Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Shaheed Muammar Gaddafi?

Remove Shaheed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.103.5 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shaheed means martyr in Arabic, then POV!Farhikht (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. And I see it's  Already done. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always fun when you can tell major media read Wikipedia for background

From this Washington Post article [1]: "But the convoy was hit by a NATO airstrike. Gadhafi and Dao were wounded and captured, and Gadhafi died in unclear circumstances later that day."

The chances of that writer generating the phrase "died in unclear circumstances" without having read this article's sentence "...and died the same day under unclear circumstances" are quite slim. Some good linguistic reasons why longish strings of words are rarely replicated that exactly coincidentally.

We should take it as a compliment, of course! Moncrief (talk)

Actually, it's much, much more likely that a wikipedia editor saw that phrase in some news article somewhere and added it in and then the Washington Post writer used the same article. Jeancey (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fairly convoluted, and the phrase was extant in this article before the WP article appeared. But feel free to provide some proof. I've definitely seen it happen before, and it's not surprising that reporters on deadline would peruse Wikipedia. Everyone else does! Moncrief (talk)

With all due respect, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not discussing the general topic or speculating about its use by the media.204.65.34.23 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New section in lead

I can no longer change it as it would now violate the 3RR rule to do so. An editor added "Gadaffi was then beaten and anally raped with a knife and murdered in the manner of an execution by a close range bullet to the head by the rebels.[27][28][29]" Which does not appear in any of the sources given and is WP:NPOV and based on rumour. They changed it from the previous version which is " Gaddafi was captured alive in Sirte by members of the Libyan National Liberation Army after his convoy was attacked by NATO warplanes as Sirte fell on 20 October 2011, but was killed by the rebels the same day." Which is sourced, much more neutral and not based on rumours. Since this is in the lead of the article, I do not believe it should be unsourced controversial information. I have explained my position on their talk page and I have suggested an article where they can add this information, but they keep reverting it. Could I get some consensus on whether this should or should not appear in the article? Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are reports of this all over the web, many on reliable externals - rumors, I am sorry but videos and such are well beyond rumor - all reports have stopped asserting any thoughts about crossfire - the rebel soldier that shot him in the head has been identified and will be charged. Sick attack on Gaddafi casts shadow over Libya's rebirth - by: By Paul Toohey - From: News Limited newspapers - October 25, 2011 5:56AM - SICKENING new footage of Muammar Gaddafi's last moments show he was almost certainly executed by his rebel captors, one of whom appears to have humiliated him by brutalising him with a knife or stick. The horrific images of mob cruelty, shot in the minutes leading up to Gaddafi’s death, have been posted on the news site GlobalPost. The shaky footage, shot on a rebel’s handheld mobile phone after Gaddafi was seized late last week hiding in a drainpipe outside of Sirte, has been broken down to a series of stills, which show Gaddafi in agony after a man stabs him in the rear. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote this here for you so you can get my main point.

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

The sentence you have added is very charged and not WP:NPOV. I'm not denying that it happened or that it belongs on wikipedia, I am simply saying it doesn't belong in that location, or worded in that way. Jeancey (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that nowhere in the any of the articles you have cited do they say he was "anally raped." No where. Could you please provide a reliable source for that? Jeancey (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only charged if you are involved one way or the other - imo it is a simple report of what happened according to the most reliable reports at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sodomised - is anally raped if you are not wanting it. http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/all-news/general/video-shows-muammar-gaddafi-being-sodomized/ - google search results are multiple . Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please respond to the issue of neutrality? I have repeatedly said that the tone and words used are not neutral, and you haven't really responded to that at all. Jeancey (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded, what words don't you like? and we can look at changing them. We are not going to revert back to the false reporting that and then Gadafi was captured and died soon after , as if he suddenly dropped to death of his own accord. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not false to say he was captured, and then died soon after. Nothing about that statement is false, and it doesn't imply he just dropped dead. It simply says that he died, which is completely true. There is an entire article on his death, we aren't obscuring anything. Jeancey (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the en wikipedia biography of Gaddafi, and details of his death are required here, and yes, in the lede - he was killed after surrendering to the opposition in a war crime, as such a mention in the lede seems completely reasonable. and then he died soon after......really, wow, what happened there then, ow a stray bullet mate. - we need to move on and report what happened as per the mass of sources, not the original press release Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the leap from died to died from a stray bullet. That isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead... I personally wouldn't make that leap. In the lead, it needs to be short enough but contain the most important points. In this case, the most important points are that he was captured alive, and then he died. If a reader wants to know how, they can read the section on it or the entire article on his death. I don't understand how that is a false statement.... Jeancey (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is quite large and the lede reflects that, there is plenty of leeway to report more than "he died" in 2011, - such statements are so limited as to be unreflective of what actually happened. He died because he was shot in the head while he was unarmed, by a soldier from the opposing army. I don't like it either but we need to mention it, not to is unfair to our readers. Spin off articles and content forks are meaningless as to what we report here. We treat this as a life story pure and simple. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Shot in the head by an NTC fighter" would be a more neutral way of phrasing it than murdered. I'm not opposed to adding it, I just was opposed to the phrasing. That definitely would solve half the NPOV issue. Jeancey (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What part of shooting an unarmed man in the head at close range when he is pleading for his life isn't reflected by the word murdered or executed ? And what part of this video isn't anal rape? Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Murdered and executed mean the exact same thing as Killed, and are not as neutral. Jeancey (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a neutral situation - what is neutral about the manner of Gadaffi's death? Asserting he was killed by a rebel fighter could assert the rebel fighter did a good thing, whereas it was clearly a war crime, so we need to avoid such vague statements. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One should keep in mind that according to that logic the lead is actually biased in favor of gaddafi, as Gaddafi's war crimes are understated in the lead.Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

neutrality disputed

Shot in the head at close range seems NPOV to me, a NTC soldier has reported he did that, what is to dispute? Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was the whole sentence. Mainly the "anally raped and murdered" section. That would be considered not NPOV. There are definitely better ways of saying the same thing. Like it or not, 'anally' 'raped' and 'murdered' all have connotations in english and those connotations affect the neutrality of the article. Jeancey (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is going to be a war crimes trial - a rebel has said he shot Gadafi in the head. - as Gadaffi had surrendered and was unarmed - its murder and a war crime - fucked in the asshole with a foreign object reported as a knife/stick? - you can call that what you like - what is your favorite word for that? Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest being hands off as possible. The statements about what happened right before he died should go in the proper article. In this article, especially in the lead, statements such as that shouldn't be there. He died and that is what is important. Link the statement about his death to the proper section in the Death of Muammar Gaddafi article, which it appears you have already done. It already exists on wikipedia, it doesn't need to be spelled out in every article that relates to it. Jeancey (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

He was murdered and that is what is important in regard to his death here. The full video of Gaddafi's capture makes for shocking viewing as seemingly hysterical fighters chant “Allah Akbar!” (God is Great) and drag the former Libyan leader towards a vehicle. - we are not going to obscure the details of his death in his biography, no matter how violent they were.. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Explicit details about his treatment prior to his death don't strike me as lede-worthy, since giving them enough room to properly explain what happened effectively gives them undue weight. Gaddafi's life was long and very detailed. The fact that someone poked a stick up his ass in his final moments is largely irrelevant to that life. Suggest using the phrasing 'abused and killed' in the lede instead - the specifics are already discussed in the death section further down. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go that far, given that this is still curent events, still disputed on all sides, etc. I'd just stick to killed, and then go into more detail of what has been stated in reputable sources in the text. This is extraneous detail for a lede in general, especially as it is not concrete.204.65.34.23 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• - this clearly hasn't been resolved and other issues are clearly in the article - lots of vague claims presented as if facts. I have added additional relevant clean up templates. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It was not murder by any definition. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Ideology section

To Jeancey.

The following statements that I have edited appear to be original research and neutral point of view infringements, and/or they come with no verfiable sources. That is why I removed them, in accordance with wiki policy.

In some cases the provided sources did not include any reference to Gaddafi at all, (e.g. the Daily Mail source on Eurabia) or did not have the alleged quote or information used in the wiki article. Some had the information but were misquoted. Thus I either removed these and the inappropriate sources or corrected them. Please feel free to check these (most are listed below) if you doubt this to be correct.

1. "Gaddafi was known for erratic statements, and commentators often expressed uncertainty about what was sarcasm and what was simply incoherent." etc., etc. This had no reliable source. It came from a site not suitable for a source of an encyclopedia. (See WP:NOV and (WP:V).

2. He once said that HIV was "a peace virus, not an aggressive virus". This was incorrectly quoted. The article has him using the word "peaceful" not "peace".

3.Gaddafi was an unabashed proponent of Islam, often with blatant disregard for religious tolerance. He said that Islam is the one true faith and that those who do not follow Islam are "losers". This provided no source (see WP:V) plus the wording 'unabashed' transgresses policy (see WP:WOR).

4. In 2006, he predicted Europe would become a Muslim continent within a few decades as a result of its growing Arab population.[291][292] He endorsed the concept of a peaceful Muslim nation-state. No source WP:V, so I added a tag. The Daily Mail source did not mention Gadaffi once nor quote him so I deleted it.

5. Gaddafi expressed violent hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people throughout his career. At first, he expelled Jews from Libya and sided with Arab states for the elimination of the state of Israel. He funded and supported governments and paramilitary organizations that fought Israel. He said Arab nations that negotiate with Israel are "cowardly", and on multiple occasions, he encouraged Palestinians to rise up against Israel. No source (see WP:V and WP:OR).

6. He believed in conspiracy theories that Israeli agents had assassinated John F. Kennedy and that Barack Obama's foreign policy was influenced by fears of being assassinated by Israel. This is an inaccurate rendering of the source. So I corrected the quote to represent more accurately what was actualy written there.

7. In 2007, he suggested a single-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, at first saying "This is the fundamental solution, or else the Jews will be annihilated in the future, because the Palestinians have [strategic] depth". A Youtube video is not an appropriate source (see WP:V and WP:VIDEOLINK) plus as MEMRI can be regarded as a dubious source having been shown to be a possibly biased news outlet giving inaccurate translations for political motives, so I added a tag.

8. Despite his ongoing hostility to Jews... No source had been given for this statement, so WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, which IS a reliable source releases their videos on youtube, which means that that youtube source is, infact, reliable, and useful. Also I would like to point out that the source you cited, (www.mahalo.com) uses a youtube video on their page... so your argument doesnt make much sense. If you would return the statement cited by the youtube video or remove the source you added and its statement, that would make much more sense :) Also, the hostitily towards jews came from the previously removed source, and thus WASN'T unsourced. Jeancey (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Al Jazeera is regarded here as a reliable source. That is not debateable. But... Did you read WP:VIDEOLINK? If not please do. Using websites as sources that do or do not use Youtube clips on their page I feel has little relevance to the reliablility of using a youtube video itself as a source. Plus, I just added a "citation needed" tag for that. I didn't delete the info.

I will gladly delete the info on Gadaffi's Islamic socialism and the source www.mahalo.com if you wish. Previously there was no source given for that. I just tried to find one and that was the best I could come up with.

Regarding your saying that the "ongoing hostitily towards jews" qoute was sourced, can you be more specific please. Which source? And where in that source exactly?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'blog" you mentioned was the source on that statement. I'm not saying it was wrong to remove it, but it was the source of the hostility towards jews, so the #8 above HAD a source. Jeancey (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But the blog source did not have that particular wording so this appears to be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH and as the site was not acceptable as a reputable citation so the statement had "no source". --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue here is with Aljazeera. Youtube videos are valid sources if they're not copyright infringements and if the creator is otherwise a reliable source. Both of these are true for Aljazeera. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue with Al Jazeera. There is an issue generally with using Youtube videos as a source for information (see WP:V and WP:VIDEOLINK) and of using a video from MEMRI in particular.

This article has been flagged as problematical for a number of issues. As has already been pointed out under the discussion topic 'neutrality' someone wrote "even in first couple of sentences you can find sentences like "he started several wars" without the facts or any reference." I have deleted that as there is nothing in the cited reference that makes that claim.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue with using Youtube videos when they're not copyright violations and are from otherwise reliable sources. The essay you linked says as much, as I'm sure you've read. Memri is a partisan but notable source and is valid as long as it's attributed. Of course, given that you appear to have removed the actual sources to the material in question, it's mildly difficult to assess your problems. Do you think you might be able to discuss your intended removals before doing so when they involve sources? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy, weasel words and neutrality

I am slowly but systematically going through the article and checking its cited sources. I have deleted the following as - similarly to other parts of this article mentioned in the topic above - it also is not supported by the cited source. Viz. it is not stated in the source provided that either of the ones mentioned "backed the group", nor is anything mentioned about "seized documents in a 2008 raid". Documents seized during a 2008 raid on FARC showed that both Chavez and Gaddafi backed the group. The article only talks about emails from 2008 and says nothing in that sentence about Chavez. Much of this whole article seems to be built upon questionablle and impartial newspaper articles. As most newspapers often have quite clear editorial political slant and bias, this seems to be a shaky foundation to build a wiki Biography page upon.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I returned part of that sentence fyi. Could you please edit the article to include the information in the articles, rather than simply deleting it? The article specifically mentions Ortega, Chavez and Gaddafi supporting FARC. While it doesn't mention the documents seized in a 2008, that part could have been simply deleted as it is an important fact that he was known to support these groups. So just to reiterate, don't just delete sentences and their sources if its not the exact quote in the article. Jeancey (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All information to be included must be in accordance with wiki policy. This article appears to be rife with inaccurate, non-factual and non-neutral information that 1.) sometimes is not supported by the source material or ii). is a distortion of it. That numerous occurrences of this have been found after only a casual checking of the sources gives the impression that information has been intentionally added to present a misleading and negative impression. If you want to go through the sources yourself and correctly convey what is actually written there, feel free. I intend to continue removing inaccurate un-supported information. I will notify when and what under this discussion topic. Together perhaps we can improve this articles's neutrality and factual accuracy.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I just think that deleting sources might not be all that useful. Could you maybe just comment out the sections and I can go back and read through it later? Jeancey (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This Gaddafi article is of current topical interest so its accuracy NOW is quite important. Improving the wording to more accurately reflect the sources is also my preferred route, and I will endeavour to do that where that can be easily done. But where that is not easy because of a too dismmilar rendering or a distortion, then removing inaccurate and misleading information now and if you like re-adding it more accurately would be my prefered way to go. E.g Gaddafi, Ortega and Chávez also developed close ties with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), a terrorist group reportedly producing more than half of the world’s cocaine.’ Is what the source actually says. Yet as it was in this article the cautious wording "reportedly" had been deleted and the information stated as if fact. Then the extent of the "close ties" was not reported and to say "backed" implies political and financial support which in the case of Chavez is not stated nor even implied in the article. Plus this Metro article is slightly abbreviated version taken from one by the FP [2] and there is nothing stated there about cocaine, plus the wording is quite different in a few places. If you still want to include this perhaps we should state that it is according to Metro and the FP and we have to represent the original wording more accurately.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Your FP source does mention cocaine, it's in the second paragraph. 'And the fact that all three governments support the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terrorist group that produces more than half of the world's cocaine and two-thirds of the cocaine entering the United States, is usually ignored'. Note this source also doesn't say 'reportedly', it states it as fact. The FP source seems to validate the original sentence exactly as it was written in the article (support = backed) so I'm not sure I understand your objection. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To TechnoSymbiosis. Apologies if I wasn't clear. I wrote that the word "reportedly" was in the cited source which was Metro: ’a terrorist group reportedly producing more than half of the world’s cocaine.’. That is in the cited source (Metro). Do you agree?

The alleged fact in the FP article is that all 3 govts support FARC. Not that it DOES produce all that cocaine. Do you agree? And that claim is repeated as "reportedly" in our cited souce, Metro. Whereas this Wiki article stated that as fact. So do you see how that is NOT supported by the cited source?

The FP article is not our cited source and my point was that it does not conflate the two sentences as Metro does. It has instead: '’Ortega has long-standing ties to the FARC as well as to Qaddafi and Chávez.’' It DOES not state that Ortega and Chavez "backed" the group as this wiki article states. Do you agree?

You are correct that elswhere in the FP article it discuuses FARC and cocaine. But ...isn't this all somewhat unrelated to Gadaffi?

And anyway, ...regarding this claim of Chávez "close ties", the Guardian article disputed this back in May 2011: [3].

As this article is about Gadaffi, including these links and info seems uneccessary. It could be taken to be designed to discredit living political leaders who are considered troublesome by US authorities. Wiki should not be seen to support such an agenda therefore I request we should keep this biog page to Gadaffi not Chávez or others. And if we do bring in other leaders and their relationship with Gadaffi, do we really need to bring in murky, unclear and unsubstantiated accusations about cocaine dealings or the disputed relationships of other leaders with such organisations?

Anyway, the bottom line is that wiki articles must be verifiable and neutral and the cited source does not state what we had in the article. So we can add the FP source aswell if you like. But STILL we need to keep the wording so that it accurately represents the sources. Saying all these leaders "backed" FARC does not accurately represent the two sources. :-0--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do avoid edit warring, may I request that if you understand and agree with what I have written above, perhaps you or Jeancey could amend the article by either deleting the above-discussed sentence (my preference). Or if not then amending it so that it focuses on Gadaffi, doesn't say "backed", and more accurately reflects the wording in the sources. Thanks.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

'The fact that all three governments support the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terrorist group that produces more than half of the world's cocaine and two-thirds of the cocaine entering the United States, is usually ignored' is the quote in question. To address your questions:

• "The alleged fact in the FP article is that all 3 govts support FARC. Not that it DOES produce all that cocaine. Do you agree?" No I don't. The sentence in the FP source says 'a terrorist group that produces more than half of the world's cocaine'. It does not say 'reportedly' or 'allegedly', it makes that assertion as a statement of fact.
• "The FP article is not our cited source." Yes it is, because I made it so. You could have done the same yourself, instead of removing the content. I checked RSN and there appear to be no problems with FP as a source. The FP source also does say that those governments support FARC - support is synonymous with backing, here.
• "You are correct that elswhere in the FP article it discuuses FARC and cocaine. But ...isn't this all somewhat unrelated to Gadaffi?" I think Gaddafi's affiliations, in an article about Gaddafi, are perfectly relevant. I don't think Chavez' mention is overstated but I have no objection to his name specifically being removed from that particular sentence.

The information about Gaddafi's affiliations, sourced reliably, are relevant to Gaddafi's article. I don't believe they're given undue weight in their current form. Saying these leaders "backed" FARC is perfectly consistent with the source, 'all three governments support the [FARC]'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You are repeatedly arguing against things I am not saying, despite me making the extra effort to make myself extremely clear, even using lengthy quotes. I request you read again what I have written, but more carefully. I would like to avoid the need to keep correcting misunderstandings of what I have written.

FACT: The FP was NOT at the time of my change the cited ref.

FACT: Metro does have "REPORTEDLY" and that WAS our cited source at the time of my writing.

FACT: I provided the FP link here on the talk page and suggested adding it. Not you. But you now want to criticise me for not adding it myself to the article and also try to argue from what that source says retro-actively!?(:-0) Etc., etc., etc.

Let's show each other some good faith in the spirit of cooperation. I'm just trying to help create a fair and balanced article that is factually accurate. I assume we all want that.

In that endeavour I again point out that it is NOT a fact that Chavez "backs" FARC. As I have demonstrated using the Guardian link, any support at all by him is a disputed claim. And as this article is not even about Chavez or Farc or cocaine production, do we really want to have a balancing reference to that Guardian piece disputing this FP claim? I think that would be going to extreme lengths of adding unnecessary periphery detail to an already extremely long article just to include some more speculative and unproven detrimental material on Gadaffi.

Regarding Gadaffi himself, links between Gadaffi and Farc are normally written as 'alleged' or 'claimed' or 'rumoured'. [4][5] I would prefer that we not elevate it to a statement of fact based on one source. That I think steps over the line of the core Wiki principle of Neutrality --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to be defensive, Mystic. At the time you replied above (11:43, 10 November 2011) you said 'the FP article is not our cited source', however that change had been made 12 hours before at 23:18, 9 November 2011. You had even edited the article yourself after that change had been made, so if you hadn't checked to see what changes had been made, that's really not my problem. I'm not making any arguments retroactively - you provided a source that cleared up all of the concerns you had with the wording, which was then put into the article and the original wording restored.

The article does support the statement that Chavez and Gaddafi support(ed) FARC. "The fact that all three governments support the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)" is not an ambiguous statement. You're also mischaracterising the Guardian link that you provided - the Guardian newspaper does not dispute the claim, it simply quotes the Venezuelan government disputing the claim, effectively saying "Bad guys? Nooo, we're not involved with them". At best, that qualifies for a "but the Venezuelan government denies this" at the end of the sentence.

If you don't like one source stating it as fact, here's two others: the IISS [6] and the IASC [7] both make the same statement of fact. In fact, the IASC article is the same one as the FP article, authored by the same person, a research specialist in the relevant field who appears to have extensive experience and reputation (see here). So considering the sources we have, with more than one expert group making these statements as fact, against newspapers reporting on the reports produced by those same expert groups using the word 'reportedly', which do you think carries more weight in evaluation? For my part, I think there's enough here that we shouldn't use the word 'reportedly' (nor similar), but we can certainly tag on 'but they say they don't' at the end, courtesy of the Guardian source. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as being 'defensive' but more 'exasperated' by repeated misunderstandings and what I increasingly see as some unreasonableness. E.g. The Guardian DID have an article showing the claim is disputed. That is a FACT. Do we really need to be pedantic and bandy words about that? As for your two other sources, if one of them is coming from the same guy's article then its not two, is it? Plus your first link makes absolutely no reference to Chavez or Ortega, etc. So it as, it stands now, its still just ONE source. And a possibly highly dubious one. For an alternative assessment of the author's reputation see this: [8] Bottom line, this article is flagged for its lack of neutrality, factual accuracy and use of weasel words. Stating as fact that which is only claimed by possibly partisan parties and impartial political pundits from possibly right-wing neo-con media outlets is something we will need to watch out for and balance out somehow if we want to maintain some accuracy and neutrality. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't dispute the claim itself, the Venezuelan government does and the Guardian article reported that fact. There's a big difference there. You seem to want to change the text based on possibly partisan parties or possibly right-wing neo-con media outlets, the only source of doubt being from a blog that fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. The article may well be flagged (by another editor, mind you, not by any independent review body) for neutrality and accuracy, but I don't believe the specific part you're trying to change here is such an area. In fact, it's the obligation of the person doing the tagging to clearly identify the specific area they take issue with, which they don't appear to have done. The lines in question here are supported by multiple reliable sources. The IISS information is in the paid material, which is valid as a source on Wikipedia - WP:SOURCEACCESS says 'the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment' - and we do have multiple secondary news sources (including your Guardian source) referring to that report indicating that it mentions Chavez's and Gaddafi's links to FARC. You can't simply read the abstract and declare the entire report has no mention of Chavez and Gaddafi. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'll qualify here, my interest here isn't driven by personal opinions of Chavez, Gaddafi or FARC (which I hadn't heard of before looking into this specific issue) but with accurately reflecting the sources we use. You indicated a few area where the sources weren't reflected so I fixed them. You took issue with the source in question so I provided others. You provided one source that doesn't state what you said it states, and another counter-source that is self-published and thus unreliable, so I contest their validity to support specifically what you want to use them to say (note that I have no issue with using the Guardian source to state the Venezuelan government's position, which more accurately represents what the source is saying). This is a common thread through my replies here so I don't think I'm being unreasonable, I'm simply ensuring that reliably sourced information is not inappropriately lost. For meeting WP:NPOV we typically prefer to provide both sides of an issue, provided both sides are reliably sourced, rather than remove reliably sourced information that some people might not like hearing. The (reliable) sources you've provided so far don't really contest what's been said, with the exception of the Venezuelan government statement. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "The Guardian article doesn't dispute the claim itself, the Venezuelan government does and the Guardian article reported that fact." If you read again what I have written you will see that I have not written anything that contradicts that. So you repeatedly want to argue things that are NOT and never have been in contention. Its called a strawman argument. That I find exasperating and unreasonable. And regretably so it is with your other points. I have no interest in continuing with that. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this not your edit, in which you said 'the Guardian disputed this back in May 2011'? No strawman here, you just seem to be forgetting your own prior arguments. My other points were direct responses to your own (eg. claiming the IISS source doesn't mention Gaddafi or Chavez) so feel free to respond to them if you wish. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ho-hum. Yes, it's my edit. But it has never been my argument that the Guardian itself editorially was claiming that nor have I ever implied that it was an editorial opinion piece. PLUS I made my position even clearer to you on that exact point later. AND I provided a link so you could see for yourself that the FARC claim is contested. So I find this a rather absurd thing to still be discussing. You appear to me to be pedantically bandying words and arguing even where there is no disagreement. May I again request that we discuss in a way designed to be helpful and co-operative, by applying acceptable wiki etiquette.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Alliances with authoritarian national leaders

Why do we have a sub-section with this heading but no sub-section with a heading detailing Alliances with democratically elected leaders? (I think I know the answer but I would be interested in other's opinions)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer would be that his relationships with authoritarian leaders were prominent. Were his relationships with democratically elected leaders - other than Chavez (who has his own subsection) and what is already covered in the 'Western acceptance' subsection - prominent enough for inclusion? Do we have a few reliable sources for such? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way were they "prominent"? And which source says so? Who decides what is a "prominent"relationship/alliance?

There are of course many mentions of his relationships with other leaders. Tony Blair and Belusconi spring readily to mind. Nelson Mandela is another, often referred to a 'friend'. Images can be found very easily of Gaddafi shaking hands with Nelson Mandela, Silvio Berlusconi, Fidel Castro, Lula de Silva, Hillary Clinton, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Sarkozy, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Chirac, Putin and Zapatero of Spain. Libya had alliances and relations with many countries around the world and Gaddafi became 'friendly' with liberal-democratic leaders, conservatives, and revolutionaries alike. Tony Blair described Gaddafi as "statesmanlike" and behaved in a friendly manner with him, and this was only a few years ago. Several Libyan opposition groups were redesignated as being terrorist organisations after Gaddafi came back on side at this time in the UK and the Blair government then tried to deport their exiled supporters back to Libya. (Fortunately the British courts blocked these deportations).

So I think this sub-section and/or heading is perhaps a neutrality infringement? It appears designed to reflect badly by association both upon Gadaffi and upon those linked. Otherwise why only have these mentioned and not the ones I have named above and the many others with whom Gadaffi and Libya formed "alliances".

Sources would be newspaper articles of which this article appears to be mainly built. I will find some. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What sources says so is something you can see for yourself in the section in question, they're marked by superscripted numbers in brackets. There are two sentences regarding Tony Blair and a full paragraph on Silvio Berlusconi already in the Western acceptance section. Nelson Mandela is mentioned in a number of sections in the article, and there's a see also link to the Lockerbie trial section of Nelson Mandela's own article. Shaking hands with heads of state isn't usually considered a particularly notable relationship, but you can see in the article that there are already photos of Gaddafi with Vladimir Putin, the G8 leaders and Jose Luis Rodriguez - three photos seems like a good editorial decision for visual balance. I can't agree with your assessment that this area is biased when there's a ten paragraph section on Western acceptance, in comparison with only four short paragraphs on Alliances with authoritarian national leaders. Please do feel free to find more reliable sources we can use in the article, but be mindful that WP:DUE means we should avoid giving excess detail to sections that don't necessarily deserve it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TheIndependent/Amnesty International quote

Hi! The quote from Independent seems to be overblown (the last paragraph in "2011 Libyan civil war"). Does anyone have a direct link to the AI report? I only found this http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE19/025/2011/en Gritzko (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you spell 'Gaddafi'?

I heard people spelling it Gadhafi, Qaddafi, Gaddafi... Why so many different spellings? I think this should be acknowledged in the article's introduction.

Thanks,

The Doctahedron (a.k.a. wants Lib3rT&Justice4All), 03:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I usually edit math articles. But I dabble sometimes.

In Arabic there is only one spelling. A couple of the sounds are not found in English, and the Libyan dialect has a different pronunciation from Standard Arabic, so some spellings are transliterations according to Standard Arabic, other spellings are based on the actual Libyan pronunciation. See Transliteration of his Arabic name. —Stephen (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need such a long lead?

The lead seems unneccesarily long. It seems like it could be trimmed so much, especially since this article is supposed to be about Gaddafi, not about the history of Libyia under Gaddafi's rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Gaddafi was only a minor figure on the world stage and his grip on power in Libya was only very slight as the events of last year proved. (92.7.31.146 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Qaddafi was a major figure on the World's stage, especially in terms of Africa. From his accession to power, through the elevation of the Libyan people through health, education & the installation of the Green Book, to the attempted unification of Africa denying Africom, and finally to his unwillingly to allow the enslavement of his country by his failed stance against NATO. Qaddafi will be remembered by non-Westerners as the most powerful and influential leader to serve in Africa for the last 200+ years. Prentiss77 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely Nelson Mandela and Colonel Nasser were more important than Gaddafi? (92.7.3.2 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

More important in their area of the world maybe, but for North and Northwest Africa, Gaddafi was a big deal. The other thing is that Gaddafi was in power for 41 years. That's an incredibly long time, and as such, he has a longer lead than most. In any case, if you think it should be trimmed, maybe you could make some suggestions as to what, specifically, could be removed. Specific sentences and the like. Jeancey (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I'm looking for any clue or mention that Gaddafi was a CIA actor (several actually). Even the New York Times writes tongue-in-cheek about him and Fidel Castro. Shouldn't Wikipedia at least hint at this, if not include a whole conspiracy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.161.109 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wig

Should the article mention that Gaddafi wore a wig? He was even wearing it on the day he died. (92.7.4.63 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

What does the 23 August 2011 meant?

I need to re-open this case again. This date can be complex, but when I saw the List of heads of state of Libya and List of longest ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900 both these articles, it says to be 20 October 2011, where he "resigned" because he was killed. However, the 23 August 2011 overthrown of Gaddafi does not mean that he has resigned as Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya. He was just simply lost controlled in Tripoli on August but he never resigns it, instead pro-claiming Sirte as the new capital for Libyan Arab Jamahiriya until his death. This means that the title he assumed does not care if he lost control of Libya or not, but it just between the Jamahiriya title and his position. So, he lost control on 23 August but isn't that he still rule the Jamahiriya until his death? 60.49.60.158 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• This has been discussed several times, and the consensus was that the date that Tripoli fell was when he lost effective control of his government. The reason that the other pages say otherwise is because random people keep on changing it without realizing that a discussion had taken place about it. We can start another discussion if you really want to, but the result will likely be the same. Jeancey (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that he was ousted in his office on August because most media says so but I don't understand what your reason meant by "random people keep on changing it without realizing that a discussion had taken place about it. "? Besides, it's a contradiction to say his reign ends at August but the other sides his reign ends at October. So in reality was it August or October?

But then, as I said earlier and based on all the discussions you are talking about, most agree that Gaddafi lost control of Libya, therefore he was said to be overthrown. But he hasn't formally resign as the Jamahiriya leader until his death. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a clarifying footnote. Hopefully that will help. If the chosen date changes, the footnote should probably remain. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged both articles {{contradict other}}, specifying this talk page section for discussion/resolution of the contradiction. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So you guys still put his end term on 23 August 2011, does that mean you are trying to tell us that this in office as the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya is when he stop controlling Libya, not stop ruling as the leader of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? 60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the info to this article that officials of the interim National Transitional Council declared in a 23 August ceremony, "We declare to the whole world that we have liberated our beloved country, with its cities, villages, hill-tops, mountains, deserts and skies.", citing this source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I see that I misread the date of that ceremony and declaration -- it was 23 october, not 23 August. I've changed that in the footnote. I also changed the {{contradict other}} template to {{contradict-other-multiple}}. It looks to me as if the date in this article ought to be changed to 23 October, but I'm just a drop-in editor here. I'll leave more involved editors to work that out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway it's okay. I'm just asking only. You can remove that citation if you want to (Cuz the format is a bit ugly). 23 August 2011 is his real overthrown date. 20 October was his death date. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back here. This section can be a bit difficult because Gaddafi ouster was not willing one, but rather a FORCED ousting. So, I tried to take a look at other same leaders who were forced to be ousted (the actual term for this is deposed) by external forces. And there it go, Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar. Saddam Hussein was ousted on 9 April 2003, the day where the US-coalition forces storm the Republican Palace in Baghdad, but there are still ongoing fighting in those land hasn't taken by the US coalition forces, so Saddam forces still control part of Iraq, and he was exiled, just like Gaddafi. He was deposed in 9 April as the Head of State of Iraq, but he still rules the Ba'ath party until his capture on 13 December 2001.

This is the same when it comes to Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, where he was forced out on November 13, as the Head of state of Afghanistan, the day where Kabul fell to the NATO and US forces. But he is still the Head of Taliban (even until today), and during the time there are still cities under Taliban control. Being a head of Afghanistan and head of Taliban is a different thing, just like Saddam being the head of Iraq and head of Iraq-based Ba'ath party.

So I'm trying to compare the same way in Muammar Gaddafi. I don't know how you all describe this "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya" as a title of being the head of state of the country Libya, or simply just the head of his own political system. What actually happen on August 23, if I'm not wrong, is the day where he has stop being the head of state of the country, that's what the media meant about his overthrow at the Tripoli battle. But he was still the head of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, his own political system until his death.

There are two ways to solve this controversy. The first way is because the link of this title "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya" leads to List of heads of state of Libya, then the correct date is 23 August 2011. The other way is we make another title, one for 20 October 2011 as the head of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya system, and another title as the head of state of Libya itself where his term ends at August 23, 2011. How about that? Most likely I will still prefer to maintain the first option. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gaddafi birthdate is OBVIOUSLY 7 June 1942, why is so controversy?

Per the so-called Note about his birthday:

Some sources, such as a BBC Obituary Muammar Gaddafi, give the date as 7 June. Other sources say June 1942; others say "Spring of 1942" (Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, 2004) or "September 1942" (Encyclopedia of World Biography, 1998)

Ladies and gentlemen. Just for your information, there aren't just few so-called "reliable" encyclopedia disputes other leader's birthday, such as one of the Uganda opposition leader. His 7 June birthday is EVERYWHERE!!! Just because someone called it another date than 7 June does not make it disputable. Most of the officials, whether Gaddafi loyalist or the anti-Gaddafi rebels, still officially declare 7 June as his birthday. Thank you. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually have a friend from libya, who told me that they didnt ONCE celebrate gaddafis birthdays. Why would they start now? I know we can't use my friend as a source for this, but we need a very special source to actually add the 7. This is a very unique case because of how long it was in the article before now. When this was originally discussed I actually contacted the BBC and the reply was that WE are their source. I'm not sure about the other ones that are using 7 June, but I actually suspect that this is the case as well. If you can find a source that says they aren't using Wikipedia as their source for the date, or one that doesn't trace back here, that would be amazing. As it is, however, the note must stay. Jeancey (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and now BBC already states that Gaddafi was born on 7 June. So BBC still citing Wikipedia as their source? Any doubts? Oh and by the way, you don't need to everytime celebrate a politician birthday. That's not necessary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/muammar-gaddafi-timeline http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12688033

And by the way, if Gaddafi wasn't born on June 7, please explain why we are putting this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_7 60.49.60.158 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:V re verifiability vs. editorial perception of truth. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rank

Gaddafi was only a lieutenant when he seized power in September 1969, having been passed over for promotion to captain. Surely the article should describe him as a lieutenant, not a colonel? (92.7.31.146 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

He officially promoted himself. He is in fact a colonel. Jeancey (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That was just a made up rank. Gaddafi was no more a Colonel than Idi Amin was a Field Marshal. I think it would be best to give Gaddafi's real rank. (92.7.31.146 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

It's not made up. He was in charge, he promoted himself. Many military leaders promote themselves when they take power. Most promote themselves to general, he only promoted himself to Colonel. Throughout the world, Colonel Gaddafi is used almost more than Muammar Gaddafi. Please don't change it. Jeancey (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I know he was known as "Colonel Gaddafi", but it wasn't his real rank. We often hear about "King Louis XVII", "Emperor Bokassa" and "Emperor Napoleon II" even though they never held those titles. For the sake of accuracy the article should give his real rank, not what he decided to call himself. (92.7.31.146 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

You actually are making my point. Every single one of those articles on wikipedia has either King or Emperor as their title. Bokassa's even says "his imperial title did not achieve worldwide diplomatic recognition." Gaddafi's title of Colonel DID achieve worldwide diplomatic recognition. Why should this article be any different from those other ones that include the title. As commander of the military he is perfectly within his right to promote whoever he wanted, even himself. It was a perfectly legal rank, it was his real rank. Throughout history people have promoted themselves to ranks and everyone else says "OK." Many military coups happen from the lower ranks and end up with people promoting themselves when they take power, and those ranks are 100% real and valid. The 1987 Fijian Coup started with a colonel and he became commander of the armed forces. Its not uncommon at all. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Gaddafi was not a legitimate head of state though. (92.7.31.146 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

What do you mean by that? Jeancey (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

He just seized power by the use of force. The vast majority of Libyan people did not support him, as the civil war last year proved. (92.7.31.146 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

It doesn't truly matter if the majority of Libyans supported him or not. He was the legitimate head of state in that he could use all the assets that the State of Libya controlled, from state-run companies to the armed forces. He was recognized as the leader and head of the Libyan state throughout the world. Al Assad is still the legitimate head of state of Syria even though the majority of that country does not support him. There is no debate as to whether he was the head of Libya. That's completely 100% accurate. Jeancey (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Legitmacy of his ranks aside, the article states that he eventually held the rank of major general. Of course the article should refer to him using his common title Colonel Gaddafi but should the infobox not state his final rank - and if it must his legitimate rank of lieutenant also? I propose something along the lines of "Rank: Lieutenant (legitimate), Major General (self-appointed), Colonel (self-appointed, de facto title)"130.159.81.177 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Falklands War

Gaddafi sent many weapons to help his friend Lieutenant General Leopaldo Galtieri during the Falklands War in 1982. I'm surprised the article doesn't mention this, as it was a major reason why the US air force bombed Tripoli from British air bases in April 1986. (92.7.30.205 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

AIDS Denialism?

i don't think Gaddafi was an "AIDS denialist" There's a comment from him here about how aids is a "peaceful virus" but it looks like it's taken out of context — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwat (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the denialism doesn't stem from him thinking that the disease doesn't exist, but that he doesn't think that the disease is one that kills people and is any sort of issue. Jeancey (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the category should be removed. Gaddafi only made some brief remarks about AIDS, and it can be hard to tell what someone really means if they only speak briefly. Who knows exactly what Gaddafi meant by saying that HIV is "a peaceful virus, not an aggressive virus" ? Luwat (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Just a heads-up to User:SadSwanSong - your recent edit to portray Gaddafi's death as being "met with outrage around the world" is a textbook example of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. The opinions of a couple of political parties and former ambassadors don't quite constitute "outrage around the world". Furthermore, international reactions to Gaddafi's death are covered on the page, well, International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi (pretty easy to follow that one). So, I've reverted your edits to this already very long article, and I fully expect you to discuss your proposed change here and obtain consensus before you revert back to your version. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, never mind, he got himself indeffed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV problems

The previous version of the article mentions nothing about Tanzania's invasion against Uganda, against which the Libyans provided support to the Ugandans to resist this.

The section about Chad also says very little to nothing about the interference of the French in the conflict.

This statement "Gaddafi also financed Mengistu Haile Mariam's military junta in Ethiopia, which was later convicted of one of the deadliest genocides in modern history." is derogatory, unattributed, and far from NPOV. This authoritative, scholarly study about Ethiopia paints a complex picture of Ethiopia during that time, which underwent a revolutionary transformation and says nothing about a genocide.

SadSwanSong (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been temporarily protected due to the ongoing edit war. The involved editors are requested to resolve this issue through discussion. Please note that the protection is not an endorsement of the current article version. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected as the disruptive user has been blocked. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lockerbie Bombing & first line of Alliances with authoritarian national leaders

I don't get why people are not letting my edit stay without providing a reason, Lockerbie Bombing was done by Iran, it has been believed to be done by them for long now since they admitted it too, So posting about it here won't be a point, here's the source:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/777589.stm

And the first line of "Alliances with authoritarian national leaders" which goes like "Gaddafi had a close relationship with Idi Amin, whom he sponsored and gave key ideas, such as expulsions of Indian-Ugandans" It is confirmed that it was only said that Gaddafi may have given him such idea but Idi Amin himself never said it neither there's any proof if Gaddafi was involved in expelling Indians from Uganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.10.59 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lockerbie bombing was not done by Iran. All the evidence suggests Libya. Libya even admitted responsibility.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3155523.stm

Also source for the Uganda situation? Zenithfel (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

See this :- http://www.workers.org/2011/world/lockerbie_bombing_1103/

Libya is truly not involved, One more:-

http://plane-truth.com/pan_am_103.htm

As for the Indian-Ugandan expulsion, Idi Amin regarded it as his personal order by saying "We are determined to make the ordinary Ugandan master of his own destiny, and above all to see that he enjoys the wealth of his country. Our deliberate policy is to transfer the economic control of Uganda into the hands of Ugandans, for the first time in our country's history.", It was some others who viewed it as the suggestion of Gaddafi, No one actually said it, it was a view. If you look at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-04-15/india/27882308_1_devang-raval-museveni-indians and 100s of more sources you won't find anything where it's written that Gaddafi had given him the idea of Indian-Ugandan expulsion except this wikipedia page. That's the reason i have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 06:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You can change the Ugandan thing, as for lockerbie, thats stays. Gaddafi regime did it, and you have not provided RS to say otherwise, other than a lone iranian general claiming responsibility. Iran on the other hand denied its involvement. Zenithfel (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How about make a whole article about it? Because labelling the subject the way editors have on this article, it looks like some criminal act, We have to add a few points like.... "Done by two libyans" "Iran has been accused for it's involvement in bombings" "on 2003 Gaddafi paid $2.7 billion to the family of the victims for settling the whole case peacefully, but never admitted his or the Libya's involvement" "This move of Gaddafi was hailed by U.K".

I think it was written here before, But for some unknown reason it was removed by somebody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.1.81 (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken ref

This article seems to have a broken ref - ref 62. I don't know how to fix it. Luwat (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Western Acceptance

This section of the article has numerous Point of View problems. Some examples:

First example: "South African president Nelson Mandela, who took special interest in the issue, negotiated with the United States on Gaddafi's behalf. Mandela and Gaddafi had forged a close friendship starting with his release from prison in 1990. Mandela persuaded Gaddafi to hand over the defendants to the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, where they faced trial in 1999." There is no citation to backup the assertion that Nelson Mandela negotiated with the United States on Gaddafi's behalf. Nelson Mandela was involved in persuading Gaddafi to allow the 2 men to be tried in the Netherlands by a Scottish court. Here is one reference that describes Nelson Mandela's involvement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/298753.stm) Proposed change to this paragraph: "South African president Nelson Mandela helped to persuaded Gaddafi to hand over the defendants to the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, where they faced trial in 1999."

Second example: "In 2004, Shukri Ghanem, then-Libyan Prime Minister, openly told a Western reporter that Gaddafi was "paying for peace" with the West, and that there was never any evidence or guilt for the Lockerbie bombing.[197] " The citation does indeed support the fact that Shukri Ghanem told a BBC Radio 4 interviewer that Libya "paying for peaces" - but the article does not offer any supporting evidence for the claims. Here is an excerpt from the cited article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/misc/libya_20040224.shtml) "It’s long been thought that the shot that killed Yvonne came from inside the Libyan Embassy. But, Mr Ghanem told the BBC that there’s no evidence to support this claim and he considers the Fletcher case to be closed. The Libyan Prime Minister also denies that his government had any links with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which cost 270 lives. Pressed on why his government has offered to pay $10 million dollars compensation to each of the victim’s families he insisted that this was merely an effort to “buy peace” following years of crippling economic sanctions and was no admission of guilt. " but there are not facts cited by Ghanem to prove the statement. It is a statement of opinion rather than an argument for facts." Proposed change: Remove this sentence entirely or break it out into separate topic. The Yvonne Fletcher case and the Pan Am 103 case are large topics that have developed greatly in the past year and will continue to change in the future.

Third example of biased point of view: "Indeed, many legal experts as well as the United Nations observer at the Lockerbie trial, Hans Köchler, voiced strong reservations about the Lockerbie trial, and in 2007 the sworn affidavit of a key witness indicated that the decisive physical evidence used to convict al-Megrahi had been planted.[198]" First objection is that the sentence is a a run on in attempt to imply that Hans Kockler has some knowledge that supports the statement that "a key witness" - no citation backs up this idea that Hans Kochler has any information. Second objection is that the sentence implies that Hans Kochler was the only UN observer, he was not. I cannot find an official UN citation to show that Kochler was one of 2 observers appointed for tiral. I did find a later citation showing the UN appointed 2 different observer to attend the first appeal(http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=2786&Cr=libya&Cr1=). The citation states the observers "They are not required to report to the UN on the trial." So UN observers are not there to represent some official UN position. For more information on what Hans Kochler's positions are see his 2 Wikipedia entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%B6chler and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%B6chler%27s_Lockerbie_trial_observer_mission ). Proposed change: Replace the entire sentence with this: "Discussion about the Lockerbie trial continue. Hans Kochler one of 2 people invited by the United Nations to act attend as an observer, have published objections to the outcome." Remove the statement about a "key witness..." because it is an unsupported statement, and is in fact a tiny part of a much larger topic, either the whole topic or nothing. This partial sentence is very misleading.SPHanson (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)SPHanson

Regarding the Mandella issue, if the sources don't support the fact that he negotiated on Gadaffi's behalf, it should be removed. However, I don't see how, one way or the other, that is POV.

As for the prime minister's statements, he represents the gov't and claims no involvement. We don't indicate that he provided evidence to support his claim (nor should we.) Readers are left to draw their own conclusion. We can't eliminate his statement just because we don't believe it or he doesn't provide evidence to back it up. It would be POV to do so.

I agree certain terms may need to be changed. For example, if we don't have sources which state "key witness," etc., that term should be removed.JoelWhy (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaddafi's religion

Someone changed Gaddafi's religion from "Sunni Islam" to just "Islam". What was the reason for that? Is there evidence the change was correct? Luwat (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've got a citation indicating he's a Sunni Muslim, feel free to add it back to the article. I seem to remember seeing it was changed to just "Sunni" at one point, and someone changed it back to Islam, but I could be wrong. (I'm fine with having both Sunni Islam, but obviously we have to keep the Islam part for readers who don't realize it's a subset of the same religion.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

UN called Libya a pariah state?

leading to the United Nations calling Libya under Gaddafi a pariah state[21][22]

I find this a rather odd claim (that the UN called Libya a pariah state) and neither ref actually supports the claim. In fact only one mentions the UN and all it says is they imposed a trade sanctions. Nil Einne (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see support for the assertion that the UN called Libya a pariah state in the cited sources, and I couldn't find support elsewhere. I've modified the assertion here to say "some" rather than "the United Nations". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Allah, MuammAr wa Libya wa bas!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.136.44 (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 

"WAnker"

Went to remove the vandalism but apparently its hidden or some shit. Note the text over the main photo. Yeah, he was a horrible fucking human being but take your complaints to a forum somewhere, NOT HERE. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Our vandal-fighting bots are pretty good at detecting wankers like this; the annoyance was removed within a minute of your noticing it. (I'm surprised it took that long.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But he wasn`t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.113.230.203 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of text about Amnesty poll positive to Gaddafi

In this edit information which I had previously entered into the article's section on Public image is removed with the edit summary "Poll is online opinion, not relevant". Here is the text in question

In December 2011 [[Amnesty International USA]] announced its intention to identify some of the foremost [[human rights]] activists of that year. The public was invited to submit their candidate for Human Rights Hero. In early January 2012 the voting, which was supposed to continue until January 31, as well as the initiative itself were closed down after Muammar Gaddafi had been the leading name throughout. Secretary general of Amnesty International Norway, John Peder Egenæs, commented afterwards that the idea may have been a little naive and that special interest groups had begun inflating their candidates. According to Egenæs the reason the vote was closed one month early as well as the page about the initiative, was that it became too much work administering it.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Rønneberg, Kristoffer |title= Årets menneskerettighetshelt? |trans_title= Human rights hero of the year? |url= http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/rets-menneskerettighetshelt-6735962.html |work= [[Aftenposten]] |language = Norwegian |date= January 6, 2012 |accessdate= January 11, 2012}}</ref>

I don't see why this shouldn't be included in the article. The fact that it was an online poll has nothing to do with relevancy for inclusion. It also caused enough of a stir that one of Amnesty's country secretary general's had to comment on it and Norway's biggest newspaper decided to run the story. __meco (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A poll is a poll. The poll was obviously rigged by a massive amount of pro-gaddafi serbians or who ever supports gaddafi past his death. A poll is opinion. It is not consensus. There is nothing that warrants its additions, especially considering Amnesty International repeatedly condemned Gaddafi. Sopher99 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That rationale is an utter non-sequitur. What does "A poll is a poll" mean? How are we to relate that statement to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? And what about the claim of massive rigging? We have an Amnesty official asserting this, Amnesty who would be ostensibly embarrassed were they forced to award the title of "Human Rights Hero" to a man they had invested so much in condemning. So, basically, the claim of rigging comes from a source with an undeniable interest in the outcome of the poll not becoming what it was about to become. Is that what you base your conclusion that the poll was rigged on, and only on that? I say your reasons for removing this information is fundamentally flawed, and it should be reinstated! __meco (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we emphasize consensus on a poll only reported by a Norwegian newspaper not the condemnations given by Amnesty and the rest of the human rights groups themselves. It is my observation that those are very understated. Its like a Amnesty releasing a poll showing Hitler coming on top, but understating Hitler's human rights abuses. I don't believe that poll is worthy of this page because this is about gaddafi and his life, not about reactions to muammar gaddafi. Please put poll to the International reactions to the Libyan civil war page. Sopher99 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are not assessing the issue at hand accurately. Still, all the relevant facts seem to be on the table, so instead of going another round with you I shall await further opinions from other editors on the matter. __meco (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually did not even get to my main points about the poll itself.

1 - We need an english reference.

2 - When I used google translate to translate the source, i found that source itself admits the poll was rigged by mass coordination of pro-gaddafi blogs and readers of news-site specifically created to give pro gaddafi images

"Og det aller største navnet i ordskyen?

Muammar al-Gadafi, den libyske lederen som ble styrtet og drept i fjor etter et lokalt opprør godt hjulpet av omfattende bombeangrep fra NATO-land som Norge.

Etter at Amnesty-kampanjen ble igangsatt, begynte et utall nettsider å oppfordre folk til å stemme på eks-diktatoren. Blant dem var nettsiden Libyan Free Press.

– Gadafi var ikke den brutale diktatoren vi blir fortalt at han var. Tvert imot, heter det på nettstedet i et innlegg 2. january."

Sopher99 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no requirement in our policies that references be in English. And the "source itself admit[ting]" is actually, as I wrote above someone with likely a vested interested in the outcome of the poll. __meco (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your second sentence "And the "source itself admit[ting]" is actually, as I wrote above someone with likely a vested interested in the outcome of the poll." Sopher99 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote is from your previous reply. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in referring to the explanation given by Amnesty's representative as an admission. They are not "admitting" to anything. They are making a claim that supports their already position. An admittance is when you give away information that isn't in your interest. __meco (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to tell is they are admitting or not, because the source is not in english. Second I was not being strict about my usage of words, I meant explained. They explained that followers of Gaddafi's online media voted in mass. I think it is also worth noting that Michael Jackson came up second, further suggesting the lack of seriousness in the voting. Sopher99 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they didn't "explain" either. They claimed. Also, your observation about the name of Michael Jackson appearing prominently in the word cloud simply has no bearing on whether this information should be included in the article. Now, unless you will accede my demand that the text be reinserted, I will request conflict resolution now, as no other editors seem to be stepping forward to help us resolve this. __meco (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually wish for you to concede my request to put it in the International reactions to the Libyan civil war page. Sopher99 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues thoroughly. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes. I have made no previous edits on this page that I am aware of and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template. I hope this reply is of assistance and I am expressly open to feedback, barnstars, kittens, or trout slaps on my talk page! As a general rule, I don't see why any unscientific poll should be included in a Wiki article, and this one is no exception. It really says nothing about Gaddafi. All this tells us is that there was at least a single human being on the planet with an internet connection who voted for Gaddafi. Sorry, Meco, I believe your addition was a good-faith edit. However, there are a million unscientific online polls we could reference, but I believe it is a good practice to ignore them all. They really don't mean a thing.—JoelWhy (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to respond to the call for a third opinion. Unfortunately I'm not too happy about how you chose to approach this matter. Obviously, you might think, since you're not agreeing with my position. Well, that may be, but I find your assessment of the situation here equally lacking, on a formal level, as that of Sopher99. Your statement that "there are a million unscientific online polls we could reference" really tells me you're not seeing the issue straight at all. Also, you failure, as well as the failure of Sopher99, to even acknowledge that this has been deemed a newsworthy story by Norway's largest newspaper, equally makes me conclude that this issue cannot be settled with your issuance of your third opinion. Although your reply includes instruction to re-issue the third opinion request, I believe from the instructions on the WP:3O page that this is not an option, so I will instead opt for a new approach. __meco (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a newsworthy story because it was ironic and embarrassing to a large, well known organization. But, that's the beginning and the end of it. There's a new, unscientific poll done every single day on every major news site, blogs, online magazines, etc. Theoretically, a single person can vote for the same person over and over and over again (some polls track IP addresses, making it more of a hassle, but still easily circumvented.) Every once in a while, something amusing and unexpected will occur in such polls, and some newspaper somewhere will print a story on it. That doesn't make it noteworthy for a Wiki article. At best, you could try to find a way to include this in the Amnesty article (although, even that is a big stretch.) But, this says really ZERO about Gaddafi. It just doesn't belong in this article. Yes, my opinion is non-binding, but I think it unlikely you are going to find many Wiki editors who disagree with our assessment of this matter.JoelWhy (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are making the same error as the other editor of accepting the statement by the Norwegian Amnesty official as neutral and as giving a balanced and comprehensive summation of the activities surrounding this poll. I've opened a request for comments below if you want to stay around and discuss the issue further. __meco (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I'm not totally understanding your point. Do you mean that this article and poll show that Gaddafi may legitimately have been voted by the public as a human rights activist? And that Amnesty cancelled the poll and attributed this to Gaddafi supporters manipulating the poll in order to avoid being embarrassed further?JoelWhy (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If we retain an emphasis on may, and if we weigh the statement by the Amnesty official for possible bias and peel away our own disagreement or agreement with the statement by that official, and if we keep our eyes on the facts as presented by the source, and if we simply assess the source as to it being a reliable source, then yes, that must be considered. __meco (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Source is neutral and the poll managed to be added as a story in a prominent norwegian newspaper, but the poll shows no significance on Gaddafi's life, and is an online opinion poll, clearly skewed in favor of the mass coordination of pro gaddafis form the "Libyan Free Press". Just because something is in the main norwegian newspaper and commented on by Amnesty's official, doesn't mean it is wiki worthy. Thousands of polls make news in sites much more prominent that the norwegian newspaper. The poll is empty of anything but a point I think you are trying to make Meco, that you think this poll somehow adds legitimacy to gaddafi. No readers learns anything factual from this poll. Gaddafi spent 42 years as a leader of a nation. Why does one event detailing one public opinion poll in 1 month get so much intention on 20,000 word page? I am pretty sure Gaddafi's life and effects on the nation on the world detail more than a 100 million words. Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

1 - the poll is not significant enough. It doesn't matter if the secretary of Norways branch of Amnesty commented on it or if it made it into the Norwegian newspaper. Thousands of leaders and officials much higher ranking had comments on gaddafi and his actions, and we only include a handful here.

2- Its a online opinion poll

3 - Readers don't learn anything new about Gaddafi.

4 - The poll is farcical because of mass coercion.

5- This is about Gaddafi, not a opinion poll about Gaddafi.

6- If we already under state amnesty's 40 year long criticism of Gaddafi, why do we overstate a simple online poll hosted by Amnesty past his death?

7- Not notable. Sources ranging from BBC to the Jarkata post to the NY times have pages about very silly trifling things to ones about mass genocide. Being on a page in a newspaper, especial one that pales in comparison to hundreds of other sources we commonly use, is not significant. Sopher99 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Meco, but you're wrong on this mark. This is an unscientific poll. It cannot be used as evidence that Gaddafi may have actually been a supporter of human rights in any way, shape, or form. The fact that a newspaper printed this story has no bearing on the complete and utter lack of validity of the poll itself. If you want to include sources of information that argue Gadaffi did some good things on the human rights front, you are free to find legitimate sources to add them to this article. However, this poll, and any article about this online poll, cannot be used as evidence related to the support Gadaffi did or did not have.JoelWhy (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait for the result of the RFC. __meco (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Canceled Amnesty poll in section on Public image

Should the removed text quoted at the start of the preceding parent section be reinstated into the article's section on Public image? __meco (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I agree with the editors - it's an objective fact that the poll occurred, but not noteworthy. Alec 11:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec.brady (talk • contribs)

Jewish Descent

What about his mother's side, they had jewish blood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.140.223 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed.JoelWhy (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Economy

"Gaddafi's relatives adopted lavish lifestyles, including luxurious homes, Hollywood film investments and private parties with American pop stars"

After over a year and after enough of investigation, i think we can agree that this line is very superficial, remembering that the sources which are given have only added rages which have no base.

By the word 'relatives' you count all of the people who have family relation, which can be over 30-50 people even with a common person, and the claims which are added in the sentence include 'luxurious homes' when there was nothing luxurious about them, most of them lived in apartments. 'Hollywood film investments' only one of his son did, and only once, so 'investments' is wrong term too. 'Private parties with american pop stars' only 2 or 3 of his sons were alleged to be involved, nobody else.

So because this is really misleading i request you to remove it.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.2.220 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

this man

no controversy?184.98.125.243 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, none, largely based on false and unproved allegations, so no need to add them really. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaddafi's real rank

The article needs to mention the fact that it was Gaddafi himself who promoted him to Colonel in 1969. He took the same rank as his hero Colonel Nasser. Prior to seizing power Lieutenant Gaddafi had been passed over for promotion to Captain. (92.7.2.145 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

See the link again, which i had given about talk history, this point of yours has no backup nor POV which is required, this is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Locked?

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.143.25 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Croatian wife and French father

1 There are many articles including one from the economist that say second wife was Croatian. 2

There has also been speculations about Gaddafi's father being a French soldier. It is even mentioned in this Wikipedia article. [[9]]

--Wool Bridge (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Secret Harem Gaddafi in which he raped a minor

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: It is known that his bodyguards were women, but deposed Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi had a large harem full of very young girls who beat and raped , including minors. This reveals a journalist from Le Monde of Paris Annick Cojean in the book "In Gaddafi's harem." Harem was in the basement of his residence in Tripoli, and the girls as slaves lived in small rooms or apartments. Gaddafi before they were detained in lacy lingerie, every day for a few girls that Gaddafi had beaten and raped. The main head of the harem was Mabrouka Cherif and she knew all the dictator's sexual desires. Apart from the girls, says Annick Cojean, Gaddafi has led and young men, and the sex is forced and some of his ministers, the Libyan tribal leaders and their wives and daughters. Touching story Soraja girl, she was brought to the harem of 15 years. For her, there is no life, even after the hated dictator was deposed, because the family does not want to hear about her, and the brothers say that they would prefer to kill her. She is now hiding in a secret place and do not leave the house. Most Libyans considered that the other girls who were raped by Gaddafi in his secret harem, were only part of the regime, and that they therefore should be liquidated, as all other who supported Gaddafi. 78.2.81.154 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wig

The article should mention the fact that Gaddafi's hair was a wig. I wasn't sure at first if it was him in the video on 20th October last year because his wig fell off when the rebels dragged him out of the sewage pipe. (92.10.136.181 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

It was rumor, show a verified video, and stop removing rest of the source content. Clarificationgiven (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a rumour. DNA analysis revealed the hair wasn't his. Why do you think he was bald when he was beaten to death? (92.7.2.145 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

You need to provide a verifiable reliable source. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a rumor, official themselves said there wasn't even a autopsy, forget about DNA, if they ever had done, they would be giving autopsy reports to Amnesty International for sure. Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So the fact he was bald when he was killed wasn't at all suspicious, given that he had appeared in public earlier that year with a full head of hair? (92.7.2.145 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Let me remind you this is wikipedia, not your personal blog or off topic discussion board, quit acting being childish and try making some sense. Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaddafi wore a wig. The wig fell off when he was dragged out of the sewage pipe. That is why he looked bald when he was killed, despite always previously having a full head of hair when he appeared in public. (92.7.2.145 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Still make no sense, nor adds any credibility to your fantasies. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it a fantasy? In March 2011 Gaddafi appeared on TV with a full head of hair. On the day he died he was bald. Why? Because he wasn't wearing the same wig he'd worn for years. Incidentally footage from the late 1980s shows him with a big bald spot. Anyway why would the rebels give any report to Amnesty International when they won't allow Saif to be sent to the Hague? (92.7.2.145 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Because it must be your dream, since you can't even back it up, saif islam is visible, autopsy? Invisible and never made. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Saif was bald in his thirties, whereas his father Lieutenant Gaddafi wore a wig. (92.7.2.145 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

As usual, empty fantasies, and full nonsense. Off topic too. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

God, how hard is it to understand he wore a wig? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.137.23 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a wig is a bad thing in some people's minds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.138.151 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Popularity of King Idris

Although Daniel Kawczynski is cited in reference to the alleged decrease in popularity of the monarchy in Libya, I wonder what his sources are. As with any monarchy, including the British monarchy, there are those who both favour and oppose it, but King Idris was well-loved and a very decent man (yes, I lived in Libya in the 60s and knew him). He was very interested in converting the system of rule to something akin to Britain's with a touch of US federalism. I would like to see more discussion about this in the talk section--and more references and historically verifiable information in the formal entry on Idris.Mbss (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Heavily biased.

I see the article has last changed since I have read it. In replacement of well researched sources; sources have been replaced with Western Journalism with western perspectives and goals. The mention of mercenaries is almost none to be found, despite western backed and paid For Mercenaries having heavily influenced the change in Libya. Here, in this article; the Libyans 'glorify' the NATO bombings of their homes and children, and the war-crimes committed by Western nations. What happened to the image of the Libyans holding up signs, begging the Americans to stop bombing them? Or the elderly home that was bombed? What about the images of mercenaries and western backed rebels slaughtering civilians and executing pro-Gaddafi supporters? I know, I know.. 'Conspiracy theory'. Who am I to question Western Governments that lie continuously to their Citizens, or to even question them as a reliable source for information. I do commend the editors though; I didn't think it was possible to have a page read Gaddafi as worse than Adolf Hitler, or other leaders of the worst massacres in history. Mentions of the good to his people are almost nowhere to be found. --Suffery (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the good that the Libyan people got under Gaddafi came from the government. Since Gaddafi wasn't directly involved (he didn't stand on the street giving people money or food, etc), it isn't found here. Much of it was probably moved to History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. I know that there is a mention there of the healthcare, and I think the rise in GDP. Jeancey (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How was using the talk page of the article to raise concern about the Western Bias, vandalism, and an attempt at infamy? Wikipedia has went very downhill.. But of course, I know the policies. It doesn't matter if its true; Wikipedia only reflects popular opinion, popular opinion which is often heavily influenced by Western media, and thus, reflects the media's opinion, and not the opinion of the person. --Suffery (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see anyone saying it was vandalism. The Deny thing is for another section, and I'm not entirely sure why it is including everything below it. Jeancey (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism under "Honors"

Can an administrator please look into this? I have not reverted the vandalism again, but will leave this to the administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.92.2 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest reading up on WP:NOT VANDALISM. What the editor did wasn't vandalism at all. All the edits were explained by edit summaries, and had a strong basis in making the article more reliable. Jeancey (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Was there not a RfC here a few hours ago? Where did it go? (I was going to comment..) 91.189.176.46 (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The RFC was removed because it was frivolous and added as a part of the hoax attempts by an IP-hopper that seems very intent on trying to add false information to the article. (indeed it is the same person as the above IP 91.189.176.46). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And the same person as the one that started this thread as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And being frivolous, hoaxy and / or false or not is unilaterally being decided by you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.93.2 (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Obvious hoaxes can be removed on sight without any need for any discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Types of Writing Gaddafi's name

One version which is not yet considered is writing Muammar with ER instead of AR (http://www.google.de/#hl=de&q=%22Moamer+gaddafi%22&oq=%22Moamer+gaddafi%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i13l3j0i13i10i30j0i10i30j0i30j0i13i30j0i13i10i30l3.2528.3407.0.3611.2.2.0.0.0.0.61.112.2.2.0.pchatc..0.0...1c.1.N1xFgk6dowo&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7e77047748dc950&bpcl=38093640&biw=1280&bih=838) Can we add this version? 134.155.36.48 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes.90.244.90.201 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Redundant Image

I just noticed that the same image "File:Green_book.jpg", is used in both the Ideology section and the "People's Committees and The Green Book" section. Perhaps we could replace one of those images with another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0T0 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Problems

I'm unable to read this article on the Google Chrome browser... Why is that???? Someone needs to fix this. --TIAYN (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice writing

Kudos to the author(s) for the clear sentences! As advanced writers I hope you don't mind a little tip: the apposition to the subject as a sentence lead-in ("Ethnically an Arab, he came ... Nomadic Bedouin, they were ... His parents' only surviving son, he had ...") and the semicolon splice are used a bit often. Add variety in sentence structure by simply doing without these niceties (but don't add fancier ones!) more often. Wegesrand (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As the primary author of this particular page, I must thank you for your kind words, and constructive ideas. Its ice to hear when my Wiki-edits are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede is not nice

I must protest this lede. Is there really any wide interest in Gaddafi's "theories" anymore? Why do we have to wade through how long Gaddafi was Chairperson of the African Union and where he went to school to find out he was overthrown and killed in 2011? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Something like this quote from the BBC obituary should be in the lede:
No-one doubted that he exercised total control, and was ruthless in dealing with anyone who stepped out of line and opposed him. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If editors don't like BBC there is al Jazeera (whose profile sounds a bit like the lede but not so sanatized.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Because that would be biased... Wikipedia is not an authority on matters, it just writes about them... We could probably write somewhere in the body that he was an autocrat who didn't five shit about his people, but we can't have that in the lead.. Because that is a statement which is not shared by all (and it is sadly not a fringe theory) ... neutrality trumps the truth. --TIAYN (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be biased to say "Gaddafi was accused of responsibility for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. Gaddafi denied responsibility at first but later paid almost $10 million to relatives of each victim."?

It would be a toned down version of what aljazeera says:

For years, he was an international pariah blamed for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. After years of denial, Libya acknowledged responsibility, agreed to pay up to $10 million to relatives of each victim, and Gaddafi declared he would dismantle all weapons of mass destruction.

Do you consider alzaeera a WP:RS? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion – as the primary author of this page – I defend the introduction as fitting with Wikipedia's NPOV policy and presenting a neutral overview of this contentious subject. Officially, we as Wikipedians must excise our own opinions about Gaddafi and only include the most important, undisputed facts about his life and work. I'm no Gaddafi fan girl myself; I agree that he was an autocrat and I find the human rights abuses committed by his regime to be deplorable, but at the same time I recognise that this is my own opinion, and not objective fact. Many Gaddafists – past, present, and no doubt future – will praise his theoretical ideas, and present their argument that far from being an autocrat, the Jamahiriya system that he instituted was an example of direct democracy, giving Libyans a greater say in governance than they had ever had before in the nation's history. Similarly, they will praise the advancements made in areas of health, education, and infrastructure, as well as his anti-imperialist stance, his promotion of Islam, and the Pan-Arabic and Pan-African unity that he tried so hard to build. Sources such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, although considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, are not neutral in their presentation of events, and carry very clear biases in favour of particular ideological positions; in both of their Gaddafi obituaries, they carry with them a flagrant anti-Gaddafi bias by focusing to a very significant extent on those areas which anti-Gaddadists find so objectionable, and neglecting most of the points for which his supporters adored him. We can and should reference them in our articles, as representations of mainstream media opinion, but equally we should not seek to emulate their literary style here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. For somebody who finds the "human rights abuses committed by his regime to be deplorable" you sure sound in awe of Gaddafi. But anyways, a couple of points:

Wikipedia is a joint effort. Even if you are "the primary author of this page", you don't have the power to declare BBC and Al Jazeera, non neutral "in their presentation of events, and carry very clear biases in favour of particular ideological positions". We leave that to WP:RS

You have to follow wikipedia policies. One of which is that Lede should "explain why the topic is notable". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Lots of people have "theories". Few people run oil exporting states, which is what made Gaddafi notable and why I have now changed the first sentence. The opinions of "Gaddafists – past, present, and no doubt future" (future????) may (or may not!) be very real but they are not WP:RS and thus not of interest to an encyclopedia.

I put it to you that a lede dominated by Gaddafi's advanced theories of governance, his awards, and stuff along the lines of "[the system he] instituted was an example of direct democracy, giving Libyans a greater say in governance than they had ever had before in the nation's history" (I know that's from you on the talk page not the lede), made some sense in an encyclopedic article when Gaddafi was firmly in power. Post-Arab Spring, after numerous tales of unequal distribution of resources, torture, killing, and broadcast threats of "hunting down" protestors "street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe" ... not so much. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"[Y]ou sure sound in awe of Gaddafi." By explaining the reasons why some people supported him, even fighting to the death to preserve his regime ? I find it personally unpleasant that you make such accusations against me personally; as I said before, I found much of Gaddafi's regime deplorable, but recognise that other people have opinions different from mine, and can point to the achievements of his administration to support their opinions. Wikipedia has civility policies BoogaLouie, and I would ask that you adhere to them, rather than making hurtful insinuations against myself. That BBC and Al Jazeera are "non-nuetral" is an objective fact, not my opinion; they carry with them specific ideological positions that influence what news they report on and how they report on it. For the purposes of Wikipedia however, they are still considered reliable sources, and I never disputed that. Of course I agree 100% that Wikipedia is a joint effort, and for that reason I am more than happy to work with yourself or any other editor who wishes to improve this page, but I would ask that you do not just go ahead and introduce any other changes to the lede without discussing them first. The changes that you have introduced contain a number of grammatical errors and duplicate information already included in the lede; I am not going to remove it right now, because I don't want an edit war on my hands, but I do personally think that it should be removed by yourself, so that we can then engage in constructive dialogue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the pointing out the errors in my edit. I've made some corrections.

Second, I believe there is a wikipedia policy known as Wikipedia:Be bold. I was attempting to follow that in my edits and is why I will not remove them until we have discussed the matter further and maybe done a third opinion or RfC.

Third, I must point out that I too am very sensitive and my feeling are hurt by your insinuation that "being in awe" of someone is a hurtful characterization and not a natural reaction to reading gushing remarks about "direct democracy, giving Libyans a greater say in governance than they had ever had before in the nation's history. Similarly, they will praise the advancements made in areas of health, education, and infrastructure, as well as his anti-imperialist stance, his promotion of Islam, and the Pan-Arabic and Pan-African unity that he tried so hard to build ..."

However I am willing to put aside my hurt feelings and address the issues at hand in this article calmly and reasonably. To that end I propose we integrate the following from the beginning of the lede

He served as ruler of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then the "Brother Leader" of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, during which industry and business was nationalized. Politically an Arab nationalist and Arab socialist, he formulated his own ideology, Third International Theory, later embracing Pan-Africanism and serving as Chairperson of the African Union from 2009 to 2010.

...into the rest of the lede so as to avoid duplication.

Further, it seems to me that bearing in mind that the Lede should "explain why the topic is notable", we are giving undue wieght to stuff about Gaddafi being "Intent on pushing Libya toward socialism", the formation of General People's Committees, creating the Jamahiriya – a "state of the masses" -- in the middle portion of the lede. It should be mentioned but not at such length. From your comments above you appear to be impressed with "Gaddafists", but I ask you: post-overthrow can you provide any reliable sources indicating that there are any significant number of "Gaddafists" in existance? That anyone other than a handful of family, clan, tribe members or non-notable academics, pay any attention to "his theoretical ideas", or believe that "far from being an autocrat, the Jamahiriya system that he instituted was an example of direct democracy", (except maybe as an example of his eccentricity.) Cheers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to burying the hatchet on issues of civility; let's let bygones be bygones and focus on improving the lede. Just to clarify, I don't believe that the Jamahiriya was a direct democracy, or that Gaddafi's propagation of Islam was a good thing; I was just trying to play devil's advocate and explain the position held by the Gaddafists. These are not my own views. From your edit, I see that you prefer the wording "served as the ruler of Libya for 42 years" to "He served as ruler of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then the "Brother Leader" of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011." On this I disagree. Although the wordings are broadly similar in the information that they impart, I think it important to clarify the titles of the nation-states that he controlled, rather than simply the nation, as the term "Libya" implies. There was a fundamental structural difference in governance between the Republic – which Gaddafi officially governed by decree – and the Jamahiriya, over which he served as a ceremonial figurehead (albeit holding a great amount of unofficial power). The longer wording reflects this complexity and nuance to the situation; the shorter wording does not. I also see that you would like information on how Gaddafi came to power, and how he was removed, in the opening sentence. I think that this a valid request. As such, might I suggest the following sentence as a compromise: "Taking power in the 1969 coup d'etat, Gaddafi served as ruler of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then the "Brother Leader" of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan civil war." How does this sound to you ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Do you have any reliable source indicating that Gaddafi was not the defacto ruler of the Great Socialist Libyan Jamahiriya, but a mere "ceremonial figurehead" — verbage about "direct democracy" not withstanding?
2. Any reply to my question about whether you have any post-overthrow reliable sources indicating any significant interest in Gaddafi's ideas by anybody? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've used an array of texts, among them those authored by specialists in Libyan Studies, to build up the biographical account of Gaddafi that you can now find in this article (and I hope to add to them in future). All of them are pretty clear that while *officially* Gaddafi's position in the Jamahariya was ceremonial, he *de facto* remained an autocratic leader with huge influence across the country's political sphere, primarily through his leadership of the Revolutionary Councils and command of the military. I'm not disputing that. However, there is a difference between being an official ruler who creates laws by decree (as Gaddafi was in the Republic), and an unofficial figure who wields power through personal influence and mobilising supporters to intimidate dissent (as he was in the Jamahariya). My wording seeks to reflect that difference. In response to your second point, a number of specialist texts published during the civil war (Vandewalle, Bruce St. John, Kawczynski) discuss Third International Theory, highlighting that it was the theoretical framework through which Gaddafi hoped to revolutionise the socio-economic and political structure of Libya (and, potentially, the rest of the world). All leaders (hell, all adult human beings) have a particular ideological worldview whether they recognise it or not, and in Gaddafi's case it is imperative that we state what his was in this introduction. I agree with you 100% that Third International Theory has never been a significant ideological current on the world stage (unlike, for instance, Marxism-Leninism or neoliberalism), even during Gaddafi's heydey. I suspect that any foreign support that it did have would have shrunk during the 1990s as Gaddafi seemed to turn away from many of its core principles (i.e. his rejection of socialist economies), and that following his death it will shrink even more. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just an opinion. However, what is not my opinion is that Third International Theory, itself a product of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism, played a significant part of Gaddafi's worldview, and was the prism through which he wanted to reshape Libya. His adherance to it affected the lives of millions, both in Libya and abroad. For that reason it is so, so important that we include it in the lede, just as we would use the first paragraph to call Nelson Mandela a democratic socialist, Mao Zedong a Maoist, or Benito Mussolini a Fascist. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we are on the same page here; it's just that we are trying to express things differently. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In the hope of resolving this issue without too much argument, I too have gone ahead and been bold, taking your criticisms into consideration to produce an introductory paragraph that I hope is acceptable to both of us; [see it here]. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not resolved. Will probably go to 3rd opinion and on from there.

Look, We want the lead to provide the most important information first and then go on to the details. Wikipedia policy, Right? You admit yourself that as Brother leader of the "Jamahariya" Gaddafi "*de facto* remained an autocratic leader". So why not keep it simple and say he was ruler from 1969 to 2011? Why do we have lots of verbage about "ruled Libya as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then the "Brother Leader" of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011," and skip the fact he was killed when his regime was overthrown??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the text is being dumbed down here; the wording that I have proposed retains exactly the same meaning, but is more precise. I don't believe it to be verbage because I believe it to be of the utmost importance; it is providing basic, important information, not further detail. We must clarify that Gaddafi's official role altered during this period, otherwise – I believe – we are actively misleading the readership. Regarding the issue of killed/ousted, I am happy for it to be mentioned that he was violently killed in that introductory paragraph; I don't think it imperative, but I would not oppose its inclusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Third Party Opinion

Dispute over two different introductory sentences in the lead

here
Gaddafi served as the ruler of Libya for 42 years — from 1969 when he headed a coup d'état overthrowing King Idris, to 2011 when he was killed by revolutionaries who overthrew his government.

and here
Gaddafi was a Libyan revolutionary and politician. Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled Libya as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then the "Brother Leader" of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan civil war.

Comments

I (I'm the user who made the third party opinion request) support the first version as dealing with the most important facts of his life at the beginning of the lede, before going on to his advanced ideas on Jamahiriya. Other issues:

• He was "ousted" by being killed. It doesn't take much space to mention that. Why not do it?
  • The government of the Jamahiriyah lost power and widescale international recognition several weeks prior to Gaddafi's death. To state that he was "ousted by being killed" is a misnomer; one could potentially state that he was ousted and then killed, but is the manner of his death really relevant enough to be in this introductory sentence ? Do we include the manner of death in the opening sentences of the Saddam Hussein or Gamal Abdul Nasser articles ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • You can certainly way he was losing the civil war when he was killed. That's not the same thing as having been ousted. I'm not suggesting we talk about his being shot -- the manner of death -- in the opening sentences, just that he was killed. BoogaLouie (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Politician" sounds like he was running for office and forming coalitions and what not. He was a ruler, locking up and sometimes killing opponents. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I see no reason why the term "politician" should be interpreted in this way. A politician is someone who is involved in politics, whether that is in an absolute monarchy or a liberal democracy. Associating the term purely with what we may be familiar with in liberal democracies is – in my view – an example of the Anglo-American centrism that is pervasive yet discouraged here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you can say that anyone involved in the politics of a country is a "politician". I think you can argue that ruling is a rather different activity than seeking public office, which I would argue is what most politicians -- Anglo-American centrist or not -- spend time doing. I would also argue that "ruler" is more descriptive of what Gaddafi did, just as, say "British actor" is more descriptive than "human being" "cultural worker" for someone, like, Daniel Craig, though Craig is also a cultural worker. It's true we use "politician" in first lede sentences for most politicians but even someone like Obama, who is most famous for being president, spent a lot of his political career not being president. Gaddafi was never stopped being ruler for his "political career" until he was dead -- or at most a couple of months before he was dead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to BoogaLouie's position, I support the second of these two introductory sentences. Having studied Gaddafi relatively extensively (and written this article off the back of said research), I believe that it is of paramount importance that we recognise that there was an official difference between Gaddafi's position from 1969 to 1977 and 1977 to 2011, irrespective of any de facto similarities. Suppressing this vital information is, in my opinion, an example of dumbing down the lede – with potential anti-Gaddafist and hence POV overtones – and while acceptable in a news article, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia such as this one. The second proposed sentence is therefore far more specific, far more accurate, and far more encyclopedic, while still adhering to Wikipedia's lead section manual of style. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To repeat myself, You, Midnightblueowl, say above that as Brother leader of the "Jamahariya" Gaddafi "*de facto* remained an autocratic leader" as he was from the first days of his rule, before the so-called "Jamahariya". So why not keep it simple and say he was ruler from 1969 to 2011? This is not dumbing down, this is Wikipedia policy WP:Lead which calls for the lead to provide the most important information first and then go on to the details. -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think the most relevant part of the Neutral point of view policy as it applies to this discussion is WP:DUE, specifically "... the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." None of the sources referred to in the discussion mention the change to the Jamahiriya until much later in the articles so I don't think it should be in the lead paragraph. Midnightblueowl expressed concern that the BBC and Al Jazeera are not neutral on this subject but did not provide any other sources to consider. Midnightblueowl is correct that he was ousted before he was killed. The coverage of his death later in the section is appropriate. I suggest the following: Gaddafi ruled Libya for 42 years, taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat overthrowing King Idris. He was ousted in 2011 in the Libyan civil war. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)|} Gaddafi's date of birth We currently have an issue on this page regarding Gaddafi's date of birth. In the text – written using a series of four biographical accounts of Gaddafi's life from specialists in the field of Libyan studies – we state that "Gaddafi's date of birth is not known with certainty, and sources have set it in 1942 or in the spring of 1943, although biographers Blundy and Lycett noted that it could have been pre-1940". However, in the infobox, we state quite categorically that Gaddafi was born in June 1942, as evidence merely citing the rather brief BBC News obituary, which itself claims Gaddafi's date of birth as 7 June 1942. While I agree that Wikipedia does recognise the BBC to be a reliable source, in this instance, it is clear that the BBC are simply factually inaccurate. This article will never be able to pass into GA territory with this fault intact, so I suggest that we deal with it now, and agree to change the infobox misinformation. Any opposition ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I agree the infobox seems to need an update here, though I'm not sure what the norm is for this. "Disputed"? "c. 1940–43"? Incidentally, I'm not sure whose it was, but I removed a clear attack on BBC factchecking here pending sourcing. Unless another source explicitly connects BBC's obituary to the date previously given in our article, we shouldn't state that these are connected, either. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC) That particular attack on BBC fact checking was there when I started working on the article, so it's been here for a long while. For what it's worth, I think that the BBC obituary probably was based largely on a cursory glance of Wikipedia, but it's not a referenced fact, so doesn't belong here on Wikipedia; well done on excising it. Regarding the infobox, I think we should go with "c. 1940–43", although don't know if there is a norm. Shall we go ahead and make the change ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I'd say go for it. It at least gives a better starting point for future discussion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Will do! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Lede dispute Will agree to go along with SaskatchewanSenator suggestion Midnightblueowl? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I don't want to be a pain, but I disagree with SaskatchewanSenator's suggestion for all the reasons outlined above; to my mind they didn't take into account any of the problems that I highlighted. I really want to get this article to GA status, and from my experience here at Wikipedia with pulling articles like Nelson Mandela up to GA, an opening sentence like that just won't cut the mustard. It's simply not specific enough, and has POV undertones. I'd rather ask for some wider opinions from other editors with experience and involvement in political biography and Arab history here at Wikipedia. I am of course open to negotiation as well BL, and I do hope that I am not being too obstinate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC) FWIW, I do think the version of SaskatchewanSenator is neutral. Normally I like to check our summaries against those of other RSs, and Sask.'s version seems to jibe with the leads of major news organization obituaries and Encyclopedia Britannica. I hate to disagree with a friend, MBO, but my !vote is that it be implemented. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC) And as a side note, thanks to you both for your work on this important article! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC) My concerns regarding POV issues are that with an opening sentence like that, Gaddafi is being treated differently from other political leaders here on Wikipedia (whether they were democratically elected or not). Nelson Mandela is "a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and politician who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999." Barack Obama is "the 44th and current President of the United States, the first African American to hold the office." Even Adolf Hitler was "an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945." So why is Gaddafi being presented simply as "[he] ruled Libya for 42 years, taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat overthrowing King Idris. He was ousted in 2011 in the Libyan civil war" ? By failing to present him by his official titles in the opening sentences, we are clearly treating him in an inferior way, and that is a major violation of NPOV in my opinion. As I said, I'm more than happy to discuss this with other editors involved and come to some sort of agreement, but at the same time I'm not content to simply sit by and watch my legitimate concerns get unfairly ignored. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel as if I'm ignoring your concerns. It's not that I'm not hearing what you're saying, but my understanding is that POV violations are generally assessed by comparing a Wikipedia article to reliable sources on the subject, rather than comparisons to other Wikipedia articles. Different people are different, and therefore need different language. In this case, no one seems to emphasize the various titles Gaddafi gave himself, whereas most of the English-speaking world still knows that Hitler was the "Fuhrer" or that Obama is "President"; it makes sense to me that the articles reflect the frequency with which these terms are used. In any case, though, I think usual Wikipedia practice calls on us to construct our summary similar to how obituaries, encyclopedia articles, and other summary sources construct theirs. For Gaddafi, the trend in the major sources I usually check is clear. E.g., the New York Times obituary lead: "Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the erratic, provocative dictator who ruled Libya for 42 years, crushing opponents at home while cultivating the wardrobe and looks befitting an aging rock star ... ". Since you're still not satisfied, I suppose the next step would be to start an RfC? In the interim, though, my suggestion is that the dispute resolution outcome be honored; that's what Third Opinion is there for, after all, and my further opinion on the Third Opinion, requested by you, is that it seems good. Sorry we've ended up disagreeing on this particular point, but I do appreciate your work on this greatly. Thanks again to everybody else working on this one, too! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hmmm... *mumbles and grumbles*... Now that I'm being outvoted 3 to 1, the appropriate thing would be for me to acquiesce on this issue. I still have grave misgivings, but I can see that you guys are simply adhering to policy. My issue is with the policy itself, not with the three of you. On the issue of Gaddafi, the likes of the BBC and Al Jazeera are biased, dumbed down, and in some cases factually inaccurate sources (i.e. the BBC obituary's incorrect info on Gaddafi's date of birth), but they are recognised by policy as reliable sources nevertheless. I shall go ahead and implement the original suggestion, although I don't see this as the end of discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Cheers for that. You definitely should think about an RfC in that case--that usually gets five or six fresh editors in for a look, and it can be quickly settled with (relative) finality. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, cheers. -BoogaLouie (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Awards Just a passing comment by a non-expert, but at a glance, listing things like "Grand Commander of the Order of the Republic of the Gambia" or an honorary doctorate from Megatrend University seem awfully trivial for a figure of Gaddafi's stature. This page space could surely be better used to add detail and context to other aspects of his life. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) One possibility is to split off this section and create a page titled "Awards of Muammar Gaddafi" or something of that nature. The new article could then list these more trivial awards, while the most significant ones would still be included on this page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC) The section of honours and awards is a common section in articles about presidents or prime ministers, so I dont see why we had to avoid it in this case. And about splitting the article creating a "Honours & Awards of Muammar Gaddafi", as I had stated earlier, I would only agree if that section grows as bigger as other comparable political figures as Nelson Mandela or Josip Broz Tito. Otherwise would be simply a double standard (why split this and not for example Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani honours and awards section?). Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC). Ironically, as I just said in another thread on this page, weight/article space is usually assigned not by comparing two Wikipedia articles, but by looking at the reliable sources on a topic. Debates like "But I think Head of State X is just like Head of State Y!" tend to get sidetracked on minutiae. (As a side note, though, is it really not clear to you that Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani's article is a mess and shouldn't be used as a role model? I would have thought the big orange warning tag at the top, and the two dozen citation needed tags in the Awards section, would have made that point for me.) The better questions would be, Are these awards a major part of reliable summaries of Gaddafi's life? Do they play a major role in scholarly biographies, in obituaries and news coverage, and in other encyclopedia articles about him? That's how Wikipedia usually assigns weight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC) To answer Khazar's question, as far as I am aware, these awards are not mentioned in any of the major biographical and historical accounts of Gaddafi and his regime. Perhaps this is because they are not major awards in the magnitude of the Order of Lenin, Presidential Medal of Freedom or Nobel Prize (which figures like Mandela have been awarded). That's not to say that Gaddafi's awards and honours shouldn't be included in this article, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Perhaps I had to remember to some editors that WIKIPEDIA CONTENT MUST BE VERIFIABLE. Its funny to see some editors asking to delete sourced content while at the same time seemed to want to maintain content with no reliable sources (Oh, and ironically the big orange warning tag at the top of the Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani article had been added by me, as the two dozen citation needed tags in the Awards section. No need to assure that Im gonna do the same with every article I found like that). And about the awards being a major part of reliable summaries of Gaddafi's life, that would made 95% of presidents, kings, etc... articles being stripped of that section. As Midnightblueowl pointed out, only the Nobel prize and almost no more would be "important" enough (according to whom? That's so subjective. For example, considering the Presidential Medal of Freedom as more important or relevant that, for example, older prestigious European orders or medals would be at least a POV case, if not something worse, in my opinion) to be present on an article.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify, while I agree that the "importance" of different awards and honours is relative and subjective, an argument can certainly be formulated that senior awards bestowed by major world powers (i.e. the U.S. or USSR) carry more weight than those which – though older – are from countries with a far smaller standing in world affairs. But I digress... To clarify, I am happy for the Awards section to remain on this page so long as it does not become too lengthy; at the same time, I am open to the argument presented by Khazar2 that maybe we should split it onto another page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Now that we have an eponyms sub-section too, maybe this should be combined with the Honours and Awards and split off into a separate article ? Certainly, its inclusion provides added impetus to the idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC) The eponyms subsection in other articles is always on the Legacy section, not in the Honours and awards section, so theres no reason to do different here. Same type of articles, same standard. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Places named after Gaddafi I noticed that there is a mistake in the article stating that the soccer stadium in Lahore is named after him. This is incorrect, the name of the stadium is "Punjab Football Stadium" and also the name of the field hockey stadium is also incorrectly attributed to Gaddafi. The hockey stadium is named as "National Hockey Stadium". It is correct that the cricket stadium is named after him and the hockey and football stadia are located very close to the Gaddafi cricket stadium but are NOT named after him. Please correct the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.223.133.82 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC) I fear that there are a lot of problems with this particular section; the referencing just isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)