Talk:Mahmoud Jibril

Education at Pitt
The records at the University of Pittsburgh indicated that a Ali Fadil Jibril received a Masters in Education at Pitt in 1980. This is confirmed in both alumni records and commencement publications. Did Mahmood Jibril change his name or use as a different one? Information on the Libyan Republic website indicated that he obtained a Master's in masters’ degree in Political Science, which seems to be incorrect. It also indicates he received his doctorate from Pitt, but he apparently did not according to Pitt's records. Any help on this clarification would be helpful. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have the wrong person. See this at the U of Pittsburgh website: MAHMOUD GEBRIL I ELWARFALLY, B.S., Cairo University, 1975. Major: Political Science. He's listed under August 1981. Flatterworld (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, name change, and I just saw that in an article today in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and returned to clear that up. Thank you for noting that. BTW, Pitt's official records (open only to alumni) officially have him listed as having a Master's in Arts in Political Science in 1980 and a PhD in Political Science in 1985. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a prime minister
Mahmoud Jibril is not a prime minister, although he is refereed to as such in some media reporting and elsewhere. I think that the best source of information about the National Transitional Council is their own website  first and foremost and after that the most recent reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, my edit was promptly reverted by User:Kintetsubuffalo. I find this unhelpful. I will correct "the Interim Prime Minister of the Libyan Republic" to "the Chairman & Head of International Affairs of the Executive Board of the Lybian National Transitional Council". This is the information on their own website! Also, please see this Statement by Commissioner Štefan Füle following his meeting with Dr Mahmoud Jibril, Chairman of the Executive Board of the Libyan Transitional National Council albert_humbert 14:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs)

Dr. Jibril is not a head of the government of Libyan Republic - the existence of that entity is questionable. So I believe the infobox information and references should be changed. albert_humbert 15:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs)


 * You don't have consensus to make that change, and you should not delete references. Rolling back to previous version. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't need you permission for every single change, that is not how Wikipedia works. I have opened a discussion here and provided evidence and arguments. So you should have argued your point here first if you think the change I made is wrong, not simply reverted all the contribution I made to the article! You seem to have completely ignored all the points and evidence I gave above and are basing your claim on a single news item in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is now obvious (judging from your other comments and arguments regarding Libya) that you are pushing some sort of political agenda and your own point of view. You have invented a country named 'Libyan Republic' and than you have proceeded to give that country a government, a prime minister etc. The article as it stands now is incorrect so please undo your action and let's see how can we make the page better. albert humbert (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article once again and checked the Wikipedia policies. I'm now undoing your rollback as it was unwarranted. If you want to say that some people refereed to Dr. Jibril as a 'prime minister' please do go ahead and let's see whether that will improve the article. But Dr. Jibril is NOT a prime minister of the NTC or some country you have invented. albert humbert (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kudzu1, please read this [Wikipedia:Rollback] and this [Wikipedia:TW] before you use the rollback feature again! The fact that you clearly violated Wikipedia behavioral guideline only goes to show that you are compensating your lack of argument with violence! albert humbert (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT remove referenced material. You have no right to delete verifiable information from an article just because you don't like it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice I'm not the first editor to undo your changes here. You don't have consensus to delete this information, nor WP:RS supporting your position, and I believe Wikipedia policy on reverts and rollbacks justifies Kintetsubuffalo and me on this. I did not "invent" any country - you can even check the list of references at the bottom of the page for proof of that (hint: there's an official NTC website with "Libyan Republic" in the title) - nor did I "invent" the title attributed to Jibril by, among others, a United States congressman in an official letter. Please get your facts straight - and start by not deleting them from an article on this user-generated encyclopedia. Regards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This page may be useful to enhancing your understanding of how editing on Wikipedia works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have used rollback tool against Wikipedia policy which clearly states: Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.' I would like to let you know that I am considering reporting your disruptive behaviour.

BTW you have removed the reference I provided and that reference is the official NTC website which is the verifiable information I use. The NTC is not a government (they say this themselves) and, according to the official NTC website Dr. Jibril is not a prime minister. I will edit to this effect. A letter and a news item are not an argument against 99% of other sources and references. Sorry but you are simply wrong and are using rollbacks to compensate for the lack of argument. albert humbert (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And I consider said rollback in compliance with the proviso that it can be used to revert good-faith edits by misguided editors who haven't obtained consensus, especially considering you ignored another user's revert and went right ahead with your changes. As for the deleted reference, I'm sorry for removing that and I agree it should be returned to the intro. Fact of the matter is that several reliable sources call Jibril the prime minister, and the fact that he's been referred to by media and foreign officials as both seemingly interchangeably should be noted in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dragging another editor into this only shows that you are on thin ice. I've no idea why Kintetsubuffalo reverted my edits (he certanly didn't offer any explanation and he should have), but - as you can see - I did not simply revert his action but instead I rewrote my edits, included references etc. In that sense I see Kintetsubuffalo's revert as useful since it made my contribution better.

You, on the other hand, decided to ignore that I have opened a discussion on the subject here and went and rolled back 5 edits of mine! I see that as ignorant behaviour and certainly not an action of someone who wants to reach consensus, although you use that term a lot. And after I elaborated my arguments once more you reverted my edits again! Silly waste of everyone's energy and time.

A prime minister is a governmental position. One does not become a prime minister because someone calls them as such but by holding the office of the prime minister. The fact that some congressman or journalist referred to Dr. Jibril as 'prime minister' does not make him one. He needs to be appointed as one. Appointed! Now if you can provide evidence to that effect or not? albert humbert (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have elaborated your edits, but I still don't agree with them and you still don't have consensus to delete that information. Jibril was appointed as prime minister per which is a reference included in the article proper. I have no objection to noting that he is more frequently referred to as simply "interim head of government" or "leader of the Executive Board", or that "Interim Prime Minister" and "Chairman of the Executive Board" may be interchangeable titles, but I definitely think he's been referred to as the interim PM enough times by WP:RS that this information bears including in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously like to use word consensus a lot, yet you fail to understand what consensus is. You engaged in edit warring and used rollback rather than arguments. That is really sad.

The prime ministers are not appointed by news articles or private letters - they are appointed by a due process of which there is no evidence. Whether someone is a prime minister is not matter of opinion but facts. He is not a prime minister, your evidence is lacking and you are doing readers disservice by presenting false information. He is the Chairman & Head of International Affairs of The NTC Executive Board, the information which I contributed and you erased, information taken from the NTC official website - the fact I mentioned numerous times yet you conveniently never addressed.

I'am kindly asking you once again to correct the erroneous information. And if you really wanted to be helpful to the cause, you would have updated the outdated links. I would do it myself but you seem to be engaged in reverting my contribution. albert humbert (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to do right now is reach consensus. I'd much rather you engaged with me than insisting you've been painfully wronged by having your deletions of information reverted - and not just by me - and demanding your way or the highway. News media reported Jibril was appointed as interim PM; what other source do you want? An NPR report is reliable, the information is verifiable, and it's starting to seem like you have a problem with the fact itself rather than a problem with the sources or the presentation. You know, you can go ahead and make your edits, but you have to stop unilaterally deleting sourced content. He's referred to as the interim PM by several sources, and that fact should be noted, just as him being referred to as Chairman of the Executive Board and Head of International Affairs (also colloquially "diplomatic chief", "top diplomat", and - surprise, surprise - foreign minister) should be noted. There doesn't seem to be one universally accepted title for the guy in the way Barack Obama is indisputably President of the United States of America or Kevin Rudd is Foreign Minister of Australia. And all of that should be noted. I'm not opposed to any of it. It's all relevant here. And I don't support deleting any references just because they don't support one particular argument. I already apologized for accidentally deleting the reference you provided, and in fact I'll go ahead and add it back in right now, if you don't mind. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference is needed to support the claim that Dr. Jibril was appointed as a prime minister on 23 March 2011. So I will include a tag. albert humbert (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That citation is already provided. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That source refers to this aljazeera piece which quotes rebel's Nisan Gouriani who mentions nothing about a 'prime minister'. And the date of the article is 22 Mar 2011! So which exact date and by whom was Dr. Jibril named a 'prime minister'?

As I argued, the prime minister is not appointed by the newsmen. Reporters do make mistakes and that news item is now 4 month old, outdated and and superseded by new information, some of which I provided and you chose to ignore.

I maintain that most reliable source on the subject is the NTC website and the recent official documents like this one

I can accept that on 23 or 24th of March 2011 your assertion that Dr. Jibril was the rebel's 'prime minister' might have been right. But it is not right now.

Look, I don't care if the NTC names Dr. Jibril a king or a god. When it happens it should be entered here as such. Until than we should use the title we 100% know is correct and that is 'Dr Mahmoud Jibril, Chairman of the Executive Board of the Libyan Transitional National Council'. Anything else is plain incorrect.

If you feel that the facts should be subjugated to your own ego which makes you ignore this it is your own prerogative. albert humbert (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to make of your insistence on slinging personal attacks and not assuming good faith when I'm trying to engage with you to forge an equitable consensus. Please review the references provided in the text for pieces of information you are unsure about. I have no vested interest in portraying the facts as anything but; I'm not a Libyan, I've never been to Libya, I just want the information in Libya-related articles to be accurate. I feel it would be inaccurate to ignore the plethora of sources calling Jibril the "interim prime minister" just as it would be inaccurate to ignore the title of Chairman of the Executive Board. The situation may be that the use of "prime minister" is a colloquialism borne of the fluid and unclear circumstances of the NTC's composition and organization, but my suspicion that this may be so is original thought and isn't verifiable. Usage of both the title "Prime Minister" and "Chairman of the Executive Board" is verifiable. Both should be included. I'm not sure why you are arguing so vociferously for certain information to be excluded while I'm arguing it should all be included and given its due weight, nor why you have taken such an aggressive and personal tone with me, but I would advise you to reconsider your approach. We're all trying to improve this page and the quality of content on Wikipedia, and even if we are coming at this from different angles, it'd be nice if we could put that aside and reach the same place.
 * I apologize if we got off on the wrong foot to begin with, but I think we can work out our differences here and wind up with a more inclusive, better-referenced, more comprehensive article than the one either of us started out editing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to go over the same arguments again and again... Your insisting that the outdated, dubious information should be used in preference to the new, accurate and indisputable facts goes against the grain of what Wikipedia should be. I guess we should also include that the Earth is flat as well as round since at one point in the past there where verifiable sources claiming that it was flat. Sorry for the irony, but I'm just bemused by your position. That we should argue about the official capacity of a member of political body which has a decent web and on it the official title of that politician, while a recent EU document confirms that title verbatim, is simply beyond my comprehension.

Final points, not that they will leave any impression on you. The NTC at al. are mostly called 'rebels' or 'opposition'. Well, rebels are not a government - by definition they rebel against the government. While the opposition has no prime minister - by definition they are in opposition to the prime minister's government. The NTC clearly states on their web that they are NOT a government but a transitional body (I have quoted this already). Also the NTC doesn't say anywhere that they have a prime minister. But one has been invented for them so let us perpetuate inaccuracy.

I only wanted to correct confusing, outdated information and followed Wikipedia rules while doing it. You want readers to think Dr. Jibril is a prime minister, while he clearly is not? Well in that case I don't think I can contribute any further. albert humbert (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly pointless to mince words between "government" - the NTC's formation of which has been widely reported and their international recognition as such by a contact group they in fact belong to is established fact - and "transitional governing body" in terms of our approach to this topic. I previously noted the comparison between the NTC and the interim governing authority of Somalia, which is internationally recognized as a government. I have no problem with reporting what the NTC does, but - and we've had this discussion on 2011 Libyan civil war in the past as well, with NATO insisting they are neutral while blatantly providing air support for NTC fighters - it's clear that even if they dance around the word "government", they're acting as a governing body (which they do admit to being, to their credit) and soliciting recognition as the sole government of Libya, which they've obtained from over 30 states.
 * As I noted at Talk:Libya, official policy on primary sources states that so-called "primary sources" (e.g. the NTC website) are useful but not necessarily definitive (or comprehensive). We're obligated to be comprehensive, and as there doesn't seem to be a common title for Jibril, I see no harm in using the infobox to denominate his official title while noting within the article that he's also been called "Interim Prime Minister" by reliable sources, among other monikers (possibly colloquially or erroneously, but that's not clear).
 * As for the NTC being the "opposition", they are indeed in opposition to the continued control of Muammar Gaddafi, who they and at least 31 other governments do not recognize as the legitimate leader of Libya, over much of the country. They can be rebels, the opposition, and a government all at the same time, because they are not the uncontested authority and they are an insurgent authority against a 42-year-old establishment (Gaddafi's regime). During the American Civil War, the CSA were both rebels and a government (though they did not seek to control the entire territory of the United States). There's no mutual exclusivity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You prefer a journalist's interpretation rather than official record? And you support this by claiming the NTC web is, per Wikipedia policy, a primary source so it should be used with caution, while the journalist's interpretation is a secondary source and as such more reliable?

I guess when you went to be enrolled in school for your personal details to be provided the school trusted your neighbour over your birth certificate and your parents? This is simply silly.

The office of the prime minister is not a matter of personal opinion and interpretation but a matter of record. Sloppy or lazy reporting is not an official record. We are talking politics and diplomacy here, not gossip.

And anyway, I have never based my position solely on the NTC website, as there are numerous other sources supporting my view. I only used the NTC website as a starting point, supported by the official EU document. You are yet to explain why have those two bodies, the NTC and the EU, forgotten Dr. Jibril is a prime minister. Can you offer any explanation for that? albert humbert (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've said, my guess is that "prime minister" and variants are colloquial and functionally interchangeable with his formal title, but that's WP:OR. The thing is, that primary source isn't comprehensive, nor has it been kept particularly up-to-date. You have no explanation for why a United States congressman addressed a formal and publicly available letter to the "Interim Prime Minister", nor why a fairly well known think tank member referred to him as "Prime Minister Jibril" on NPR. Jibril is known by a whole host of titles, and the article should reflect that - especially "prime minister", which he's been called quite a bit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, Dr. Jibril either holds the office of the Prime Minister of the NTC's or he does not. Yes, some people have refereed to him as "rebel's prime minister", "opostion prime minister" and such. It means nothing more than the fact that he is first of the ministers, first among the leaders of a particular political body. I have no problem with that. But as a political leader he has an official title which is undisputed and well documented.

Gaddafi refers to Obama as a 'brother'. By your analogy we should include that title when describing Obama, don't you see that? You seem to think that an US congressmen's letter can appoint leaders of foreign countries. How ignorant and arrogant, I have to say.

Here, as well as on the Libya page, you pick, choose and twist information to suit your own political position in total and utter disregard for the balance of evidence. For example, on the question of 'Libyan Republic' you claim that one mention of that term on the NTC's website proves beyond any doubt that 'Libyan Republic' is the official name of the country. Here, however, you claim that the NTC's website "isn't comprehensive, nor has it been kept particularly up-to-date" as the answer to my arguments. Don't you see how improper this is? albert humbert (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I did to you to merit you being this consistently rude to me, but I really think you should change your tone.
 * There are enough reliable sources, sources I generally trust to provide factual information, calling Jibril the prime minister that it's worth of mention based on guidelines for primary and secondary sources. As per those guidelines' described policy on "primary sources", the NTC website doesn't prove something isn't true by that information not appearing there if the information can verifiably] be found in reliable secondary sources; but if information does appear there, it is likely accurate (especially if supported by secondary sources, as is the case with the Libyan Republic on the other article). -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My intention is not to be rude so I apologise if you feel I was. I think you are misusing the primary/secondary/tertiary sources policy. Dr. Jibril is NOT a prime minister. Some people have refereed to him as such but many others have refereed to him without using that title. Most notably the EU document which I quoted.

This is encyclopedia so people expect reliable information, not speculation. It is not disputed that he is the Chairmen of the NTC's Executive Board. Is not as I was claiming he was not a leader/head of the NTC's Executive Board! I wonder if you are only trying to support your view that the NTC is Libya's government so you need Dr. Jibril to be the prime minister as governments are normally lead by prime ministers, not chairmans.

The NTC themselves claim that they are not a government but a transitional governing body. Regardless, they could have called the Executive Board the NTC Government and could have named Dr. Jibril the prime minister, only if they wanted to. But they didn't. It was their decision which you are now denying. I will refrain from editing this article until the Libya page issue is resolved as I want to avoid two Libya related pages being locked. But I would like to register my disapproval of how it now stands. albert humbert (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no ulterior motive in this; one doesn't have to be a prime minister to be a head of government, after all. I simply want to present the information we have, and as the article is currently presented, I think it accomplishes that well. It notes the usage of "prime minister" while reflecting your concerns that the usage of the title is colloquial or redundant. I appreciate your restraint in not edit-warring over this issue, and I urge you to reconsider your opposition to the inclusion of this reliably sourced information. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

backed up from the main page
much dispute between force of law, no elections, no constitution to place him as administrative leader, no law to place him as prime minister. It is a de facto post, and use of the term prime minister is problematic since the Military Council tends to do what it wants, does not show he has control or authority. Nor any legal powers. A government is set to be "assembled in 7 to 10 days". You need a government before you can government or have posts of government. I highly doubt he will get the post as he does not have support of the military.

"partially recognised as the current Prime Minister of Libya since 23 March 2011, serves as the Head of International Affairs and

"Acting" vs. "interim"?
Jibril has been named pretty consistently over the past few months as the Interim Prime Minister of Libya. As he appears to have resigned but his successor (said by FT to be Ali Tarhouni) has not been formally named, though Tarhouni has confirmed he was asked to take up Jibril's responsibilities at least temporarily, it appears we now have Tarhouni as the Acting Interim Prime Minister of Libya (which is a little bit mad, but oh well). FT appears to confirm this ("The comments in an interview highlight the political and economic uncertainties Mr Jibril will leave behind as he prepares to hand over power on Sunday to his deputy, Ali Tarhouni, pending the appointment of a new transitional leader."): Therefore, I'm going to change some minor infobox stuff boldly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahmoud Jibril. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225045546/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/middleeastreports/s_731085.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/middleeastreports/s_731085.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mahmoud Jibril. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727183717/http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1 to http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5x0zNNNFG?url=http://ntclibya.org/english/council-members/ to http://ntclibya.org/english/council-members/
 * Added tag to http://46.4.48.8/cablegate/wire.php?id=09TRIPOLI386&search=jibril%20National%20Economic%20Development%20Board
 * Added tag to http://thepassionateattachment.com/2011/10/27/mahmoud-jibril-and-qaddafi%E2%80%99s-wealth-redistribution-project/
 * Added tag to http://46.4.48.8/cablegate/wire.php?id=09TRIPOLI386&search=jibril%20National%20Economic%20Development%20Board
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110601215923/http://bradsherman.house.gov/2011/05/12/Letter%20to%20the%20Libyan%20Interim%20PM%20May%202011.pdf to http://bradsherman.house.gov/2011/05/12/Letter%20to%20the%20Libyan%20Interim%20PM%20May%202011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)