.

>>The only color I'd like to see is the gray matter of his brains splattered against a wall.

Anything on the Bulgarian nurses?

For several years, the Libyan government has held a handful of Bulgarian nurses under the charge that they deliberately spread the AIDS virus amongst patients at a children's hospital in Benghazi. Last May, a Libyan court convicted them to death by firing squad on the basis of evidence that was derived through torture-induced confessions. A new trial is in progress, but the case could last for years. It is speculated that Libya is doing this to force Bulgaria to give them money or to have Sofia excuse Tripoli's debts.

Anyway, the nurses are innocent. An AIDS expert looked into this case and linked the outbreak to the poor sanitation in the hospitals that facilitated dangerous transfusions. Based on information regarding incubation period, the expert also noted that the children were infected BEFORE the nurses arrived.

Why is there no discussion on this?? posted by 129.170.246.74

Because nobody has created such an article yet. I think this is a good idea, but it belongs at Foreign relations of Libya or in its own separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I found the article at Trial against the Bulgarian medics and a Palestinian doctor in Libya, which was several months out of date. I also made sure it was cross-linked from here and the Foreign relations of articles for both countries. I'll also see about getting it into the current events listing. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Then why aren't the articles linked?? posted by 129.170.247.235
    - Please sign your edits to Talk pages. I see no need to link that article here, because there is no direct connection to Qaddafi that I know of. Not everything that happens in Libya belongs in the article on the national leader, just as not everything that happens in the US belongs in the article on George W. Bush. I did link to that article from multiple locations where it is relevant and encyclopedic, and I put it on the Current Events page as well. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is also a very poor title for an article, and it should be renamed. Adam 03:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Qaddafi really a Colonel?

I have always wondered if the english translation of Qaddafi's rank is an accurate one. We always hear of "Colonel Qaddafi" but is he really a Colonel? Upon taking over the country, did he promote himself to General? Of assume some other title that the western world simply translates as his former Army rank. I took a close look at this uniform in a recent picture and I can't tell if hes wearing a Libyan Colonel insignia or sme modification of it. And, if he is still a Colonel, is he commander-in-chief of the armed forces? That would make him a higher rank than a General, actually. I also see that Qaddafi wears various ribbons and medals, I wonder what these are for? As a dictator, he could have given himself every award of the Libyan military much like you see some South American dictators with every imaginable military badge and decoration. In any event, this would be interesting to address in the article. What does everyone think? -Husnock 09:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer your questions, from all evidence Qaddafi was a Colonel in the Libyan army Signal Corps (i.e. military intelligence) when the coup took place, and he has eschewed any promotion in rank as well as any official title, preferring to rule through an arguably nominal Revolutionary Command Council. Technically I think the answer is that the Council is, collectively, commander-in-chief. If anything, Qaddafi has stayed away from ostentations of the generalissimo variety; in keeping with his Arab Socialist principles, he prefers to think of himself as a man of the people, and often wears colorful Arab robes rather than the military uniform. --Dhartung | Talk 6 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Letter to Minnesota School Girl

*In 1986, responding to a Minnesota schoolgirl's letter in English, he used the spelling Moammar El-Gadhafi. According to his personal website, he prefers the spelling Muammar Gadafi, although the domain name gives yet another version, al-Gathafi. Can someone point me to where I can find a copy of this letter? It seems to be addressed to a second grader at the Maxfield Magnet School. Printed source, Website, anything. Right now, it's a urban myth he even wrote it, perpetuated by a lot of internet sites. If there is not a printed source or at least a copy of this letter's contents, I think my removal of this myth is warranted.--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea this was an urban myth? I remember when this happened and it received commentary in places like -- I'm pretty sure -- TIME magazine; perhaps a Lexis-Nexis search will turn it up. If you really feel like confirmation from a source, try the school itself [2].

Many small things like this that happened before the web aren't well documented on it, as I'm sure you're aware.

(And where did you get the idea that Cecil Adams "perpetuates" myths? I'm sure he ain't 100% reliable on every point, and he rarely cites all his sources, but that certainly isn't his bag.) --Dhartung | Talk 5 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Well, you were right, Lexis Nexis pulled up good stuff. --Muchosucko 6 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

Off-topic, about his looks

Does al-Qaddafi remind you guys of Dr. Frank N. Furter of the The Rocky Horror Picture Show and the The Rocky Horror Show? --fpo 01:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why is Gaddafi so hated?

why is he so bad? What did he do? im doing an assignment and i cant get any info on what he did wrong...

pls help

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.248.75 (talk • contribs) .

He killed a lot of people, apparently mostly political dissenters; established some strict offical public codes of morals; and supported terrorism: he is believed to have ordered an early 1980's bombing at a night club (popular among American soldiers) in Berlin that killed Germans and Americans, and he has been implicated other terrorist activities mentioned in this article. Also, he curried favor with the Soviet Union (another not-so-nice goverment - but don't look to Wiki to find out why, the historical info isn't in that section either).

He did a lot more than just that. There is also no freedom of expression or opinion in the country. He floods the country with his bogus propaganda. You only know of the pan-am flight bombing, but he also destroyed a libyan aircraft going frmo benghazi to tripoli killing 157 people in 1992, and then claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people. Also in 1996, the Abu Salim Prison massacre took place, where approximately 1700 political prisoners were killed. In the 1970's University students who opposed military draft were arrested, and many were hanged in public.

note* While it may seem that he had favored the Soviet Union; that is not entirely true, he hated them , and they didnt like him much either. He purchased weapons from them but as far as foreign policy goes, they werent friends.

note* Quote: "He floods the country with his bogus propaganda" How is this any different than American media? Is it different? I make no claims, but you should ask yourself those questions. Any person with average intelligence should examine these claims.

Quote:"...claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people."

You should also ask yourself how do you know if the claim is true or false? I admit I am skeptical of the (Gaddafi) claim, but how can you claim he 'killed those people' You don't know that. You weren't there. How many "bogus explainations" have been readily accepted by the American public regarding everything from watergate to the so-called "terrorist attack" on Sept. 11, 2001? Can we say "Snowjob" ?

If Gaddafi "floods the country with his bogus propaganda" what makes you think that you are immune to "bogus propaganda" in your country?

I must ask myself "Why is the United States so hated?" It's not such a mystery to me anymore.

WAKE UP. SEE THE LIGHT.

From an American born citizen. I would rather be here than anywhere else but that doesn't mean I love my Government. I hate no one. I do not hate Gaddafi, I do not hate America or my Government. I just see them for what they are.71.193.253.74 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User 71.193.253.74, so if you see them for what they are, what are they? Are you implying the information in this entry to be the truth? In regards to the question "Why is the United States so hated?", considering the governments and individuals in those countries may have past grievances with the United States, I'd say the United States has a lot of enemies. It just seems their escalation of violence towards individuals is radicalizing larges numbers of youth, and other states are simply taking advantage of the radicalized movement OR a majority of their citizens agree anyway. So if there are a group of people who are controlling the entire economy, it is those with wealth and power, especially in free market systems who are steering the direction of the nation. Their spending determines which businesses progress, as well as the people making these investment decisions. The United States just seems to have this specialization in military hardware, since their culture pretty much openly embraces weapons and arms to begin with. So they sell the stuff or give it away to people they feel are their allies, even if this is supported by only a slim majority. Really I think the only way to get a better understanding is to simply live there. --afxgrin (Generic Internet ID 1)

Copyvio maybe

There seem to be some material in this article coming from here, or the other way around, would somebody verify that? Lincher 17:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Coup d'état

As Maximusveritas correctly points out today in the Gaddafi article–in reverting an inappropriate edit–Saddam's overthrow by coalition forces in 2003 cannot be described as a coup.Phase1 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Poopy

I saw several instances of the word "poopy" in the article, so I deleted them.128.211.249.179 00:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Gaddafi website

Without any textual amendment to the Gaddafi article, the following new website was added today as an external link by anon.IP 24.86.60.230:[3]. I removed it because not only is it still under construction and largely unfinished, but also because what there is of the website – apart from a rather confused Libyan History section and a reference to Amnesty International – is basically an uncited tirade against Gaddafi. I suggest re-checking this anti-Gaddafi website periodically to see if it merits a mention in the article and inclusion as an external link.Phase4 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon IP 24.207.35.97 has today added the same link without textual amendment. For the reasons given above, I've removed it.Phase4 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good plan, Phase4. The emphasis on exclusion should be on the unfinished nature of the site. Regards, Lambyuk 12:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The site is now wholly completed except for the forum. Regarding the comment abou the site being an uncited tirade against Gaddafi, the articles do contain resources. The site provides key insights into the true personality of Gaddafi. If the site is deemed to be biased one doesn't have to be a genious to figure out the outstanding bias of Gaddafi's site, thus it serves as giving a different point of view. The site divulges into the real Gaddafi which has been shielded due to Gaddafi's control on the freedoms of speech and press and also due to the lackluster job of the western media. The site also contains interesting videos relating to Gaddafi. In addition there is a list of all the people that have been killed by Gaddafi. If Wikipedia practices the principles it praises it should post this site.

I've started a new section "Internal dissent" and included the anti-Gaddafi website together with other opposition websites in that section. "External links" also updated.Phase4 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of children

I would appreciate seeing the name of his killed daughter, and clarification of which two sons were injured in the same operation Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See [4]for name of adopted daughter [Hanna] killed in the 1986 bombing raid. Can't help on the names of the injured sons, though.Phase4 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of Gadhafi´s injured kids from April 1986 bombing are:

Seif al Arab (severe injuries)

Khamees (severe injuries) Both were hospitalized for some weeks (I have pics)

Both Seif al Islam and Saadi sustained injuries on their hands. Wife sustained back injuries.

If you have the pictures online, that would be great. While they wouldn't likely be suited for this article, they could like be composited into an image for the article on the operation itself :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quaddafi's undeniable style!

If there is no section added to this article in the next few days, I WILL do so. It is absolutely without a doubt a mockery of this article not to include Quaddafi's style. It is what truly sets him apart from the other dictators. A read of this article does not accurately characterize Muammar to the degree necessary to actually see how he is percieved publicly. I think it is inexcusable of wikipedia not to include this, and is a deliberate act of bias from the intelligencia who wish to only talk about policy and law, and not about style. Sorry for the rant, but truly, it is like excerpting the fact that Hitler created Nazism, or that Eichmann designed the gas chambers- the truly unique points of the people. Thank you very much, FactoidFreak 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)FactoidFreak

Hi FactoidFreak: interesting idea! My dictionary gives 5 definitions of the meaning of style. The 1st definition alone is split into a further three meanings, as follows:

"1a. A distinctive or characteristic manner of doing something;"

"1b. A fashionable or elegant way of living;" and,

"1c. Excellence, distinction or grace in social behaviour, manner, or appearance."

I foresee major problems in adding a section, as you suggested, dealing with Gaddafi's style. How do you define it without introducing a non-neutral point of view? And if it is not NPOV, how can it be encyclopedic?

However, don't let my doubts discourage you or others from proposing a draft style section on this talk page. That's what it's for, after all.Phase4 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is classical troll material, but there may possibly be some facts here. FactoidFreak, please either follow Phase4's suggestion and draft a section on this talk page, or be bold and add it straight to main article! Lambyuk 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So I just tried to do this, and the computer crashed. grr... Anyway, been away for awhile, saw nothing has been done, and decided to make a change. However, I must say that I have no idea how to: 1. Make footnotes, 2. Make the blue thingies 3. Obtain pictures. I tried to read the wiki articles on them, and did not understand. My own non-techie fault. However, before I make another attempt, would one of you guys be so kind as to offer a condensed version of how to do these things? Additionally, I would like to respond to the allegation of trolling: I admit, this is an obviously contentious issue, because we are dealing with a man who is considered widely in the West to be a pariah. Nevertheless, I feel that at least making an attempt to talk about Gaddafi's style and fashion should be made. This is knowledge, it is discusses. Contentious? Yes. But if Wikipedia is truly going to be a standard for public knowlege, I believe that any issue, no matter how contentious, should be discussed, even if it has an eternal NPOV warning above it. That is the nature of contentious issues, they will always offend someone, but I feel it is our duty as Wikipedians to contribute to the public discourse. Anyway, enough of my rambling, but I just wished to respond to accusations of trolling. FactoidFreak 04:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)FactoidFreak

It is actually quite easy to add it in a NPOV way, as his style is undeniably distinctive and characteristic. I mean, just look at the guy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/AP/more/30315482.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/AP/more/30315375.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/AP/more/9802359.jpg

A simple description of his unusual outfits and some example pics would point this out without POVing with opinions on how cool or uncool this is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/libya/story/0,,1178405,00.html

Joffeloff 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Amazonian guard" was linked to bodyguard when the word bodyguard itself could be found only a few words earlier. As the Amazonian guard refers to a distinct group of people with special characteristics it makes sense that a link from Amazonian guard, like a link from Swiss Guard, should go to its own page (preferably one with pictures of this unique group) rather than the generic "bodyguard" page.Es330td 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Es330td! Let's have an Amazonian guard page. Over to you....Phase4 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

episode

에피소드의 기술이 삭제되고 있다.이것은 매스컴에 발표된 올바른 기사이다.왜 삭제하는지 노트에 이유를 적었으면 좋겠다～～～

Phase4 has deleted description, without describing a reason. He should now be blocked "sine die"220.210.7.136 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced edits by 64.110.37.244

64.110.37.244 has introduced 16 edits into the Gaddafi article in the past 36 hours. I've had to revert them because in the main they are not up to the Wikipedia standard. Numerous assertions are made without sources being cited. Names are frequently misspelled (eg Patris Lumobaba is presumably meant to be Patrice Lumumba) but, again, there is no source for the actual assertion made.Phase4 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Again with the spelling

Both Encarta and Encyclopædia Britannica use the spelling "Qaddafi" and the same option is listed first at dictionary.com. Why is this article under "Gaddafi" and why was it moved there without any attempt to motivate it properly? I still would like to see some normal, non-sarcastic explanation about the choice of spelling.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the explanation you seek Peter. Unlike Encarta and Encyclopædia Britannica, we on Wikipedia have the brilliant redirect system. So if you tap in Muammar al-Qaddafi you are automatically redirected to "Muammar al-Gaddafi". Many reputable sources use the Gaddafi spelling, including TIME magazine. So far as I am aware, all related or linked Wikipedia articles use the same Gaddafi spelling. I can see no reason to alter the choice of spelling.Phase4 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles are as far as I know chosen by the most common and most established spelling, usually based on material that is similar to wikipedia, not by what's most popular among wikipedia editors.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it Peter, is that we are here trying to agree on how to spell an Arabic script name: some will spell it this way, others will spell it differently. For example, what is the "correct" spelling of Al Qaida? In Europe, that would be good but in America I guess it would be Al Qaeda. But in the end what an encyclopedia article should impart is surely good, verifiable information about a subject. Let us not argue about nomenclature! If we have to argue, let it be about the material in the article. What do you say to that?Phase4 20:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite by User:Freeas

Does anyone have an opinion on this rather massive rewrite? At first glance (I didn't actually read all of it, admittedly), it seems to me that pretty much the entire article was replaced with an inferior, unwikified text that vaguely smells of having been copied from another source (legally or illegally). I've reverted it for now. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Any such rewrite should have been discussed here first. Reversion is correct.Phase4 08:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I put in templates showing al-Gaddafi as having been Head of State and Prime Minister. For the Head of State part, I have two justifications. First, logic: al-Gaddafi headed the Revolution in 1969 and before "relinquishing" power to various front-men in succeeding years, he was the sole head of Libya for a decade. In terms of a concrete citation, we have the March 2, 1979 New York Times, under the headline Libyan Leader Quits a Post But Seems to Stay on Top: "Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya since 1969, has resigned his post as secretary general of the Libyan People's Congress". The phrase "leader of Libya since 1969", in political science terms, is "head of state". Anyone removing the template should show that he was not head of state in that period, and who was.

For the Prime Minister part, I have a citation from a scholarly work (Libya: a country study, Harold D. Nelson (ed.), American Univeristy, 1979, Washington, D.C.): "Qadhaafi became prime minister in January 1970...In July 1972 [Major Abdal Salaam] Jalloud assumed the position of prime minister."

My confidence in this matter is strengthened because templates on the Polish and German Wikipedias show the same thing–I didn't just come up with this out of nowhere. So if you remove the templates, please provide adequate justification. Biruitorul 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have just edited Gaddafi into Heads of Government of Libya so presumably the PMs' template can stay. I'm still wary of accepting the NYT citation you give for calling him "head of state", since the position Gaddafi was reported to have resigned from (Secretary-General of the Libyan Peoples' Congress) has traditionally been a prime ministerial position. Both templates spell the country incorrectly (Lybia) but that in itself is not a good reason for removing them. Maybe others have a view?Phase4 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling–thank you for pointing that out. You are correct that, since 1977 (two years before his resignation), General Secretary... has been used for PMs, according to our list. However, it is important to remember that between 1969 and 1979, except for 1970-2, when he was PM, other men served as PM: al-Maghribi, Jalloud and al-Obeidi. If they were PM, then al-Gaddafi had to be something else. Now, I don't have 100%, black-on-white proof that al-Gaddafi was "head of state" from 1969 to 1979, and indeed the situation is complicated by the fact that titles of the sort we might be used to haven't been in fashion in Libya since the Revolution. However, the facts I have enumerated strongly point in the direction of his having been head of state for that first decade, so I would ask for some more evidence before we remove that. As Phase4 asked – does anyone else have an opinion? Biruitorul 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

IRA POV

Am I right in reverting 69.193.232.137's changes? [5] [6] [7] (Also see our "discussion") The edits look POV to me, but I'd be interested in seeing if others agree. I've left their latest edit in just in case it's just me.[8] Thanks. Chovain 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, given that the IRA is not a "regime", as claimed in the latest edit, I'm going to revert again. I'd really like to get other people's input on this though. Is the "terrorist" wording reasonable? Chovain 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd love some input from other editors on this one - anyone? Chovain 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Ok - given that no-one seems to be taking an interest in this dispute and the talk page has been dormant for 2 months prior, ~~I'm going to try and organise a third opinion~~. Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC) To assist, I'll try and describe the situation:

The dispute relates to the wording of a paragraph in Gaddafi#External Relations:

Libya's involvement with and support for terrorism were confirmed in late 1987 [...]. Destined for the IRA, a large consignment of arms and explosives supplied by Libya [...].

View-points (hopefully I can reflect the viewpoints in an unbiased manor here)

Clandyboye (a.k.a 69.193.232.137) feels that the original wording will "marginalize and label the Republican Movement in Ireland during the 1980's".
I feel that the current wording is accurate (see below), reflect a widely accepted and non-controversial view of the IRA's activities in the 1980s, and am unable to think of a way of rephrasing it that alleviates Clandyboye's concern without pandering to a minority, "politically correct" point of view.

A copy of all discussion to date is on my talk page.
The changes by Clandyboye that I have reverted so far are: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support for existing wording

I feel that the existing wording is fair, as IRA was widely viewed by the international community as a terrorist organisation in the 1980s. They were officially listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries. This is discussed in detail on Provisional Irish Republican Army#Categorisation (and see [14]). They were recently uncontroversially referred to as a terrorist organisation by the President of the UN General Assembly.[15] Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest change

I'm satisfied with the current version, so will not go ahead with the third opinion. Chovain 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazonian Guards?

Will someone please check the reference on the statement regarding the guards? There are some crediblitiy and intergrity issues to look at as the reference to the bbc picture website does not mention much at all. 124.82.24.97 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I first saw it. "Amazonian Guard" doesn't get all that many hits when you take out the WP feeds, most of them to blogs, and there are no GNews hits. This link has a decent number of photos, and the BBC picture clearly shows that his body guards are female.

I'm not convinced that they are actually called the "Amazonian Guard". I can't help but think that someone has picked up on the fact that he has female body guards, made up the whole amazonian thing as a hoax, and the meme has spread (it's just such a cool story).

Unless someone can find a decent ref for this stuff (i.e. not a blog), I think it should come out. Chovain 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

TV Trivia

Is anyone able to find refs for the "TV trivia" (I've moved into its own "Trivia" section for now). It seems out of place in this article to me. Does anyone out there actually feel these bits are notable? I have a feer that if we listed every refernce to Gaddafi in pop culture, we'd end up with more trivia than article. Chovain 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if references can be found to support the "TV trivia" bits, I'm not convinced they're notable enough to be included in the Gaddafi article. I'd like to see the section removed.Phase4 12:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree - that's pretty trivial trivia. A whole show centered on Gaddafi might be notable but not an offside comment. Do we include it every time someone on TV criticizes George W. Bush? Simesa 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great - it's coming out then. For reference, WP:TRIVIA, while only a guideline, suggests that trivia should be both interesting and important to be included. These trivia are neither, IMO. Chovain 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You left out the "H". Wahkeenah 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln

I intend to remove Gaddafi's alleged quote about Lincoln, unless it is supported by some type of documentation. 216.199.161.66 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

~~You have a valid point regarding the lack of citation on the quotes. I'm going to look into fixing it up. Chovain 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)~~

The previous comment was not placed on this page by me. It was copied and pasted by User:216.199.161.66 from my talk page.

DO NOT, under any circumstances, move other people's comments from one talk page to another without making it clear you have done so. If you wish to refer to a comment I made on your talk page, link to it, and paraphrase if you like. The preceding comment was placed on your talk page when I didn't realise which quote you were talking about. It is indicating that I feel the general level of citation in the quotes section is inferior. Chovain 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm - there's a reference. Chovain 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It still appears to me to be an entirely circular link to nothing. I will wait one week for this to have a valid citation before deleting it. 216.199.161.66 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bookmark link to the footnote at the bottom of the page. Just look for the matching footnote number. The article is not available online. Wikipedia accepts newspaper references. Chovain 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Add reference?

Might want to mention Escape to Hell and anything else Qaddafi has written, somewhere in the article Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Qadhafi studied Law?!

I've never seen this mentioned before. Both Dirk Vandewalle (in all his books, unless I've missed something) and the 2006 and 2007 editions of "The Middle East And North Africa" specifically state that the Free Officers went to the military academy cos that was the only way they could get an education. I've seen several other authors espouse this point, but only in one place (here) have I seen this mentioned. I think it should be deleted if noone can come up with a trustworthy quote (I'll leave it there as all I have is lack of evidence that's true!)

PS: As for spelling, it's regional. Qadhafi would be the 'most precise' translitteration of the written arabic form of the Colonel's name (although the second a should have a line over it, as it's long) - if one agrees that Classical Arabic is also correct Arabic, and that all the modern regional variants are inferior and wrong. I'm quite sure Qadhafis mum will have called him 'Gadaafi' (long a).88.212.93.179 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You've made your point about the law studies (don't forget to add 4 tildes after each edit!) and I have added the "citation needed" tag at the appropriate point in the text of the article. As for the spelling, Gaddafi is accepted throughout Wikipedia – so we can put that one to bed now.Phase4 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabic

 When coming to power in 1969, Qadhdhafi flung out thousands of Europeans in hours and

seized property worth millions with no compensation. He required those visiting Libya to have passports in Arabic, not Berber or Tubu, which have been spoken in Libya for longer than Arabic. Of course, the borders of Libya are new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Living people category

Recently, malber has added the "Living people" category to the Gaddafi article three times, and I removed it twice.

I can see the logic of having such a category for doubtful cases but my reasoning for its removal in regard to Gaddafi is that he appears in the "1942 births" category and, because there is no year of death category, it is superfluous – if not downright fatuous – to categorize him as living.

Other editors' comments would be appreciated.Phase1 13:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think it's a bit of a kludge. I can see where it'd be useful to get a list of living people with articles, but I think it'd be better to create some sort of query to generate the list automatically based on the presence of a birth category and absence of death, as you describe. Probably not a big issue worth fighting over, though. Bryan 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a specially requested category by Jimbo Wales in order to vet and verify the biographies of living people. It was recently protected from a CfD unilaterally by him. Because Qaddafi is such a controversial historical figure of the 20th century and is still living, IMO it is important for this article to be a part of that process. --malber 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now seen some of the discussion here which, although not entirely convincing, does at least give one utilitarian reason for having a living people category.Phase1 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is "Qaddafi" really pronounced with a [g] as in "good" or "gas"?. I was always under the impression that it was a [q] (a voiceless uvular plosive). That's not even the same place of articulation as [g].

Peter ^Isotalo 22:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The hard [g] is the nearest in English pronunciation to the Arabic [q] equivalent.Phase1 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's assuming that the speaker in question is properly devoicing their "g"s. I think it's pretty misleading to say "pronounced Gaddafi" in the lead when it most obviously isn't. Why not keep a sound file and IPA transcriptions like we do with so many other articles?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means let us have a sound file and IPA transcriptions but please not in the opening paragraph, otherwise the article will appear impenetrable. Best, therefore, to include the arcane phonetics issue with section 8: Spelling, where some spellings of Gaddafi's name actually do start with a capital [g].Phase1 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Impenetrable"? Nonsense. We have tons of articles that have IPA transcriptions and sound files for famous people that are hardly too cryptical because of it. Separate sections for pronunciation info only invites transcription trivia, like minor dialectal variations and such. We're only talking a link to an audio file from the bolded title and an IPA transcription of his last name.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The points you make have a more general application than to the specific Gaddafi article. I'll pursue our discussion on your talk page.Phase1 13:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I inserted a sound file I recorded and I removed the "pronounced Gaddafi" since I don't believe it assists correct pronunciation moreso than the standard spelling. Oh, and who inserted the IPA? Is it really correct that all three sounds in Qaddafi are really long? Both the dental fricative [ð] and the [i]?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"pronounced Gaddafi" has been reinserted to explain the subsequent spelling in this article, and other Wikipedia articles, of Gaddafi's name.Phase4 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Start changing the spelling to the most common one instead of confusing people with that godforsaken "g". The spelling just doesn't make any sense if it's neither common nor enlightening concerning the pronunciation. Try to avoid basing decisions that results in... well... tails waggings dogs.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit there's a lot of sense in what you say. I'll try "moving" the article to the Gaddafi spelling, and sit back and wait for an explosion of complaints. If the complaints fail to materialise, I'll wag my tail!Phase4 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Try to explain yourself instead of resorting to sarcasm. Why are you keeping a comment that uses a spelling that is intended to clarify the pronunciation when it's actually neither the most common nor even helpful to English speakers to approximate the native pronunciation?

And, yes, we're discussing this article, not a thousand other articles with any number of views on Arabic transliteration.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making, nor the apparent anger with which you're making it!Phase4 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gaddafi" is a spelling which does not aid correct pronunciation, yet you insist on keeping it. It also doesn't seem to be the most common one, but you don't mind moving the entire article to that name. Explain yourself, please.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "Gobbledegook" springs to mind!Phase4 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the spelling "Gaddafi" is the exact pronunciation as far as the libyan dialect goes. That's how we say it. The proper way would be to replace the G with an emphatic 'Q' and replace the 'dd' with a sound like 'th' as in 'the'. however, Gaddafi is still accurate and far more common in the great J-riya.24.86.60.230 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)