Talk:LSE–Gaddafi affair

Untitled
This is just the beginnings of this article. Please add/subtract as you see fit. After that we can submit it to review by the Wikipedia editors.

PhD to Gaddafi's son
Lord Desai is down as the supervisor and Held as "mentor," but where these the only people involved? Who were the internal/external examiners for the PhD itself?Erik 21:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the acknowledgement in the thesis - http://www.scribd.com/doc/50010991/Saif-Gaddafi-PhD-Thesis - it says "I would like to thank those at LSE who advised me directly and gave generously of their time to assist me to clarify and refine my arguments. This includes Professors NancyCartwright, David Held and Alex Voorhoeve." I think some or all of these are likely to have been the supervisors and elsewhere Desai and Tony McGrew are listed as the examiners. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/04/lse-heavy-price-saif-gaddafis-phd Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Is "Tony McGrew" the same person as Anthony McGrew, the person who Held writes books together with? If he was the external examiner, isn't that a bit, lets say, compromising?Erik 05:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add something about the quality of the thesis, as we do at the end in this section, but we need to know who is saying this and with what authority. Also, Nye wasn't actually involved in the thesis supervision. And also, we should make sure that we don't sound unnecessarily partial here.Erik 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Source of Financing
The money did not come directly from the Libyan government. Rather it came from Saif's 'philanthropic' fund which had obviously close ties to the Libyan government. I will not change this myself, but I feel it should be changed as it makes the LSE look excessively promiscuous.Doors22 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"rivers of blood" speech
Nice section, maybe some more stuff could be added -- Enoch Powell?? I particularly like the juxtaposition of the Rivers of Blood and the David Held quote in the section above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Libya Gate is the name given to a scandal"
The name given by whom? As far as I can see, at the time of writing by nobody except the author of this article.

The *gate suffix is meaningless outside its original context of the Watergate affair and reduces anything to which it is attached to the level of sloppy journalism. Find another title!

BrianAnt (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The sobriquet does need a citation, if it's not a Wikipedian's invention.--Wetman (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone had better come up with a source for this name soon -- if not, the article is going to AfD (where a new name might be imposed as an alternative to deletion). A google news search suggests that the term has not in fact been used by anyone in the press.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, OK, I know. We DID make this up. On the other hand, this is a self-contained news-story that needs a moniker of some kind. It is not surprising that the story has no name yet since it is very much evolving. (As in, the LSE director resigned two days ago and all international media are still writing about it and digging up new information). We could either 1) wait for a moniker to magically emerge and hold off on this page going online, or 2) find some more generic name. But surely even a more generic name needs a reference to Libya or Gaddafi ("the Libyan Donations Affair at the LSE" or "LSE Libya Links"). I really like "Gaddafi Gate," but I do take the point about "gates" being sloppy journalism. Actually "LSE Libya Links" might be nice!!! The BBC and others use it. Check this.Erik 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you did 'make this up', Mr. Ringmar, is nothing to be proud of. Wikipedia is not journalism: it is meant to be impartial and balanced. You would do well to reflect on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.120.190 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to "LSE Libya Links" with "The LSE Libya Links" affair is the name given to ..." as the introduction. I'm happy with this, I hope you are too. I need to clean up the redirect pages, but first I need to eat dinner -- my wife is calling ;-) Erik 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

LSE reactions
I like that addition of the John Sidel quote -- finally an LSE professor who has something negative to say about the conduct of the people responsible!!!Erik 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

Careful here, Erik, you are giving the game away: people will realise that you are only interested in anyone who has something bad to say about LSE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.230.222 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LSE and the Monitor Group
This is a very important section, which previously was deleted for some reason. It's crucial since it provides the "smoking gun" connecting the pro-Libyan activities of various LSE academics and Libyan money. The Libyans paid the Monitor Group and the LSE academics were paid by the Monitor Group. Don't let anyone delete this!!!!

I added a lot of stuff. It needs fixing up and rewriting. I can do this later if no one else gets to it first.

Alia Brahimi and the video link-up with Gaddafi
I think it's better to introduce Alia Brahimi as an LSE person first and then end the section by saying she resigned. Btw, we need a reference for the resignation, and what exactly did she resign from? Global Governance, the LSE or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a video clip of this on YouTube. It should be possible to insert it directly into the file, but I don't know how to do this. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME5GGfU-iPE61.230.228.223 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There use to be a number of quotes from Brahimi here showing how her writings were influenced by the money she took from the Libyans. I took those quotes out. They are relevant to be sure, but they are also more part of her story than the story of the LSE. She is only a small-time player here after all. We can reuse the quotes for her personal wikipage (which I'm working on).Erik 12:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

the Fred Halliday memo
This is a very important document and should definitely be included. However, we must cut this down to a manageable size. The text itself is saved in Google.docs and we can refer to it in footnotes.Erik 17:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I worked some more on this, but more editing is required.Erik 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

Can someone confirm who Pro Director for Research and External Relations was at the time of the Halliday's memo? Professor Sarah Worthington? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suayjiao (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

pictures -- yes!
Great work on the pictures. We need more of those!Erik 03:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)
 * I am glad you like it. If I may ask, don't you have any relevant picture in your own digital cam? :D --BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been looking for pictures and I've found some. I'm trying to upload to WikiCommons, but the license settings are complicated ... I'm also slowly learning how to edit the pictures. This link is helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntaxErik 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

introductory blurb
I'm not sure about this picture -- is it too obviously provocative? On the other hand, it really does invite readers to go on reading. Also I'm not so happy about some of the people who express negative opinions regarding the LSE in this section -- they seem marginal. We should either delete them or paraphrase them somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.230.228.223 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Length of article / importance of topic
This article is several pages long, its content is however considerably thinner. Bringing this back into proportion would be an urgent need in this article. Derjanosch (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's right. I'll work on it ASAP. Erik 07:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

But please don't make any mistakes about the importance of this news story. It has been written about in all international news outlets, the BBC, and discussed by op-ed writers in the New York Times, etc. In the longer-run the salience of the story will of course go down, but it will remain important as an example of how a university, searching for money and political influence, became embroiled in corrupt, and corrupting, practices. Erik 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

You comments here make it obvious, Mr. Ringmar, that you are taking a polemical approach to the whole issue. What attempts have you made to provide balance, to supply counter-arguments in defence of LSE? Surely this would be the first task of someone who genuinely believes in giving impartial, high quality information in an encyclopaedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.120.190 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

date of the PhD
I changed this back to 2009, but I'm not sure if that's right. My source is what David Held says when he is introducing Saif Gaddafi at the Miliband lecture in May 2010. This link. I know that all papers reported 2008. If you look at the dissertation itself it says it was submitted in September 2007. Lord Desai, in Hindustan Times, says that Gaddafi Jr. submitted the thesis but that the examiners made him revise and resubmit it, and this presumably explains the delay. All of this matters since the LSE accepted a donation from Gaddafi's Foundation in June 2009. If he indeed did not have a PhD by that time, accepting the donation must be regarded as very compromising. Great if we could find more information on this! Erik 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

This is highly speculative and unsubstantiated comment. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to present impartial information, instead this is turning into an LSE-hater's love in.

Dear Underlabourer, please stop changing the date of the PhD back and forth. I don't want to engage in a WikiWar over this issue. As the PhD itself makes clear it was submitted in September 2007. As Lord Desai makes clear it had to be revised before it could be accepted. As this Times article explained in Sept, 2009, the dissertation was filed with Senate House the "previous autumn." According to David Held himself, "Saif al-Gaddafi got his PhD in 2009." I presume, however, that was a temporary memory lapse on Held's part.Erik 10:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

Dear Erikringmar. I have not simply been undoing your changes in Wikiwar fashion. Rather, I've provided the rationale for the revisions I've made. As you now acknowledge, there is some doubt as to what we can infer from the available evidence. We'll get closer to the truth, including the limits of what we can infer from the available evidence, through a collective process of gradual revisions. It is clear that the version of the thesis that is in the public domain is dated as submitted in September 2007. What is unclear is whether this is the original version or the final, revised version. You provide some evidence (i.e., a sentence in the Times) that it is the former. But the thesis that was deposited in the LSE library and digitized would be the final, revised version rather than the original, unrevised version. University libraries are not in the practice of keeping copies of unrevised PhD theses that have not yet been accepted. If, moreover, you're right that the September 2007 version is the unrevised version, why are you happy to list the publication date of that thesis as 2008? Surely, on your version of events, it makes no sense to link to the unrevised version and list its publication date as 2008, unless you think that university libraries publish unrevised theses that haven't yet been accepted. --Underlabourer (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Underlabourer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underlabourer (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Phd dating is a bit tricky. There might be several dates that are relevant
 * * Submission date  - seems to be Sep 2007  via one version linked to
 * * Date of the examination 2008 ( I think this is clear )
 * * Date of resubmission  2008 (? I don't know if this is clear ) but this version's date may still record 2007 as when it was submitted
 * * Date of the award of the degree ???? This might be either 2008 or 2009 (As Prof Held states) depending on the graduation which can be several months away from the date of final submission. This page from LSE http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2010/20100525t1830vLSE.aspx clearly states "He received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics in 2009."
 * I think this last one might be the date we want. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

Dear Underlabourer and Msrasnw, apologies for accusation of Wikiwarfare. I shouldn't have said that. It was just that you changed things without providing a rationale. A Msrasnw points out, dating a PhD is difficult, with many different dates involved, but the LSE page mentioning 2009 is unambiguous (and it fits with what Held says when introducing him). For now, though, couldn't we simply agree, as I've tried to indicate in the latest version of the page, that the issue remains unresolved? Meanwhile, lets remember why this is important -- if the LSE received the huge donation before Gaddafi Jr received his degree, it would constitute and outright bribe. Erik 04:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

Accusations of bribery should be made very carefully indeed, Mr.Ringmar. Is this the standard of evidence and inference which you teach to your students in China?

Dear Erikringmar and Msrasnw,
 * I agree that the issue of the timeline is important and that the publicly available evidence we've come across doesn't resolve it.
 * "Date of the examination 2008 ( I think this is clear )". Msrasnw -- Could you explain why you think this is clear? I've not come across anything that makes this clear.
 * I now think that the pdf of the thesis in the public domain (in which September 2007 is listed as the date of submission) is of the (final, revised) version in the LSE and Senate House libraries. This is in part because the Times reporter says that the thesis "filed at the Senate House library of the University of London last autumn [i.e., autumn 2008]" is "Over 428 pages", and the pdf is 429 pages.
 * I've noticed that the properties of the pdf list the "author" as "Saif Al-Islam" and the date "created" as "19/04/2008". (There's an August 2009 date the pdf was "modified", but this is probably when it was downloaded by whomever put it in the public domain.) Perhaps 19 April 2008 was the date that the revised version was finalized and sent to the examiners for their approval, in which case the viva of the original version would probably have been late 2007 or early 2008, following its September 2007 submission. It would have taken some time for the examiners to read and approve the revised version, after which point the thesis would have been deposited in the library. This squares with the Times reporter's claim that the thesis was filed at the library in autumn 2008.
 * "the LSE page mentioning 2009 is unambiguous (and it fits with what Held says when introducing him)." But the recent LSE press office statement which reports what Lord Woolf has been asked to investigate is also unambiguous: "... --The academic authenticity of Saif Gaddafi’s PhD thesis, awarded in 2008". LSE would have checked its records before releasing this particular statement. Perhaps 2008 is the date when the relevant academic body approved the awarding of the degree and 2009 is the date of the graduation ceremony. This would square with all the evidence I've listed above.

Underlabourer (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Underlabourer, you're cooler than the rest of us! Checking the properties of the pdf is an excellent idea. I wish I had thought of that. Yes, all of that makes sense. At the LSE -- I worked there for 12 years -- dissertations always had their viva around Christmas time, since that's when faculty have time off. He could have been given fourth months to finish the work, which would explain the April 19, 2008, date. In that case the new version was simply an addition to the previous file and the date on the cover was never changed. That, as you say, explains why it ended up in Senate House in September, 2008. Usually, in my experience, faculty read resubmitted PhDs very quickly (if they read them at all). The only mystery then would be why the year 2009 crops up. The obvious thing would have been to go through the ceremony itself, mortar board and whatnot, in December of 2008. All of this can of course be resolved by someone who has access to the proper records, which should be in Senate House if not elsewhere. As long as official LSE web pages say "2009," however, I think it's fair to keep the issue open -- it does, as I said before, make quite a difference. Are you happy with the text on the page? In a way it would be neat to include your discovery of April 19 -- just because of the detective work involved! yours always, Erik 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

Dear Erikringmar. I've just added a line that lists the press office's statement that the PhD was awarded in 2008. I think it probably makes sense to confine stuff on the pdf properties to this page rather than add that to the main entry. Underlabourer (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Underlabourer, that's fine. Maybe we're actually starting to get the timeline right ;-) Btw, you provided info about Alex Voorhoeve's involvement in the diss - where did you get that from? Erik 09:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talk • contribs)

Info about Alex Voorhoeve's involvement wasn't from me. --Underlabourer (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my contribution I had hoped to clarrify but.... it seems we now have two citable years for the award both from LSE site: 2008 and 2009.
 * 2008 http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2011/03/director_steps_down.aspx
 * 2009 http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2010/20100525t1830vLSE.aspx
 * Which it is for the "award of the degree" would seem to need further work. It is suprissing how one (I) can't find a lists of PhDs being awarded and dates easily. I would have thought unis would publish these where they can be seen. Sorry again if I didn't help! By the way how did he get on to the MA with his qualifications and did he have to do exams and a dissertation for that? (Msrasnw (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Msrasnw -- the following might shed some light on your questions about the Master's degree: http://thebeaveronline.co.uk/2011/03/01/school-to-investigate-authenticity-of-saif-gaddafis-thesis/ Underlabourer (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Impartiality
I note that much of the activity relating to the entry on LSE emanates from a certain individual who is a former employee of LSE ( comment redacted Ocaasi c 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC) ). He has long conducted a public campaign against the School (vide his various blogs and other activities), indeed it is this campaign of denigration for which he is perhaps best known. In the light of this his contributions to Wikipedia about LSE should be examined very carefully indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.120.190 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter who works on an article so long as they write neutrally and attribute all of their contributions to reliable, published, independent sources. Are there specific sentences, sections, or sources which seem problematic? Ocaasi c 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the individual writes neutrally ( comment redacted Ocaasi c 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC) )? Can you find anything in his work on the Wikipedia LSE page that is not an attack on LSE? His tone if anything is one of childish glee at the attacks on the School. You will see above that he actually admits to 'making things up'. Some neutrality.
 * I'm not sure what you think you are pointing out, but it amounts to a personal attack (see: No personal attacks) and perhaps also outing. If you have a suggestion to a sentence you can propose it or change it yourself.  Otherwise, you commentary on this editor is not something we do or permitted by our behavior policy.  I don't know what people write on their personal blogs, nor does it matter here.  All editors are expected to add sourced content neutrally while none are required to be free of personal opinions or bias, so long as it doesn't effect their writing.  So what parts of the article are biased?  Otherwise, this shouldn't keep being addressed, and editors themselves should not be addressed. Ocaasi c 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I should think it is perfectly obvious from the tone of the comments made by the individual that he is not impartial. As I said he admits in one discussion comment that he 'made things up'. Are you saying that this is not important? Are you saying that we must take no account of the fact that this individual is known to be hostile to LSE in judging the value of his contributions? His blogs are easily checked and can you point me to any comments which he makes which attempt to balance things, in the light of his known hostility, by putting the other side of the case? Nobody is saying he should not be allowed to express his views, but Wikipedia is meant to be a high quality resource, not an outlet for polemical, one sided journalism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.230.222 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Libya Gate" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Libya Gate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)