Jump to content

Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Name

The Associated Press, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News use "Moammar Gadhafi".

Could this be updated to show CBS and ABC also use that spelling? Proof for ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/International/gadhafi-loved-gold-watches-italian-food-called-papa/story?id=13300572 Proof for CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/26/ap/politics/main20047466.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1 First links that popped up when searching for "Moammar Gadhafi" on the ABC and CBS sites.

NBC is covered under the MSNBC tag but the other 2 major network news networks aren't listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.159.91 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Consistency in an article makes it easy to follow. -- Avanu (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see some of the more common used alternate spellings mentioned in the article lead. At present the article only uses Gaddafi and I was astonished that the article simply ignores other common transliterations. Besides Gaddafi, the more common variants seem to be Gadhafi, Kadhafi, and Qaddafi. Using the 14 variants spotted on this talk page I first checked Google News archive and for the top four checked various other news sites.
Variant Google News Reuters BBC ABC News CBS News CNN NBC/MSNBC
Gaddafi 74,900 2,300,000 256,000 981 3,300 8,950 24,500
Gadhafi 46,900 2,350 11,500 248,000 12,100 148,000 110,000
Kadhafi 45,800 4,360 6,250 29 90 659 1,760
Qaddafi 16,700 3,010 16,200 180 204,000 5,520 3,560
Gadaffi 5,340
Khadaffi 1,260
Kadaffi 750
Ghadaffi 664
Gathafi 581
Qadaffi 376
Kadafy 84
Quadaffi 73
Gahdafi 34
Gadaffie 8 4 8
Gahdafy 0
I did not look into why Reuters's has 2.3 million hits. Google is a news article consolidator or aggregator and has Kadhafi as the third most common usage. However, it's not common on the news sites I checked. In looking over the results I see AllAfrica.com but they are an aggregator like Google.
I'm suggesting that we add this to the article: "Gaddafi's Arabic name is also commonly transliterated to English as Gadhafi, Kadhafi, and Qaddafi." This ignores the issue of Khadaffi and other variants but I could not see a clean way to word that in that would also not raise flags. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, this article might provide additional reasons to include more information on transliteration/Romanization of Gaddafi's name. http://www.antimoneylaundering.us/news_det.php?id=1891&area=News&gratis=Si
-- Avanu (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Looked up "Gadaffie",82.2.71.166 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he has stayed in power for 42 years because no one could figure out who exactly to go after? (joking, of course) -- Avanu (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at the Osama bin Laden article and spotted Osama bin Laden#Variations of Osama bin Laden's name. We could do something similar here. I'd jump right into adding this myself but I prefer not to add material without being to back it with reliable sources. Unfortunately, the section about UBL's name lacks source for claims such as "There is no universally accepted standard in the West for transliterating Arabic words and names into English, so bin Laden's name is spelled in many different ways." --Marc Kupper|talk 09:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's Birthday

Is Muammar Gaddafi really born on 7 June 1942? Are there any reliable sources to prove it?--Tingo Chu (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Found a BBC source for 1942, but so far nothing good to verify the date (mostly just mirrors of this article). Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, in this case, should we remove the birth date (7 June)? No reliable source says that he is born on 7 June, perhaps someone made that up...--Tingo Chu (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I see June 7, 1942 in the following sources.
  • "Muammar Abu Minyar al- Qadhafi." History Behind the Headlines: The Origins of Conflicts Worldwide. Ed. Sonia G. Benson, Nancy Matuszak, and Meghan Appel O'Meara. Vol. 4.
  • "Mu'ammar Al Qadhafi, Head of State of Libya." Current Leaders of Nations. 1998.
  • Anderson, Lisa. "Muammar Qadhafi." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East. 2004.
  • "Muammar al-Qadhafi, Head of State of Libya." Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations. 11th ed. Vol. 6: World Leaders 2003.
  • "Muammar Al- Gaddafi." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale, 1998.
  • "Mu'ammar al- Qaddafi." Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Michael R. Fischbach. 2008.
  • Ahmida, Ali Abdullatif. "Muammar Qadhafi." Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
  • "Muammar al- Qadhafi." Almanac of Famous People. Gale, 2007. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
What about this source? It stated that the exact date is unknown although some sources day June 1, while others say sometime in September. Also, this source and this source stated that Gaddafi was born on 19th June 1942. Should we add a footnote about the birth date discrepancy?--Tingo Chu (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I took a look but don't see any evidence that any of those go back to reliable sources. The first link is IMDB which anyone can edit and does not cite what sources have June 1 or September dates. Next is a blog with anonymous feedback which seems to largely be based on an old copy of this Wikipedia article when it must have had June 19th. The third link is a news article written Mar 21, 2011. The journalist does not cite her sources. Wikipedia had 7 June 1942 that day and so we know she did not use this article. It seems unlikely that someone with just one article and very little work at all has the inside track to reliable sources that are invisible to the rest of us. I tried to find when this Wikipedia article used 19 June 1942 but was not successful. For a long time it just had 1942. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please remove this statement

This wiki article is quoted as saying: "The Italian population in Libya almost disappeared after Gaddafi ordered the expulsion of Italians in 1970."

The source cited is a BBC article which you can read here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4380360.stm

Nowhere in that article does it mention how many Italians were forced to leave during that time let alone saying that they "almost disappeared". In fact the article is about the Libyan reaction to the 1911 invasion by Italy by cutting links to the outside world for a day. According to the article "Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi pledged to change the 'day of vengeance' to a 'day of friendship' during a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in October 2004."

The above statement is nothing more than the author's inference and it is not based on any supporting evidence or data. Therefore it should not be placed in a wiki page. 190.197.39.34 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Dan

While I think the first bit (almost disappeared) should be edited, you are incorrect in saying "Nowhere in that article does it mention how many Italians were forced to leave during that time". The article specifically says: "Libya's "day of struggle" follows a "day of vengeance" on 7 October, which marks the expulsion of Italian settlers from Libya in 1970.". 204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That only says that Italians were expulsed, not how many of them were. --91.156.2.159 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence was in two places on the article. I merge the two, removing the copy that was under Personal life and family/Public relations. I found a better citation, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/world/europe/21iht-italy.html, which has "All of Libya's Italians - about 20,000 people - were expelled from the North African country in 1970." It turns out the story is far larger than that as Libya used to be an Italian colony and so I added this back story too. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Mark, that does give better background to the whole situation. According to the article you cited it also says that Gaddafi re-opened Libya to Italians in 2004 although some still feel they are not properly compensated for seized assets. This may be something worth adding as well. 108.62.213.134 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Dan

Disputed: Philosophy and Personal Bias

The section "Political philosophy and personal bias" contains an unacceptable amount of conjecture that is not supported by the subject matter - it should be edited so that it depends most heavily on primary sources, not opinion peaces. The section is about Gaddafi's personal philosophy and so should consist of summaries of his own statements, positions, speeches, books etc. It should not be polemical. The sentences I take issue with are:

Gaddafi uses the second part of his Green Book to justify the confiscation of private businesses, nationalization of private property, and cap on the income of Libyan families.[1] In the third part Gaddafi undercuts the position of the "feebler sex" and berates black Africans, whom he calls a lazy race liable to multiply without limit.[1]

(http://www.meforum.org/878/libya-and-the-us-qadhafi-unrepentant) These sentences are directly copied from the cited article, which attributes the statements to Gaddafi's Green Book. The article These positions and quotations are not to be found in the Green Book, which is available online. I have attempted to create a neutral summary of his positions, although some phrasing I am unsure about.

Green Book: http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

1. Suggested: Gaddafi's Green Book proposed a progressive interpretation of Islam, advocating for the rights of women. In it, he argues that "there is no difference between men and women in all that concerns humanity," and that it was "self-evident" that they are equal. [2] Doug Saunders, a famous British-Canadian journalist who travelled to Libya in 2004, wrote that "Other Arab countries have actively resisted the sexual equality of the West. But Libya, which has been closed to the world during 12 years of international sanctions, has developed a strange form of feminism engineered personally by Col. Gadhafi [3]." Gaddafi abolished forced and arranged marriages, and believes that women, not men, are the owners of the household[2]. His dedication to the equality of women is demonstrated in his reliance on an elite female security force[3]. The book also contains a subsection on black Africans, titled "Black People Will Prevail in the World" where he argues that Western colonialism and enslavement of Africans must come to an end, and that Black people will rise again[2].

From time to time, Gaddafi responded to domestic and external opposition with violence. His revolutionary committees called for the assassination of Libyan dissidents living abroad in April 1980, sending Libyan hit squads abroad to murder them. On 26 April 1980, Gaddafi set a deadline of 11 June 1980 for dissidents to return home or be "in the hands of the revolutionary committees".[4]

This is not related to his personal beliefs/philosophy, or his pursuance thereof, but his policies, and is already covered in two other sections. It should be moved, reworded in a way that is relevant, or removed.

Notwithstanding his claims of concern for his African roots, Gaddafi has often expressed an overt contempt for the Berbers, a non-Arab people of North Africa, and for their language, maintaining that the very existence of Berbers in North Africa is a myth created by colonialists. He adopted several measures forbidding the use of Berber, and often attacks this language in official speeches, with statements like: "If your mother transmits you this language, she nourishes you with the milk of the colonialist, she feeds you their poison" (1985).[5]

This paragraph misrepresents a controversial issue, and many of its claims are false. The conjecture that Gaddafi "expressed an overt contempt for the Berbers" is without a source, and not neutral. If the contempt were overt, there should be speeches or statements made by him insulting the Berbers or their traditions. The last sentence's quote is not to be found in the cited source (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103200010.html), and I cannot currently find it online except for mirrors. The Berber language was never made illegal, but Arabic is the only officially recognized language, and the Berber language was not allowed on signs until a few years ago. No one is prohibited from speaking Berber, however. (see: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160075.pdf) Here is Gaddafi Speech's on Berbers: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2137.htm

3. Suggested: Gaddafi opposes the existence of divisive identities and factions, and he sought to dissolve tribes, parties, and the class system[6]. His position is best summarized in his own words: "Libya is for the Libyans. We will not tolerate in Libya any ethnic zealotry [shu'ubiyya]. No one can say 'my origin is this, that, or the other'. Whoever says this is an agent of colonialism. This is 'divide and rule'" [6]

Although Gaddafi is from a Berber tribe and identifies with the traditions and customs of Berbers, he opposed separatist and divisive Amazigh movements, as he sought to create one African state in which, "the Arabs and the Berber Arabs will be fused" along with "the parties, the Left and the Right, the extremists, and the proponents of violence" [6]

Gaddafi also holds the belief that the distinction between Berbers and Arabs as two different peoples in inauthentic and not supported by history. In a notable speech in 2007 he claimed that Berbers "are the original, unadulterated Arabs," and that it was "France and Western colonialism [that] came and said, 'You are Berbers, a different people. You are not Arabs.'"[6] This angered some African Berber tribes, who interpreted it as a denial of their existence, and an effort to force them to assimilate to Arabic-muslim traditions[6].

EMbargo145 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Well, we generally favor secondary over primary sources here, and your proposals seem too favorable and therefore to breach WP:NPOV. I do though have some sympathy with the comment about the slant of certain passages being too unfavorable too. Let's work here to agree what changes we can make. --John (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I understand wikipedia's policy better on sources now. I will work on finding secondary sources that analyze the book. In the meantime, the following statement should be removed as per wikipedia's policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

In the third part Gaddafi undercuts the position of the "feebler sex" and berates black Africans, whom he calls a lazy race liable to multiply without limit.[1]

as it includes a verifiably false quotation and a contentious and unreasonable interpretation of the following "primary source" passage (from http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf which is identical to the Green Book sourced on wikipedia, released by the Libyan government):

The latest age of slavery has been the enslavement of Blacks by White people. The memory of this age will persist in the thinking of Black people until they have vindicated themselves.

This tragic and historic event, the resulting bitter feeling, and the yearning or the vindication of a whole race, constitute a psychological motivation of Black people to vengeance and triumph that cannot be disregarded. In addition, the inevitable cycle of social history, which includes the Yellow people's domination of the world when it marched from Asia, and the White people's carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist movement covering all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the re-emergence of Black people.

Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but such backwardness works to bring about their numerical superiority because their low standard of living has shielded them from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their old social traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and constant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessive about work in a climate which is continuously hot.

At minimum, it should be attributed (its a direct quotation from an opinion article from a libyan ex-pat), and the false quotations removed. EMbargo145 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed from talk page 23-07-2011

Except he's not still in power. He's lost all of eastern Libya, and is losing more of the west as we talk. (92.7.3.52 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)) Note: If you're still around, please avoid nonconstructive comments that doesn't discuss an improvement to Wikipedia. Please see WP:TALK. ~ AdvertAdam talk

Suez Crisis

Is it worth mentioning that the 14-year-old Gaddafi protested against the British, French and Israeli invasion of Egypt in response to the Suez Crisis? (92.10.138.253 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC))

Gaddafi in a Sitcom

Does anyone remember a sitcom in the 1980s about a man who died and went to Heaven, only to find that he judged fit for neither Heaven or Hell? he then returned to his teenaged years and posed as a rent tenant to help his younger self avoid mistakes in life. In the pilot episode, Colonel Gaddafi arrives in Heaven and is sent to Hell where he will "blow up" every five minutes. Anyone remember? -OberRanks (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I found it! Second Chance (TV series). Maybe a "Gaddafi in Culture" section? -OberRanks (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work on finding the TV show. I could not find any reliable sources for the TV show, much less the scene you mentioned. There is a user comment[1] which mentions it. Youtube W1X8UK3L8z4 is part of the pilot but must be material after the Gaddafi scene. Given the lack of coverage I suspect that lacks the notability that would allow for adding a new section to the Muammar Gaddafi article. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi is obviously a dictator/absolute ruler

and i have sources confirming this , why cant some people accept this , do not pretend he is some kind of "normal politician" evrybody knows that he is a dictatorKids4Fun/TALK 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you post your sources here, and suggest text to add to the article. This will go the farthest to convincing people. Simply saying you have sources is not enough, other editors need to be able to view them and judge whether they meet wiki standards as credible sources.204.65.34.226 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually ive included my sources in the articleKids4Fun/TALK 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
and editors on wikipedia should not jump to their own conclusions, the sources acutally decideKids4Fun/TALK 19:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Sources" don't edit Wikipedia; human beings do, and they decide which sources are admissible and which are not. On Wikipedia we use a method of decision-making called WP:CONSENSUS. Kids4Fun, your change has been challenged (to my knowledge) by at least three editors (myself included) and received support from none. You are unlikely to gain much sympathy for your perspective (let alone consensus to include it) by declaring your fellow editors to be "obviously" misguided and then flashing a spectacle of easily-accessible sources in their faces as if they must have been too blind or foolish to have found the sources on their own. We've gotta get along here (even when we disagree). Please respect your fellow editors and try your hardest to communicate with the community. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte, don't make up consensus stories. I support the truth, which is the label absolute ruler. Look at the link I provided, and you will see absolute ruler matches. There are numerous references, and your argument about humans edit wikipedia without attention to sources is bogus.--Screwball23 talk 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Screwball, out policy here is verifiability, not truth. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, so now that you are looking at things my way, check out the references. On wikipedia itself, Gaddafi is mentioned as an example of an absolute ruler: Check out these pages, but since they are always subject to change, I am not sure what they have on him now.absolute ruler, dictator, military junta, cult of personality. Ok, that being said, check out this list of News sites that all state he's a dictator:

[2] - Gaddafi and Dictator yields 520 results in the News section of Google [3] Gaddafi and political leader yields only 16 results in that same search

A lot of this argument would be removed if you were more open-minded about the discussion. Remember, a mind is like a parachute, it only works if its open. (ok, corny, I know) He took power by a military coup, yes? He appoints all leaders to his country, yes? He has absolute censorship over the country, yes? He has executed dissenters, yes? Ok, so by definition, he is a dictator.--Screwball23 talk 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm probably one of the more open-minded people since I haven't been involved.
It appears you are trying to merge sources, not base individually off of them. The final bit of your argument is clearly original research, as you are using logic based outside the sources to try and prove your point - making you not quite unbiased in this case. Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have numerous sources supporting his label as a dictator. These are verifiable, reliable sources. Case closed. The evidence is there, and I want to let you save face here. But since you've been Wikipedia:policy-shopping to attack this label, I have to ask you - what do you need to justify the label?--Screwball23 talk 18:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Your argument that I am doing merge sources is not true - those sources explicitly state again and again, that he is a dictator.--Screwball23 talk 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only are there reliable sources calling him a dictator, check out Merriam Webster's Online dictionary: Dictator

  • a person who rules a country with total authority and often in a cruel or brutal way
  • one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

Dictatorship

  • a government or country in which total power is held by a dictator or a small group

Now, anyone who can prove otherwise and claim him to be anything but a dictator, can take that burden of proof.--Screwball23 talk 19:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary argument is exactly what WP:SYN is about - you are taking a source (a dictionary) and using it to support an argument the source itself does not. Dictionary definitions are nice - but you are taking your own opinion (or that of a source) and merging it with the dictionary definition. Toa Nidhiki05 19:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That's absolutely false. The sources use the word dictator again and again. Check the references and you will see they use the word dictator explicitly. WP:SYN is when someone advances two facts such as "Mike was an American" and "Mike likes hamburgers" and puts an argument that synergizes the two like "Mike was an American, and as Americans do, he liked hamburgers." The sources are clear, saying "Gaddafi, the libyan dictator...", "Gaddafi is the Libyan dictator", without any question or arguments necessary. You personally do not seem to understand the word and think it is somehow false, and I want to express the dictionary definition because anyone who can attack the definition may be able to come up with a better word.--Screwball23 talk 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Screwball, what's wrong with the compromise language I put in? "political authoritarian leader"? -- Avanu (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the value in that language, especially when there is no valid argument against "dictator". However, I would compromise with strongman.--Screwball23 talk 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did someone delete my edits and accuse me of vandalism? I know it wasn't you, but I don't see why people won't be open-minded and discuss this with me. I will move it to political strongman, but dictator is the most-commonly cited term across news sources.--Screwball23 talk 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
do you have a source or atleast any kind of logic to be using vague and confusing wording like political strongman please do not misunderstand i am a supporter of dictator and absolute ruler but i do not support misguided nonsenseFREESAVELIYtalk 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I do. The article on political strongman actually lists Gaddafi as a representative example. I do agree that dictator is a better fit, although the two are synonymous. Originally, it looked like Avanu and Toa Nidhiki05 were going to negotiate this with me, but they seem to have lost interest - which is fine - if anyone wants to join and come back, I'll be ready and willing. (I know it's summer and people have other things to do). Now, what makes this entire thing difficult is the fact that sources will state he's a dictator and strongman and absolute ruler, as well as a tyrant and despot, but the word dictator seems to get deleted the fastest. Avanu was incredibly vague, using the term authoritarian leader, which doesn't even link to a definition. Long story short, I feel like strongman is the better term. Here's why : dictators are often characterized by brutal and oppressive regimes, single-party states, honorary titles, and suspensions of civil liberties. Absolutely true in this case. A lot of people like to pussy-foot around and say that it is original research to claim that a person is a dictator because they meet all the qualities of one. Nonsense, considering there are good, reliable sources using "dictator" again and again. Be cautious, because a lot of people on wikipedia are very Nazi-like and narrow-minded, and will claim that any change is simply vandalism or against consensus, and will not make any initiative to defend their views. In any case, strongman is better because it does not necessarily mean a person is the head of state, but exercises more power than allowed. For a military Colonel to be running the nation's military, economy, and politics, as Gaddafi does, he certainly is pushing further than a simple "colonel". He also is heading an authoritarian regime, which is a lot easier to prove than saying he's simply an absolute ruler with absolute power.--Screwball23 talk 02:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Neutral terms are more easily accepted. Dictator or "Absolute" ruler are POV-driven terms and you would need a very good reason to include them in the article. As a reference, see Adolf Hitler's intro:
Adolf Hitler (pronounced [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party). He was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and head of state (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler is most well known for his central leadership role in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II and the Holocaust.
Nowhere is the term "dictator" or "absolute ruler" used. -- Avanu (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Libyan dinar one a.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Libyan dinar one a.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the complete lack of help, CommonsNotificationBot. Go jump in a pond. -- Avanu (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This is complete stupidity. The dollar of any currency could be taken as a photo. This image is linked to pages in over 20 languages! There is absolutely no way an image of a currency could be removed.--Screwball23 talk 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying this is the case. But let me remind u that law can be completely stupid. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1377691-shoklender-se-hunde-cada-vez-mas 8 July 2011 2012 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.70.43.234, 8 July 2011

He is a maniac threatening Europe.

69.70.43.234 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}

He is a maniac threatening Uruguay. 8 July 2011 2012 (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the intro should mention that Gaddafi has lost control of most of Libya, including the entire eastern part. (92.7.30.162 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

This would be a POV statement. What is your rationale for including it presently? -- Avanu (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not POV at all. The rebels control all of the East and they are only 60 miles from Tripoli. (92.7.18.72 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

Lede

IMHO, the article is excessively long. In particular, the lede contained material which is duplicated in the man body, and whch was beyond the usual ideal of a lede being a summary. In addition, I separated paragraphs in the lede, in the belief that this was a rational thing to do. The edit I made was reverted wholesale, and I suggest that rational discussion should take place. BTW, the person who reverted me accused me of following him! Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is long, but not the lead. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), you will see that a lead must make it clear why a person was significant, must provide information that will express the important information about a person, and must provide accessibility to information that is covered in the article. I don't know where your convention about "lead paragraphs" is stated: please let us know so we can determine what your rationale was there. In your edit, the word political strongman was changed to dictator: please join that applicable discussion on the talk page, as it is still ongoing.--Screwball23 talk 23:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The proposed lede did so absolutely. In fact I am amazed that you oppose calling him a "dictator" as I thought that would not be reverted. Ah well -- I guess you feel strongly that "dictator" is wrong, else you would not have reverted it. WP:LEDE states:
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.
Which is what I sought to do in an neutral a manner as possible. Which key topic was lost in the minor pruning (well under 1% of the article)? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit July 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Lead
  • "The Brother Leader" or "The Guide" of Libya's Socialist Revolution" -> "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" - both sources were misquoted.
  • "and a warrant was issued" - a warrant for what? His arrest? Seizing of assets? Both?
Early life
  • "In Libya, as in a number of other Arab countries, admission to a military academy and a career as an army officer only became available to members of the lower economic strata after independence. A military career offered an opportunity for higher education, for upward economic and social mobility, and was for many the only available means of political action. For Gaddafi and many of his fellow officers, who were inspired by Nasser's brand of Arab nationalism, a military career was a revolutionary vocation." - was he a member of the lower economic strata? Why was it the only available means? was a military career a revolutionary vocation or was being in the military where the opportunity for revolution subsequently began?
  • "with most of his colleagues from the Revolutionary Command Council" - so he was a member of the RCC whilst at military college? The article on it says "The Libyan Revolutionary Command Council was the twelve-people body that governed Libya after the 1969 revolution". "with most of his subsequent colleagues&nbsp..."
Libyan legacy
  • "and presented the project as a gift to the Third World" - Was this to the whole third world, or to the underprivileged of Libya?
Pacts with Morocco and Tunisia
  • "In 1974 he signed an agreement with" - who is the "he"?
State-sponsored terrorism
  • "The Foreign Minister of Libya called the massacres "heroic acts"." - what massacres? There is nothing prior to this that mentions any massacres.
  • "The country still struggles with their murders and kidnappings." - this reads as if the two organisations were murdered and kidnapped. Perhaps, "The country still struggles with the murders and kidnappings perpetrated by them."
  • " Gaddafi's plan was intercepted by Western intelligence." (para 3) - If so, why was it not stopped? should this read "was later discovered"?
  • "Shortly after his inauguration in 1981" (para 4) - Who is the "he", the second half of the sentence talks about Gaddafi and Reagan. Most readers would possibly not know that Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Perhaps swap the two halves round
  • "Robin Cook and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office" - "but" implied that it contradicted the previous statement, though that is not correct. They did not say that they did know about an SIS operation, merely that they did not tell anyone of the operations they did know about.
UN General Assembly speech
  • "who had a protected seat." - what is the protected seat mentioned here?
Family wealth
  • "LIA" - what does this anacronym stand for?
General
  • There are a numerous refs that should be formatted into correct cites as, at present, they are simple html links
  • "he" - there are numerous times when the writers have assumed that we know who the "he" is that they are thinking about.
  • m dash. The mdash is not normally spaced when used to separate part of a sentence (abc—defghij—klm), though it can be substituted by a spaced n dash (abc – defghij – klm). More details here.

I have finished the first pass. I concentrated mainly on prose and will rescan in a little while to look for incorrect headers and capitalisation etc. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Finished, 6 hours is a long time to be copy-editing so I hope I have got it right and not caused any problems with meanings. I also have queried my changing Western -> western, when referring to The West, with a more experienced editor. I was wrong about that and have reverted them to Western countries and anti-Western etc. Sorry! Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I just realised that the note above this one is saying that my very first point is no longer valid (head of state). I will delete it and amend the lead, as per refs. The Independent and The Washington Post Chaosdruid (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Honesty: Facts about Libya are not facts about Gadaffi

Please note that just because something happened during Gadaffi's regime does not mean he caused it. This article may be equally biased by misrepresentations of the truth both in positive and negative ways. For example, although life expectancy rose from 46 to 77 since the 1960s, life expectancy in the US has grown from 60 to 78 years since 1960. This may be due to advancements in medicine or vaccinations that have improved life expectancy. Please be careful to not bias the article in favor of Gadaffi just because we don't want to be mean. Let me be clear, I think the negative needs to stay out of this article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.191.243 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This disgraceful article by unknown persons is not history or biography but propaganda! Gadafi seeking to assassinate Reagan? Thats the sort of propaganda id expect is used to demonise Gadaffi and justify americans assassinating him! No: he has never sought to assassinte Reagan...but as we see, as in 1986, now he is being targeted by the americans who deny they are targeting him... SHAME on WIKIPEDIA Jalusbrian (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

innnnnnnnnshalllllaaaaaaaaaaaah he will gooooooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.168.203 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for change: Good deeds by Gadaffi

I think many ppl here already noted the main article is highly biased against Gadaffi and included many descriptions that are negative of him. So to put the article closer to NPOV, I request that we include his good deeds also.

Good deeds by Gadaffi includes,

  • 1. "Libya has the highest HDI in Africa and the fourth highest GDP (PPP) per capita in Africa "

Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Libya

  • 2. Despite claims suffering from serious corruption, Libya's income disparity (gini index) is 36, which is lower than 40 in USA.

Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Gini_index

  • 3. Poverty level in Libya is only 7.3%, compared to 14% in USA

Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usa
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_pop_bel_pov_lin&country=ly
Please note that the source claims in 2008, the CIA Factbook claims poverty in Libya is only 7.4% but as of March 2011, CIA Factbook claims poverty is "a third".

  • 4. Under Gadaffi's rule, citizen enjoyed free education.

Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Education_in_Libya.

  • 5. School Life Expectancy (SLE) in Libya rose to 17 years, which is higher than 16 in USA.

Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/education.htm

  • 6. In 1960's Libya's life expectancy was 46. After Gadaffi took power, life expectancy rose to 77.

Source: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CAIMED/UNPAN019179.pdf
Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Demographics_of_Libya

  • 7. Under Gadaffi's rule, the quality of nation's welfare and health infrastructure greatly improved. From 1970 to 1985, the number of doctors and dentists increased sevenfold.

Source: http://countrystudies.us/libya/55.htm [The article actually took information from US library of congress]
Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Health_in_Libya
173.32.178.19 (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the additions above are reasonable. Poverty comparisons to the US are misleading, however, since they are likely "relative poverty" and a direct comparison difficult (someone in relative poverty in the States could be better off than someone not in relative poverty in Libya). Also, the GINI coefficient quoted is troubling. Going to the source of the 36% number for Libya (here) it says the number comes from the UN Human Development Report (here), but the 2010 report has nothing for Libya under GINI. And if we go to the table of historical values (here), we see that Libya has never had a GINI value listed, going all the way back to 1990. So, unless I've made a mistake somewhere and someone has a better solution, I believe the GPI ranking is a mistake of some sort. TastyCakes (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely. I do not support a "good deeds" section, because that is just as biased as a "criticisms" section. However, the facts you put above are 100% accurate and pertain to his rule just as much as the long list of terrorist activities. They should be placed in their relevant sections. I support this action.--Screwball23 talk 22:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - There should NOT be a "good deeds" section, just like there should not be a "bad deeds" section. However, since the article in its current state is generally agreed upon to be biased against Gaddafi, publishing some of these facts would help to restore NPOV. This Talk post contains information very similar to my earlier post titled, "Restore some neutrality by adding this specific paragraph to the introduction". Unfortunately, my post was completely ignored and I would bet a good amount of money that the information contained in this post will not make it into the main article either. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for the moderators to explain why not, as they are running out of credible-sounding excuses, so I admit I am very curious to see how they will respond (or not respond) going forward. I intend to press the issue until we see some changes. Tike012 (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Tentatively Support, with Comments This is POV pushing, pure and simple. However, it doesn not mean that the content you have referenced should not be included (just not for the reasons you seem to want it, in order to paint him as a good guy.) There is NOT a consensus that the article is biased. There is not general agreement that it is not NPOV. NPOV does NOT mean that there is equal attention to pro and con. That is not how Wiki or NPOV works. If the vast majority of the world thinks the moon is an orbiting hunk of rock, and 0.00001% thinks it is made of cheese, giving Due Weight means not devoting equal attention to either opinion. To a lesser extent, this is the issue with this article and its detractors. If the overwhelming majority of the article is what you find to be negative, it is not necessarily POV, if that's what the majority of sources, RS, indicate. This is not a forum for a tug of war for pro-and anti-gadaffi factions. This is a place for a statement of facts. If you find a statement of fact to be biased because it doesn't match your propaganda, that does not make it POV. It makes your propaganda POV. I think some of this content is relevant, however, I am very suspicious of the general aims in some of these comments, even assuming good faith. This is not a political forum, and should not be used as such. If you cannot handle objective facts giving due weight to different opinions, this is not the place for you. Additionally, other wiki pages are not valid references. You need to refer to the sources for those facts, not the wiki page on which they are found.Jbower47 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Rebuttal If you think this is POV pushing, then you must also agree that the existing article is pushing in the opposite direction just as hard, and much longer. You make vague claims of ignorance regarding whether or not the current material is biased, and then boldly accuse this new information of POV pushing. I never said NPOV meant equal attention to pro and con. It means a neutral evaluation of the truth, which this article is not. This article is, in my approximation, perhaps 90% con, 0% pro, and 10% neutral—and it's not hard to see why. We know much of it is propaganda. Wikipedia's job is to stay neutral, not to be the Internet mouthpiece of the Federal government. I am only interested in getting out the truth, which is so often obscured by the victor's interpretation of events. The neutral truth, the one Wikipedia should be concerned with, is that Gaddafi has done some bad things to a relatively small number of people long ago, and some good things to a relatively large number of people not so long ago. The truth is that he worked to promote religious diversity in his country, and that it is Islamic fundamentalists who started protesting his rule on religious grounds today. The truth is that the uprising itself was planned and executed by a small think-tank out of London called the National_Conference_for_the_Libyan_Opposition, whose website clearly lists religious grounds as the primary cause for the removal of Gaddafi, while its English-language Wikipedia article only states a goal of "an end to tyranny and the establishment of a constitutional and democratic legitimacy". This story is being spun one way inside Libya, and another way outside; and for Wikipedia to take the spun story and use it as cited fact just because it is the most oft-repeated version is negligent to say the least. We are aiding a fundamentalist religious group to overthrow a secular leader who has spent the last 30 years making Libya the most prosperous and egalitarian society in Africa. The introductory paragraph of this article is laughable in its "attempt" at NPOV. It says next to nothing about Gaddafi's impact on his own country, yet goes out of its way to embellish on all the ways he negatively impacted the West. The entire Economy section is blank. It is not a stretch of the imagination to consider that perhaps this Wiki and similar pages are being monitored and moderated purposely to achieve this effect, and nowhere is this theory more evident than on these same Talk pages, where you can see for yourself multiple posts by people claiming biased POV who have essentially been silenced/outlasted in a test of patience, such that not a single NPOV edit has been committed. Now, is anything going to be done to include some of these changes, or am I going to keep talking forever on here? You will never be able to convince rational people that the current article is NPOV. My point is valid, many agree with me, and I am not going away. P.S. - I have not yet even begun to talk about Oil. 68.100.4.14 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well it seems clear that there is a bias in the US federal government at this time. Gaddafi wrote a letter to Obama just the other day, which it seems easily made its way to the press, and Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) had this to say in reponse:
"I think that Mr. Gaddafi knows what he must do. There needs to be a cease-fire, his forces need to withdraw from the cities that they have forcibly taken at great violence and human cost. There needs to be a decision made about his departure from power, and as the Foreign Minister said, his departure from Libya. So, I don’t think there is any mystery about what is expected from Mr. Gaddafi at this time, that is an international assessment."
Clearly a very strong statement that the US wants to change governments in Libya. -- Avanu (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Our personal feeling on fringe conspiracy theories are not the same thing as reputable sources stating the same thing. You (OP) have stated a very specific (and, arguably very fringe) POV. The implications of what you're adding are POV...ntohing about what you're suggesting, or your tone in doing so, or the rhetoric you are using, suggests anything less, As I said in my comments where I SUPPORTED the inclusion of some of that data. However, you cannot take a bunch of facts and draw an original conclusion from them. This runs afoul of Wiki's guidelines on synthesis and original research. In this case, some of your suggestions (secret government plots orchestrating the uprising) are definitely into the realm of our "fringe" guidelines). Additionally, some of your data suggestions above cite Wiki pages. Wiki pages are not acceptable as reputable sources. So either find out where the data comes from, and cite that, or you do not have an RS. I understand you obviously feel strongly about the topic; however, we have the guidelines we have for a reason. Wiki is not based on some abstract and subjective concept of what's "true", it's based on verifiability. Reputable sources win the day. If you want to state the allegation that the single data pieces you submitted above add up to "Gadaffi's done a lot of good things" then you need a reputable source to quote that says that. We can't just say, look at this data...we can INFER he's done good things from it. That's not how Wiki works.Jbower47 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ing those who only have time for a cursory inspection of the argument. On the other hand, you turn yourself off from all intellectuals who have an actual interest in finding out what's going on, since anyone familiar with such tactics will see right through them. Now, if you would like to debate like adults then please address my arguments, not everything but them. DON'T bother telling me you support including some of the data when you are making no effort to get that data included. DON'T tell me you can't cite Wikipedia articles and use that as an excuse for not including the info, since you could just cite the sources that the Wiki article used instead. And DON'T tell me you have no idea what "Gaddafi's done a lot of good things" means when I and many others have gone through a lot of effort (seen above) to show you exactly what kinds of good things Gaddafi has done. What are you, blind? Selectively ignorant/forgetful? You're running out of excuses, and I'm not going away. Note: my data, while favoring Gaddafi, are not intended to be "pro-Gaddafi". They are intended to be pro-Truth, or at least pro-both-sides-of-the-story. The current article is anything but fair, and I dare you or anyone else to argue otherwise right here. Given such, it is your job to correct the already-present bias against Gaddafi, not nitpick at every possible reason imaginable to attempt to exclude information that might correct that bias. So I ask: why aren't you doing your job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tike012 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Calm down and mind WP:NPA. NPOV cuts both ways. While it is certainly reasonable to include improvements made by Gaddafi, we mustn't paint him as a kindly, benevolent man who has been wrongly maligned by the evil agents of the [fill in Evil Entity here]. The man has also committed heinous acts during his long rule, and we should under no circumstances try to whitewash these. Hitler did many "good deeds", but our article does not paint him as a "good guy".
I disagree you. A man can do great goods and great wrongs in his life time. Stalin is a great example of this. There is no denial of his crimes but we can not deny the fact that Stalin lead the Soviet to victory in WWII. Likewise Gadaffi has his achievements and faults. This is not whitewashing, it is merely stating the (important) facts. 173.32.178.19 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is outright stalling. To halt the motion or progress of; bring to a standstill. "we mustn't paint him as kindly", nobody is suggesting to paint him as kindly this is nonsense. It's clear these people have no other intent as to sabotage the page and manipulate public opinion. We must act.--TheHappyMarquis (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Re "Internet mouthpiece of the Federal government": This is an absolutely risible contention and a violation of WP:AGF. I seriously doubt that the vast majority of contributors to this article are secretly US government agents trying to suppress the truth. In general, I think it safe to say that more RS coverage is given to "bad" occurrences than to "good" ones. Scandal sells. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
if i had to guess, i think its because the English media is dominated by Reuters(UK) and AP(USA). Which naturally presented views that favors the actions of their governments. RT (or RussiaToday) presented views quite.... different from the views of US and UK news media. 173.32.178.19 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have links to any of those articles? I think you're right that the West is biased against Gaddafi, but I think it goes beyond media. I think the West's view of Gaddafi was irrevocably tainted by Libya's state sponsored terror attacks on Westerners, particularly Lockerbie. The Russian public, being on the other side of the iron curtain at the time, presumably doesn't feel as wronged as Westerners do, and their media manages a more detached analysis as a result. TastyCakes (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, just saw that last response to my edit suggestions. Tastycakes, making angry, negative assertions about other editors is very bad form. You seem to be missing the point regarding some key wiki policies, so let me see if we can help you with that. 1) Other wiki pages are not acceptable sources. This is not something I'm making up. Go read the reliable source guidelines. Here is the direct quote: " Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."We strive to include reputable second party sources. We do not refer directly to our own material. However, as I already pointed out, those pages are likely to HAVE sources your could use, if you put in the effort to go find them. I don't know why you think support for including material has to include actively putting it in. That's not the purpose of talk pages. You are here to get consensus about proposed edits. What we do here is offer our support, or disagree. In this case, as I've stated, I supported including some of the information. Why in the world, since I was not the one suggesting it, would that engender in me a desire to add it in myself? You make the proposal, you seek consensus, you should add it. You talk about "truth" but again, you run afoul of wiki policy. We are not here to ascertain whose opinions or interpretations of the facts are "true". We make our decisions based on verifiability. That is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. I can understand how having to have RS and adhere to wiki policies may be frustrating at times, but that's the guidelines of the forum you've chosen to enter. There are a ton of other political discussion-oriented sites on the internet that do not have these requirements. However, we do. Please refrain from further negative ad hominem attacks on myself or other editors. They are uncalled for. If you cannot provide reliable sources that match wiki's guidelines, you should not expect any support from other editors. That's not anything personal, that's simply how it works. The first and foremost test of any suggested additions are whether it is properly sourced. And if you consistently attack anyone who disagrees with you, it only decreases everyone's willingness to deal with you. I suggest you rethink your approach, back up your requested edits, and resubmit them. Material that's not properly sourced, not matter how vital you may think it is, does not get added/retained, that's the way this site works. We all have our version of "the truth". What matters is verifiability.Jbower47 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Then where are your reliable sources? Haven't seen you citing anything but a Wikipedia guideline forbidding any citing of Wikipedia... --91.156.2.159 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: Accomplishments section - the section "good deeds" is not just "pov-pushing" it is also too vague and somewhat unprofessional. The section should exist if there is enough material to fill it, provided by verifiable sources. I fail to see how someone's reasons for wanting to include verifiable information in an article is relevant (whether or not they adhere to a "fringe theory"). The OP is suggesting including neutral data about Gaddafi's positive actions, not creating a section called "The US government orchestrated the entire event." Let's stay on topic, and avoid accusations of "fringe conspiracy theories" until the verifiable sources are assembled, because as of yet there is no material to add and it therefore cannot be critiqued as a fringe conspiracy theory or not. such accusations are often interpreted as ad hominem attacks. Unless I am mistaken, I see no argument here to include any larger argument or theory about the events occurring. Perhaps I have misinterpreted what is being proposed in contradistinction to why it is being proposed. Here are some ideas for inclusion in an "accomplishments" section:

services (electricity, water and transportation) at low prices to the poor. Upon retirement, Libyans continue to receive their inflation-adjusted income from the government. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CAIMED/UNPAN019179.pdf

Well, there are lots of pro-Gaddafists in America. I mean, see the comments and thumbs ups on this video and there ARE pro-Gaddafi sites and articles[4][5][6]. So why NOT give equal and unbiased coverage? 216.105.64.140 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That video is hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHappyMarquis (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alive or Dead

In the interest of keeping things current, there seems to be lots of talk that Gaddafi may have been gravely injured or perhaps even killed. Although its outside my ability's perhaps somebody should add a section indicating that, as I write this, that Gaddafi has not been seen publicly since the air raid that killed his son. And as a result of that, there is some speculation among the international community that he may be injured or perhaps dead. Some sources: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/143960/20110511/libya-gaddafi-tripoli-nato.htm http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/78793,people,news,is-colonel-gaddafi-dead-libyans-suspicious-of-vanishing-act Yes this is speculation, but perhaps this speculation is worth putting on the page?198.53.50.170 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, as that kind of speculation creates something of a Catch 22: If he's alive, then WP:BLP advises against speculation in general. If he's dead, then BLP doesn't strictly apply. Therefore, we shouldn't speculate he's dead unless we know he's dead, in which case we would have no need to speculate at all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we delete this talk section? Gaddafi is alive and giving speeches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA5N3wBL_08&feature=player_detailpage#t=36s --TheHappyMarquis (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Con takeover in a shroud of civil war.

It's has already been admitted by head officials that the C.I.A. sponsored Al-Qaeda... now it's evident that NATO forces are engaged in a takeover of Libya. It is NOT a civil war, yes there is a rebellion, a rebellion against the NATO invasion. Most of the rebels are from other surrounding African nations, in fear of an eventual takeover of all of Africa. [7]

Anything's possible, but I'm afraid you'll need a more... "dispassionate" source, let us say, than Alex Jones. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering the U.N. vote was a "no-fly zone" and we're attacking things that have zero chance of ever flying, its not much of a stretch to conclude this. I do agree that it needs reliable sources, but unfortunately this isn't the sort of thing the media is known for mentioning until years later. So, expect a reliable source for this around 2018 or so. -- Avanu (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about, the article about the Iraqi Gulf War for example contains media statements about the controversies. We too can use media statements and their sources concerning the controversies. http://rt.com/usa/news/libya-intervention-gaddafi-obama/
"In the 23 June 1991, edition of the Washington Post, reporter Bart Gellman wrote: "Many of the targets were chosen only secondarily to contribute to the military defeat of [Iraq]. . . . Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society. . . . They deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society. . . ."[104]"
Now let us do the same for the professor, let us quote his research, it's well documented. --TheHappyMarquis (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

political strongman, dictator, head of state

Strongman - Let's be brutally accurate here. His "head of state" status is up in the air right now. That is a fact. The discussion above is not the way to go. Remember, he is not in control of the Eastern part of Libya, and his illegitimacy according to foreign nations makes it less and less convincing to say he is the head of state. Now, political strongman is the best term. It is accurate, precise, and well-deserving for this case. Check out strongman (politics) and you will see that he is a prime example within the list provided. The reasons why are plentiful. Remember, he always called himself the Colonel, but he actively serves as leader of the nation's military, economy, society, political structure, etc. The definition of a strongman is someone who is not necessarily the head of government. He is also running an authoritarian regime which is basically a military leadership, again a mark of a political strongman. Also, the references for Gaddafi strongly support dictator and political strongman. I'm not arguing for dictator. The references support it, but he also calls himself the King of Kings, and it is unncessary to put a term like that on him. Likewise, other dictators like Hitler and Sadaam Hussein had organized titles like Chancellor and Fuhrer and President. Gaddafi chose Colonel. For a military leader to do what he does, he certainly is exceeding his role. That is why he is called a strongman again and again. - Screwball23 talk 04:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm sorry I haven't read the whole argument, but I personally suggest keeping "head of state" but adding the "disputed" in-line tag afterwards. It's just a waste-of-time to discuss something that is changing, so it's still not clear if it stays or goes. Keep it for now the state it was, with a little tag is enough, IMO. I won't be around to discuss here, but take-it or leave-it *_^ ~ AdvertAdam talk 05:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
"won't be around to discuss here"? Really? So this is your last day on wikipedia? You're in retirement, and you've decided to start a new online encyclopedia in your retirement home? And you "haven't read the whole argument"? Really? I love that. A person who just wanted to say "hey, I'm not going to bother listening to you", and I'm going to say it out loud, post my opinion, and say, hey, take it or leave it. OMG, that is rich. I wish every editor could be frank and say, "hey, I don't have the wherewithal to listen to you, and I really don't care about discussing this, so take it or leave it. Goodbye."
Seriously, I advise you to read the rationale behind strongman. If nothing else, and remember this, because I'm giving it in pure simplicity here. Gaddafi does not, nor has he ever, called himself the head of state in Libya. He is a Colonel, a Political Strongman. He is not the formal Head of State. There is a Libyan head of state, a man named [[7]] Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai. I know, you're probably not believing me, but Gaddafi was a revolutionary, changing Libyan society from 1969 to 1977 into his jamariya, and since 1977, he simply calls himself the "Guide" or "Brother" in Libya's socialist society.--Screwball23 talk 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a joke, and can you keep your comments on the content (instead of editors). Yes, I'm back! Just because I smell an edit-war, so I hope editors can stick to the talkpage. Being too bold ain't helpful, and your contribution shows your background (nothing is hidden). I'm not interested in the article, so I stopped by to give a general opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it and keep your personal silly thoughts to yourself.
To the point. My opinion was suggesting whatever sources use to say. I was guessing that there's a dispute on the change of title (as he's not controlling the whole country anymore), and keep whatever previous title that was on this page and adding the "dispute" tag to avoid title discussions. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh man, you're funny. "being too bold ain't helpful" Ok, so is there some guardian angel of wikipedia who can tell me when I am being too bold, a little bold, bold, or not bold? Oh, and we should add a "dispute" tag to avoid title discussions? Really? So I can put a tag that says "dispute" and that will show people never to dispute anything again? And the best of all is the fact that you didn't bother to read my references but "your opinion" just wants to tell me, because you just want to lecture me about how I'm not using the sources, because it's your "guess" that the sources say something else?
Wow, I didn't know editors could do that. I wish every editor was frank enough to say "Hey, I don't want there to be a discussion about this, because heaven forbid a discussion breaks out. Let's just say this is disputed, because I guess what's on is right as it is, and it'll avoid a discussion. And I didn't read the sources, but let's just use the sources. And, oh, by the way, I didn't really have any interest in this page, and I was about to leave it be, but I'm going to keep coming back to tell you to stop discussing this."--Screwball23 talk 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Screwball, regardless of your personal interpretation, the general interpretation, and the one followed by sources is that this is the Gaddafi regime, led by Gaddafi. The semantics that you are pushing are not warranted, and unless he dies or voluntarily releases control, there's not a case for your position. The status quo is that for 40 years, Gaddafi has been in charge, title or not, and you must not lightly change long standing consensus without some serious discussion first. Please stop putting the cart before the horse, and consider this your warning for edit warring. Another revert and I will escalate this to admins. -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not a personal interpretation. It is sourced and it is absolutely verified. Your empty threats are not helpful, nor is your faulty claim of "longstanding consensus". See my sources above.--Screwball23 talk 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, it would be nice to visit here and get a smile before I head to sleep ^_^. Your previous view of "brother" and "leader" are at the end of the paragraph. This link already shows what does everyone else call him! You might have a couple sources of what he calls himself, while if you Google him you'll see the title that the majority gives him. I don't think we should get into WP:DUE and expanding this talkpage to become a new article about his title ;¬). ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Think of it like this. I use Dick Cheney as an example because he was one of the most powerful VPs in US history. He went further than other VPs and advised Bush about foreign policy, for instance. Because of that, he had a lot more influence than other VPs in US history, who simply sat around at the Senate, or did even less. Let's say he went above and beyond. If Dick Cheney was so powerful that he decided to be Vice President under every single president for the next 20 yrs, represented the US in front of every major power in the world, put his family into major political offices, crushed opposition groups, and talked on TV and radio about political events, that still wouldn't make him President. He didn't take on that role because he relinquished that title by choice, let's say. In this case, Gaddafi is a military colonel by title. He never chose anything higher. But look at how many nations recognize him as the face of Libya. Why? Because he is a political strongman--Screwball23 talk 09:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
With this tone now, we can seek a resolution. Gosh it's almost 3am and I have work at 8 XD. The term itself is pretty interesting, and polite at the same time. However, I fear violating WP:DUE for it to be in the lead. I encourage you to prepare a nice sentence of your-own (based on your sources), and look for a place in this section to add it. Do you think that's fair enough? There is many sources about it, but it still isn't a majority nor popular view (comparing to the rest). ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi isn't even a Colonel. He is only a Captain. (92.7.15.198 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Dick Cheney was always just Vice-President, no matter how much permission he was granted by the President. You apparently seem to misunderstand the difference between the general title 'head of state' and the actual title 'President'. Elizabeth II might be the head of England in the sense that all things in Britain owe their allegiance to The Crown, but she is not the head of state. That honor belongs to the Prime Minister. How someone gets to be 'head of state' varies from regime to regime and from situation to situation. Your attempt to push a new interpretation of who is the head of state of Libya is not shared by the general media, nor is it shared by Gaffafi himself. Just look at the situation in China/Taiwan. The Republic of China and People's Republic of China both claim to rule China, and for 20 years after the Chinese Civil War, many nations still were recognizing ROC as the legitimate government of China. Yet, with regard to Libya, you want to declare it all figured out and a done deal after only a few months, when there is clearly not an international consensus for this and the media still continues to claim Libya is governed by the "Gaddafi regime" or by "Libyan Leader Gaddafi". Your premature type of editing is biased and unencyclopedic and inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You're still not getting this. This is not about how someone gets to be "head of state". Someone could be called the head of state like Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai [8], but by itself, that doesn't mean anything. If someone exercises enough power, to the point where they are in practice, ruling a country, it does not matter what title they have, they are a political strongman. In Gaddafi's case, he consciously decided not to take on a formal title higher than Colonel. He would not, nor has he ever, called himself the head of state of Libya. In fact, if you check out this reference, you can see he claims to not even be a part of the formal government. It is false to claim that he is the head of state of Libya, when Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai has that title by Libya's constitution. In any case, and you already know this, because your view of him as Head of State was always subjective, and is based on his regime's acceptance by foreign nations. Now that foreign nations are refusing talks with his regime, the term head of state, which was always subjective, is not even widely-accepted, and that is why it never gained consensus when it was put forward on this page.--Screwball23 talk 19:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi is at best now only the leader of western Libya. (92.7.15.198 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Well apparently that's all we need to say... wrap it up, war's over, Gaddafi is done. Right? -- Avanu (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not until he has been killed by the rebels. (92.7.15.198 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Srewball's latest edits

Hi all

It seems to me that screwball is editing away at this without consensus. In particular they have changed the headers that already had consensus, and moved material around into different sections.

To be honest, this article is a complete POV and warring nightmare and is in a total state of disrepair. I do not think that it is possible for editors here to find consensus, nor respect any wiki rules that require waiting more than 5 minutes before they "open fire" again. Normally such sweeping changes would respect previously found consensus or at least try and find a new one. I suggest that, unless Screwball can show that they are acting with consensus, there is a certain smell of WP:OWN creeping in here. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree - his edits are replacing valid sources and there are so many of them it is hard to tell which violate consensus and which aren't, although I know the 'political strongman' bit was not agreed upon. I suggest we revert back to the previous state and discuss each revision. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert on POV word 'fugitive'

Earlier, I noticed Good Olfactory had added a category of "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which struck me as a very POV word. This got me thinking about the entire process of how the International Criminal Court (ICC) works, so I went and looked them up on Wikipedia, along with looking up the Rome Statute and the circumstances surrounding how Gaddafi's situation was brought before them.

The state of Libya is not a party to the Rome Statute, and is therefore not bound by the ICC unless something is referred by the UN Security Council. Article 16 of the Rome Statute has a built in time delay for cases presented through the UN Security Council.

Article 16: Deferral of investigation or prosecution
No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.

From the ICC press release on this matter

The situation in Libya was referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council, through the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1970 on 26 February 2011. The Security Council decided, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, that “the Libyan authorities shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution” and, while recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligations under the Statute, the Security Council urged all States and concerned regional and other international organisations to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor.
On 3 March 2011, the ICC Prosecutor decided to open an investigation and requested, on 16 May 2011, the issuance of the arrest warrants.

I know this is my own research, but from what I can tell, the ICC is not following the letter of the Rome Statute in this situation, because they didn't wait 12 months as required, but only 5 or 6 days, if that. In addition, while I do believe there are legitimate humanitarian concerns here, this action taken so hastily seems more like it was done as a political tool, rather than just as a legitimate exercise of a judiciary. -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edits.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot agree with them though, as per the sequence of events and outcomes...
"The situation in Libya was unanimously referred to the Prosecutor of the ICC by the United Nations Security Council under Resolution 1970 adopted on 26 of February 2011." [9]
  • Quote from the original request [10]:
Resolution 1970 (2011)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting, on 26 February 2011
The Security Council,
[break]
Recalling article 16 of the Rome Statute under which no investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with by the Intemational Criminal Court for a period of 12 months after a Security Council request to that effect,
ICC referral
4. Decides to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the Intemational Criminal Court;
  • Statement in Q&A on the ICC proceedings following the UNSC referral with regard to the Libyan Arab Jamahirya by the ICC [11]
"On 26 February, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided unanimously (15 votes in favor) to refer the situation in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the ICC Prosecutor"
"The UNSC can, by a resolution adopted under Chapter VII, suspend an ICC investigation or prosecution for a period 12 months, renewable under the same conditions, pursuant to article 16 of the Rome Statute."
This means that the specific request to waive article 16 was unanimously declared by the UNSC, and that the ICC accepted the UNSC resolution.
I suspect that there is a misunderstanding of the waiving of article 16. That waiving is done by the UNSC, not the ICC.
Article 16 says "No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with ... after the Security Council ... has requested the Court to that effect" - in other words no case can be acted upon if the UNSC requests a deferral. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

this page needs to be re-sectioned - BAD!

This page needs to be re-sectioned. It has way too much text to follow, and the sections are incredibly jumped and redundant. To make the info more accessible, please jump in and add sections you think can work.--03:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction says Gaddafi has been in power for 41 years and 11 months. But in reality he has not been in power of eastern Libya since the NATO intervention in March, and now he has lost much of the west too. (92.10.135.207 (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Gadaffi "Rejected Both Capitalism and Communism"

This is a misleading statement, with implications of originality that should not be present. In truth, no country has fully embraced either capitalism or Communism, with especially in the contemporary world, with varieties of mixed economies being present even in the most 'capitalist' of countries. I suggest, then, that we remove this nonsensical statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No longer head of state

Now the United States and United Nations have recognised the Libyan Transitional Council as Libya's government it is no longer possible to call Gaddafi the Libyan head of state. (92.7.18.248 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC))

It has been pointed out that he is still the head of state as he has not yet stepped down. It is difficult to reconcile as yet due the problems of exactly when it would be said that he is no longer the head of state, versus the concept of ruling figure. If the majority of the population see him as no longer their leader it would be difficult to claim that he was. As such we have two positions - "Head of State" and "Ruler".
It is clear, however, that there has been a "fall from power" and I have retitled the section as such, As the editor changed it I feel it should be discussed as to what that section should be called.
The 30 countries have declared that they "no longer see him as the head of state". If the situation was to unfold that more and more governments said the same, and the population of Libya also do so, if Gaddafi is left as the only person in the world to see himself as such, would that mean he is? Obviously there must be a point at which a head of state stops being one. At what point is that exactly? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
30 countries have recognised the rebels yes. But, your statement that the UN has recognised the rebels is simply untrue. The UN has not made any official statement on recognition and 30 countries does not represent the whole UN which consists of 193 countries, of which a preaty large number still supports in some sence Gaddafi. I also don't agree that the term fall from power is appropriate since he IS still in power in the western part of Libya. Maybe power loss is more appropriate or something to that effect. EkoGraf (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not see where I have written that the UN has recognised the rebels. Can you quote it here please?
Surely he has fallen from power if, as you yourself say, he only has power in the western part - he has therefore lost power in the north, south, and east. Someone who had control of 100% of something and now has control of only 25% is surely not "in power", as those controlling the other 75% have power over a vast majority of the country. Is there some demographic that means that an exceptionally high percentage, 50% or thereabouts, of the country's population is in the west? Chaosdruid (talk)
I have retitled it as "Loss of political power" for now. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the news has reported CLEARLY that the reason for these 'recognitions' of the rebels is simply to give them the money they froze (took) from Gaddafi. This is not simply a recognition of a foreign power, but a part of a calculated purpose, which is to undermine and push Gaddafi out of power. Now these nations will be able to say they aren't funding the rebels and this war, but yet they are. -- Avanu (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The legitimity of a governement is not decided by foreign governements but only by the situation in the country. "Loss from political power" is not a good subtitle because Gaddafi did not lost his political power. He still rule his part of Libya, he still command the Libyan army, he still direct the loyalist libyan governement and has control over the Libyan institutions such as the Libyan central bank, the nation owned companies.... A better title would be "Loss of international recognition" because it is exactly what it is. --Geromasis (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. --TheHappyMarquis (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First of, I wasn't talking to you Chaosdruid, I was talking to the anonymous user 92.7... who made the rather strange statement that the United Nations recognised the rebels. Second, now you have said something that isn't true. You said he lost power of northern and southern Libya as well. First of, in this war, there is no northern and southern Libya. There is only west and east. Gaddafi is still in control of 50+ percent of the country (including more than half of the north and south as you put it). If you would check the map you would see that out of Libya's 22 districts, 12 are under Gaddafi government control, 6 are under opposition control, and 4 are contested territories. Actualy, that would mean he still controls somewhere around 2/3 of the country's districts. :) Of the three traditional regions of Libya: Fezzan, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; he still controls the whole of Fezzan and around 85 percent of Tripolitania. The rebels only control Cyrenaica and 15 percent of Tripolitania. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with EkoGraf edit, it is an international issue and not so much a lost of power.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the introduction should be amended to say that Gaddafi is no longer internationally recognised as Libya's head of state. If the rebels take and secure Brega this week, as looks very likely, and begin exporting oil from there then we will see more movement against him in the western parts he still controls. The fact that the United States has officially recognised the TNC means Gaddafi is finished. (92.10.139.100 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC))
I do not see where this speculation could lead that would benefit this conversation. He's currently still in power and still struggling to keep it that way. Fact. --TheHappyMarquis (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Except he's not still in power. He's lost all of eastern Libya, and is losing more of the west as we talk. (92.7.25.247 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

(out of chronological order)

This is a quite outrageous comment. The United States policy is not influencing Wikipedia. International recognition loses against reality. The fact that Gaddafi controls the governement, the capital and all the official ministers. Until Gaddafi is forced to step down, he is still the head of state. End of the debate for me , because this is not even debatable. It is simply a fact. Political power is not given by international recognition but by the control of the public institutions.--Geromasis (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The United States is determined to finish off Gaddafi, therefore it is all over. If it was just the UK and France it would be a different story. Only a very few foreign leaders like Hugo Chavez still recognise Gaddafi as Libya's leader. Gaddafi no longer controls the east of Libya or substantial parts of the west. (92.10.139.100 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC))
Whether the United States recognise Gaddafi or not is completelly irrelevant on both subjects (Loss or not of political power and being or not head of the state) . Wikipedia is not the personnal website of the US foreign ministery, I hope you understand that. --Geromasis (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not over 'till it's over kid. You never know what might happen. Even if it's against all odds. We're not here to speculate anyhow. And to say what Geromasis tries to tell in other words; if the United States decided their foreign policy should include that Paris Hilton is a man, it wouldn't make her a man. --TheHappyMarquis (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we try and keep to chronological order please? (or at least indent so that it is obvious where different threads are going) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"The United States policy is not influencing Wikipedia." ...actually it does. It doesn't have the right to but it does.
If you look at how much money goes into controlling the media, how can anyone in his right mind say there's nobody whose job is to heavily bias this article. I mean look at it, almost no positive achievements listed. If you don't know of any then listen to Farrakhan for a moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNLqQ2cN-PA&feature=player_detailpage#t=1949s Now look at Barack Obama's article, now look back and tell me what's missing in this article. --TheHappyMarquis (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(back to chronological order)

Maybe we should wait and see, cuz not everyone agrees he isnt still head. USA recognize the people that will give them cheap oil.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I started to reply here but then lost my internet connection for a while. Original reply:
There has not been any consensus reached yet, and the section deals with issues other than just the recognition. I have reverted it to the compromise header "Loss of political power".
@EkoGraf - I would check "the map" if I knew where it was :¬) I would appreciate a link to the map that shows the areas still under Gaddafi's control.
@Halaqah - The loss of power is international power as well as internal. Any OR about the USA is not really pertinent, there were 30 countries not just the USA.
Please allow this discussion to finish before editing again. Once we have consensus we can change it - consensus is where we all agree on what it should be, the section contains information the is not just the international recognition.
@EkoGraf - thanks for pointing out the east/west areas of control. As I said earlier, is there a majority of the country's population in the west?
How about "Loss of international influence"? Remember that the section also has the issue of the arrest warrant in it as a subsection. Even that does not adequately cover it really. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@ Chaisdruid, please check your facts. What editing have i done?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Apologies, my post was not complete as there were problems with my internet and I have corrected it, the "Please do not post edit..." was meant in general. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Geromasis is correct, because more people here (as far as I can see) agree with that edit he/she has made.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem here is that editors were continuing to change the article without the discussion finishing. I was more than capable of changing it to the edit I suggested (the one that Geromasis has changed it to) but did not as the discussion had not finished. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD are the underlying principles that determine how these things are decided, not one editor who decides that they know best, and yes that includes me :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi is not the head of state. He has no power. He lives humbly in a tent with a secret passage to hundreds of miles of an elaborate under-city tunnel system, where he gives out orders on the conduction of the battle against Christian crusaders who allied themselves with Nescafe drinking al-qaeda. I7laseral (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to say the following. First, just because the US is out to get Gaddafi and says he is no longer head of state doesn't mean this is over. Not by a long shot. The word of the US is not so well regarded as it once was. Second. 30 countries recognising the rebels doesn't represent the whole world which has 160+ other countries. Those 30 countries are almost exclusivly US, Canada, Western Europe and the rich Persian Gulf countries. What about South America? Africa? Central Asia? Far East? China? Russia? East Europe? I am a student of political science and have watched world events from recent years and have found that Western Europe and the US are not all that important anymore. They are loosing their influence. China is the biggest rising economy currently in the world and projections by the Americans themselves are that China will surpass the US by 2025. People should focus more attention to the BRICS countries (Brasil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). The prime example of their loss of influence is NATO innability to finish this war after four months of bombing. You say the mightiest militaries in the world and they can't finish of a guy who, to quote my Wikipedia colleague, lives in a tent and thinks he is fighting Nescafe al-Qaeda? I would think Gaddafi is much smarter than people realise or otherwise he wouldn't manage to hold out in power for almost 42 years and especialy these five months. He is a politician, soldier, tactician and strategist after all. Third, the map you requested [12]. Fourth, yes the majority of the country's six million population lives in the west, not the east. Prime example of this is Tripoli itself which has a population of one million people. To continue, Misrata district has 550,000. Zawiyah district has 291,000. An Nuqat al Khams district has 287,000. Sabha 134,000. The Nafusa mountains hold 397,000 people. That is already almost half of the country's population and I only named less than half of the districts in the west of the country. Gaddafi will most likely fall by the end of the year, there is no doubt about that, but he will hold out for as long as he can, humiliating the West in the process, and like every soldier he will take as much of the enemy (rebels) he can with him to his death, and yes he will most certainly die fighting. EkoGraf (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately to avoid the article talk page being used against policy, WP:NOTAFORUM, discussion of those salient points cannot really be continued. Thanks for the link to the map though and the basic synopsis of the population and current situation.
The other points are more suited for discussion on the Libyan uprising, and Libyan articles in general, talk pages. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that the initial post by the editor for this section was essentially declaring Original Research is OK. Gaddafi can be head of state even if he has ZERO power. He can be head of state and be in a coma, or dead, or whatever. We have situations where rulers live in exile, where people have elected a goat to be mayor, and many other things, the think we need to remember at Wikipedia is to use RELIABLE sources. Many of the US newspapers are going to be biased on this, and so the reliable bits we pull have to be carefully looked over. We cannot just say "gaddafi isn't the ruler" because the US declares it so, or because a newspaper reports it as such. It must be looked over and discussed as this was. -- Avanu (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it written end of his regime ? he is still in power in sirte,ras lanuf and many other cities and controls 20% of tripoli according to media reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrnia (talk • contribs) 09:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead

If I am to believe the recent news and this article, Gadaffi has now died. Is this correct? Polozooza (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

He is now speaking on State Lybian Television according to the CNN. --Evgenior (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

All I saw was a picture and a recording of his voice saying "women chould come out of the mosques to fight". That's hardly "proof of life". Polozooza (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither is it proof of death. --Evgenior (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not dead, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.253.162 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC) A Transititonal National Council UK spokesman on the BBC news is speculating that he been captured and the ICC will announce it soon. But that is unconfirmed by the ICC.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there is a promise of news coming very soon (most likely, arrest), but we need to wait for a strict sourced claim (instead of rumors). It's just a matter of hours, so we should wait. ~ AdvertAdam talk 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he's dead, i've seen a few convincing photos around.69.132.69.87 (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What, under your couch? -- Avanu (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2011 (UT

Anyone can create such a photo using computer programmes, they are a reiable source. Just wait until the news agencies report on the sitution in regards of Gaddafi before any edits are made.--Welshsocialist (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Theyoungjournalist, 21 August 2011

Please change the date of death of Gaddafi, as his death is not confirmed as yet.

Theyoungjournalist (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, remains a twitter rumour at present, i.e. clear violation of WP:RS and WP:BLP (at least I have been unable to find anything supporting the claim on Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN and Fox). No citation provided for the death claimed in the final sentence of the intro ("On 21 August, Gaddafi was shot dead in the Libyan capital by rebels fighting his regime"). 212.10.73.93 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from anonymous user, 21 August 2011

Please add a link to 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing in the second paragraph.

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit early to say his government "was collapse"

The text "On 22 August, he was moving to Algeria and his government was collapse (sic)" seems a bit premature. The only report I've seen that says that specifically is the cited source, and as I don't read Persian and have to rely on translation software, I can't tell exactly what the source is saying. And government sources claim that he is staying in Tripoli to the end, so it's hardly uncontested. As such, I think it would be very wise to remove it for now.ChristopherGregory (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. Al Jazeera is reporting rumors that he is in talks to go to Angola or Zimbabwe. David Ignatius of the Washington Post has reported that he is in talks to go to Algeria, but is still in Libya. It seems the fog of war is pretty thick right now. 207.194.184.89 (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, the TNC has told CNN international that he might have fled to Chad. Too many conflicting reports. 207.194.184.89 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:LEAD, this sort of info should normally go first as a subsection in the main content, and can then be briefly summarised in the lead. At the moment we do not have multiple reliable sources saying where he is located. (My personal guess is that some time ago he went through Bani Walid south to Sabha so that he can escape to Chad when things get too hot, and he'll leave the whole world puzzling - sort of like Osama bin Laden... Check back here around 2021 or so.) Boud (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
In case someone wishes to work on the following and use it in the main content, this is the sentence i just removed from the WP:LEAD:

On 22 August, he was moving to [[Algeria]] and his government was collapse.<ref>[http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/185241/رهبر-انقلابیون-رژیم-قذافی-سقوط-کرد Revolution in Libya: Gaddafi's regime was collapse]</ref>

In any case, this article is mainly about Gaddafi, not about his government. Boud (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
i've started a subsection stub: "Loss of power". IMHO this title should be general enough to be uncontroversial and NPOV - he hasn't lost power totally, but it's hard to dispute that he has more or less lost effective control. People can work on this section and if RS's eventually converge on something more specific (resignation, arrest, exile, extrajudicial execution, etc.) then that can go up to the lead. Boud (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi only has power in theory now. (92.7.3.54 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

gaddafi spelled wrong?

i did some reading and found that gaddafi is actually spelled quaddafi.32.176.248.235 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your right. That is one of many ways possible to spell his name. 'Gaddafi' is also correct. This is because there is a lack of standardised Arabic - Latin transliteration systems. Check out the website: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/how-many-different-ways-can-you-spell-gaddafi.html for a full list of possible spellings. Vought109 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That list is actually incomplete. For example, Nationalencyclopedin, a major Swedish encyclopædia, uses a different spelling. Interestingly, the spelling on the encyclopædia's web site differs from the one used in my paper copy of it... (Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
If journalists in Tripoli carry any authority, consider "Muammar Al Qathafi".[13] Myron (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I read that the spelling is either Qathafi or Qadhafi. Do You Spell 'Gaddafi'? DCI2026 15:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's suspected location - what do RS's say?

Here is a non-RS - it can only be used as a hint for trying to find RS's - it refers to Al Jazeera Arabic, a mainstream media source, so AJA or AJE might soon have this in a text report: http://twitter.com/feb17voices states

"# AJA Jaloud says #Gaddafi probably not spending more than 3 hours in same location, hiding in civilian residences / # AJA: Jaloud says that #Gaddafi probably left #Tripoli.. says most proably hidding in Azyziya [FYI: the City NOT the compound ] #Libya".

Jalloud was a longtime friend of and senior political leader under Gaddafi, so his guess is probably one of the best guesses around.

There are also reports of US intelligence services guessing that G is still in Libya.

And rumours that he fled to Algeria or Chad.

Properly NPOV'd and RS'd, some of this could go into the Loss of power section, IMHO - or maybe a new subsection. Boud (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

The articles List of heads of state of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi and Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai contradict each other. See Talk:List of heads of state of Libya#Contradictions. (Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Jalil is Libya's leader and head of state. (92.10.130.158 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

this is not a "contradiction", it is just a matter of {{current}} developments, viz. in what sense is Gaddafi still "incumbent" anything.

In my opinion, the "incumbent" can safely be removed at this point. It is bizarre to suggest that Gaddafi is a "leader and guide of the revolution" when he is in fact on the run from the successful revolution against his regime. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Saadi Gaddafi

There is written that he was talking with the media in the late evening of August 22. This is wrong, it was Seif who talked with the media (like you can read in the link). Please correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.190.206.45 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhollah al-Islam Muammar al-Gaddafihis

Where is the proof that he exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinel2150 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Date incorrect?

In the first paragraph it states that Gadhafi abolished the constitution in 1951. Was he 9 years old when this happened? Is this a typo that should read 1971?

Jeffery C. Zimmerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.142.12 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It said "abolished the Libyan Constitution of 1951 ...", it did not say when he abolished it. --Len2day (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"war atrocity stories used to justify Nato bombing"

Reports by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have found no evidence for the atrocities committed by Gaddafi. This must be included in the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/24/libyas-imperial-hijacking-threat-arab-revolution http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.82.83 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Change Name Spelling

As I'm sure you already know, there are many different ways to spell his name, but I just read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/rebel-discovers-qaddafi-passport-real-spelling-of-leaders-name/244077/

It shows the 'official' way of spelling it is Gathafi, should it be spelt this way throughout the article?

Andrewdurie (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the "real" transliteration of an Arabic name. There are lots of different systems for the transliteration of Arabic, which partly depend on the language of the readership (e.g. English-language newspapers spell Zuwarah, French-language newspapers write Zouara) and on the principle applied (e.g. etymological, phonological, mixed). Contrary to what The Atlantic suggests, by the way, this is not a new discovery. Gaddafi's official website has been www.algathafi.org for years. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I was also involved in a project, a long time ago, where I was officially told that Gathafi is the official spelling given by himself. However, days later, we were also officially told to change everything to match other works that were made by a closer team to him. In summary, that has no meaning and we shouldn't give it a big deal, IMHO. Cheers ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All that can be learned here is that Max Fisher of The Atlantic has got less of a clue than Wikipedia. "Real Spelling" indeed. "the letter Q is typically used to render the glottal stop that is so common in Arabic and that begins Qaddafi's name". What the hell? I know this is journalism, but why won't they let somebody write who has at least a remote inkling? --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Gossipy-seeming section

I removed the following from the article, because it simply seems gossipy and strange, and the heading of 'personal life' for such a small gossipy section seems inappropriate, per WP:DUE, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and especially WP:BLP -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life Section Text
Personal life

On August 2011, after the capture of his stronghold of Bab al-Aziziya by loyalist forces, a photoalbum filled with page after page of pictures of Condoleeza Rice was discovered among Gaddafi's belongings. Gaddafi had previously praised Rice, referring to her as "[his] darling black African woman", and stating that he "love[s] her very much. [He] admire[s] her...because she's a black woman of African origin." He referred to Rice by the diminutive 'Leezza' rather than her nickname 'Condi'[8][9], and showered her with gifts during the visit, including a diamond ring in a wood box, a locket with his photograph and a DVD with a musical instrument, with total value $212,225 (2008 value.)[10][11][12] The two of them shared a private late-night iftar dinner together during the visit.[13][14]

This was well-sourced, is the subject of many news articles today, and the album in question was observed by an AP photographer as it was discovered. Yes, it's a bit strange, but this is *Gaddafi* we are talking about, no? Seleucus (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
See, WP:DUE and NOTGOSSIP. While it might be something accurate, is it represented in the article with the proper weight and in context? We have the heading "Personal Life" and essentially make it sound in the article like he has a crazed fascination with Condoleeza Rice. We're not here to spread or create gossip, but to make an encyclopedia. This needs a re-write, at present it is problematic to leave in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Saw your edit summary - WP:SCANDAL is the same section as WP:GOSSIP, the distinction is not really relevant under Wikipedia guidelines. However, your move of it in the article to a different section is appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving it around a bit and rewriting it a bit... but the 'crazed fascination' is essentially the way it's been reported in articles. I also believe that there's a difference between scandal mongering (which is what WP:SCANDAL means) and reporting of scandals...otherwise, it would be rather difficult to write Wikipedia pages for certain politicians. (And by the way, you seem to be good at editing the talk page just in time for me to get edit conflicts while writing this... 6th attempt to post this to the talk page) Seleucus (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section

The intro mentions the King of Kings title. I therefore propose adding the following to the article:

Moammar Gadhafi "claimed to be 'King of Kings,' a title he had a gathering of tribal leaders grant him in 2008."[15] More "than 200 African kings and traditional rulers...bestowed the title 'king of kings' on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi" during a meeting "in the Libyan town of Benghazi in what was billed as a first of its kind. Col Gaddafi urged the royals to join his campaign for African unity....'We want an African military to defend Africa, we want a single African currency, we want one African passport to travel within Africa,' Col Gaddafi told the assembled dignitaries, who come from countries such as Mozambique, South Africa, Ivory Coast and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The BBC's Rana Jawad in the Mediterranean town of Benghazi says Libya's leader wants them to create a grass-roots movement to press Africa's political leaders to sign up to his vision."[16]

See also this source. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Mohamed Eljhami was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Muammar Gaddafi. "The Green Book" (PDF).
  3. ^ a b "Inside Gadhafi's All-Female Bodyguard Camp: You Are Under Orders to be Equal". 12 December 2004. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Facts on File 1980 Yearbook p353, 451
  5. ^ "Libya: Gaddafi Rails Against 'No Fly' Attacks and Berbers". allAfrica.com. 20 March 2011.
  6. ^ a b c d e {{cite web|url=http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2137.htm | title="In Overture to Iran, Qaddafi Declares North Africa Shi'ite and Calls for Establishment of New Fatimid State" | date=6 April 2007|publisher =memri.org
  7. ^ McKinney, Cynthia. [infowars.com {{subst:User:JzG/Unreliable fringe source|infowars.com}} "Alex Jones Radio Show - Reporting from Libya"]. Retrieved 30 May 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  8. ^ http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7470058-in-the-ruins-of-gadhafis-lair-rebels-find-album-filled-with-photos-of-his-darling-condoleezza-rice#.TlZSBO0b7Sk.twitter
  9. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/05/libya.usa
  10. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3737501,00.html
  11. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/06/us-libya-usa-idUSN0438196320080906
  12. ^ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\06\27\story_27-6-2009_pg4_7
  13. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090501149.html
  14. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/when-gaddafis-compound-was-a-quieter-place/2011/08/23/gIQAtVcfZJ_blog.html
  15. ^ the CNN Wire Staff, "As ruler, Gadhafi sought world stage," CNN (August 25, 2011).
  16. ^ "Gaddafi: Africa's 'king of kings'," BBC News (29 August 2008).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.173.243 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

regime change

i've (singlehandedly) replaced the Gaddafi "regime" by his "government". IMHO this is justified under WP:WEASEL and wiktionary:regime/Usage notes.

My guess is that there may be more subtle de-weaselisation work to be done on this article. Boud (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Should he still be regarded as Libya's leader?

Yes, he is the Libya's leader [14]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.54.139 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's lost control of most of the country and it's clear he has already lost the civil war since the US, the UK, France, Canada and all the other countries in the NATO alliance are not backing down. (92.7.27.57 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Do you have a source indicating this? Seems like a lot of conjecture to me. Also strangely POV given that this was *supposed* to just be a no-fly zone, not a coup. -- Avanu (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

He's lost control of all of the East and more of his soldiers, officers and politicians are deserting him. As soon as his money inside the country runs out his African mercenaries will leave. (92.7.27.57 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

In either case, it's conjecture, pro or against. The purpose of our contributions is not to lend our own analysis, but to provide credible sources. Whether we think he's the leader or not is irrelevant, what matters is what reputable sources indicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.104 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. -- Avanu (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

He's only in control of Tripoli now. Now France and Qatar have admitted arming the rebels, who have cut off his oil pipeline, it can only be a matter of time before his mercenaries desert him. (92.10.142.233 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

Being in control isn't necessarily the definition of a nation's leader. Many times, you have seen a leader living even outside a nation but still holding a title. As we have said before, Wikipedia uses "reliable sources", not just whatever we might like to say. -- Avanu (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Which country is Wikipedia serving? May be a handful of countries, albeit powerful, derecognized him, but did the African Union and the UNO derecognize him? Till the time it is done, he will be the head of state, different thing that without a state, and it'll be just another front of propaganda to say he is a revolutionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.71.224 (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

He is the leader of the revolution, so I believe he will be the leader of the revolution while he lives, unless he states he resigns as the leader. He is not president or PM, which are offices that someone can succeed. There are monarchs or presidents who continue being in their offices in exile so I don't think we should make an exception here.--Andres arg (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's real rank

Should the article mention that he was only a lieutenant? (92.7.10.93 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

Maybe it should be mentioned that he was not just a colonel but a complete nut. 217.227.205.58 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we cannot say that without a reliable sauce. Boud (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a letter about it in Friday's Daily Telegraph from a man who knew Gaddafi in September 1969 and confirms he was never promoted to the rank of captain due to his political activities. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

He never was a colonel, or even a captian. On the day he seized power in 1969 he was only a lieutenant. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

Not in power any more

It is truly bizarre that the lede suggests Gaddafi is still in power in any way. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from 165.230.31.178, 26 August 2011

In the last paragragh immediately avove the article title Pan-Africanism (1998-Present)" there is a grammatical error in the line describing khdafy's ambitions to unify the ara world stating: 

"Shia Muslims across the Arab continue to view Gaddafi negatively since this incident."

It should read "arab world or "Arab Diapora" or something to that effect.

This should read: Shia Muslims across the Arab World continue to view Gaddafi negatively since this incident. 165.230.31.178 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Avanu. — Bility (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

IMAGE - THE MOST IMPORTANT PART :-)

File:Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi in Dimashq.jpg
Image 2 - I believe image 2 is the best one. He's got his signature sunglasses during a foreign visit. He made far more visits and wore sunglasses far more times than he spent at an african summit meeting as "the king of kings". The african summit meeting has him appearing disgruntled and looking off somewhere. It just isn't as good.-Screwball23 talk 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither one is great. I'd rather see a better image than either one, but haven't seen one yet. I spent some time a few months back to just find the one we were using. Someone before that had an even worse pic that made him look like he had been inflected by the spawn of darkness. -- Avanu (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, let's add that too. haha--Screwball23 talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
How about an animated gif of all 300 Gaddafi outfits, 1/10th a second for each? 108.71.14.120 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

statement that Fox, CNN and MSNBCare using the same spelling of Gaddafi is no longer accurate, if it ever was.

I saw a different spelling on each of their newscasts last night.

Not sure where the claim that these three sources used the same spelling was ever true.

128.163.192.193 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know about the rest, but Fox News appears to use "Muammar Qaddafi", which is not what the article says.

203.229.100.232 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede is wrong

Gaddafi is not in power any more. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

The lead has been updated, but now the infobox is wrong. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fyra122, 27 August 2011

Please remove the Nation of Islam as a United States gang financed by Muammar Gaddafi under section "State-sponsored terrorism". The information is incorrect and the sited article/references (137:^ Yossef Bodansky. Target America & the West: terrorism today. pp. 301–303.) does not give information to the Nation of Islam planning a US attached. The statement is not supported, making it false information. smillie 19:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done According to the source, the Nation of Islam and Al-Rukn were involved together. Please read the source. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ujw1502, 28 August 2011

Italic text

Change spelling of Gaddafi from Qaddafi so it is consistent Qaddafi acquired at least 20 luxurious properties after he went to rescue Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.[115]

Change "Former MI6 Agent, David Shaylor" to "former MI5 Agent David Shaylor"

Ujw1502 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed per source. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

How do we define the end to his rule?

  • It is when he is captured?
  • It is when it is found out that he has left the country?
  • Was it when Tripoli was under rebel majority rule?

I think it is best to wait for the definitive end until we say his rule has ended, regardless of opinion or views about the man just for the sake of clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.107.76 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say his rule is over when he is either captured, killed or stands down. As it is, he is still leads Libya.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
How about not when you or I say, but when a preponderance of our Reliable Sources say? Keep in mind, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". To change the status of a guy who has been in power for 40 years needs very good sourcing, and it is based on a preponderance of truly reliable sources, not biased news stories, not opinion pieces, etc. -- Avanu (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, obviously it would be a reiable source saying that he has lost power. I wasn't claiming to be some kind of authourity. I also editted the topic to remove the infobox claiming that he has lost power. Maybe I didn't word my response right, but I was only replying the the question asked, and what the reiable source would probably be saying about his ousting, rather than claiming to be an authority (I am not) or anything else.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi hasn't been in power since the revolution began in February. (92.7.3.54 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
Hehe, being in-power don't need to be in-full. Again, he still is (even a little), until he resigns, gets captured or killed, ...etc. He's just loosing diplomatic recognition (even the Arab League just accepted the NTC), and more and more territory. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
He's not in power in any way at all now. The NTC is. (92.7.3.54 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC))
Thankfully, Mr. IP, you are not a reliable source. -- Avanu (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
President Obamba implies he's still in power with the comment "The Gaddafi regime is coming to an end."[15] I interpret that as at this instant the Gaddafi regime still exists. The regime is clearly crumbling fast but the fat lady has not sung yet. I spotted an announcement from either the rebels or ICC that then would consider the regime to be over when Gaddafi is captured. Unfortunately, I can't find that article now. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi's regime now only extends to his compound in Tripoli. (92.10.132.246 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC))
Mr. IP, could you refrain from making uninformed asides in the conversation? We don't define the length and breadth of Gaddafi's rule by your words alone, but by a preponderance of Reliable Sources. Its a tad annoying whenever breaking news happens that we get armchair editors who think opinion alone is sufficient for introducing profound changes into articles. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

92.10.132.246, an article today reports on attacks on "government positions" (note the plural) by Predator drones.[16] The article does not say where in Libya those positions are but it appears Gadhafi has more that one position that merits attention. That article starts out with "As the rebels in Libya push closer to ending the regime of embattled Col. Moammar Gadhafi..." That seems to accurately sum up the state of things. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

His evil regime is already over, he's lost the heavily fortified compound in Tripoli now. (92.10.132.246 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC))
Mr IP, you seem to be a lovely asset for WikiNews :p (but I'm sure they're faster than you), but this is only an encyclopedia. Even when the NTC officially declares victory, we still need to consider it a claim (not a fact). Cheers... ~ AdvertAdam talk 20:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BBC Newsnight is reporting that their is fighting still going on between Gaddafi Loyalists and Rebels in some parts of Tripoli. Also some towns and reas of Libya have not yet been taken over by the rebels. It still a bit too early to delcare the end of Gaddafi's rule. --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
List of heads of state of Libya tells that Khaddafi and his head of state quit their positions on 22 August 2011. That's not right, is it? As far as I've understood, those two guys just lost most of their remaining power but not their formal titles. (Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC))
Gaddafi lost his status as head of state long ago. The NTC lead Libya now. (92.10.130.158 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
Note that leading a country is different from holding the status as head of state. A good example is Queen Elizabeth II who holds the status as head of state over a lot of countries without actually leading any of them. Furthermore, I read in a Swedish newspaper recently that he still seems to retain power over some scarce cities in Libya (e.g. his city of birth) as well as certain tunnels under his residence in Tripoli, so it seems that he hasn't even lost all his executive powers (although most has been lost). (Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
The NTC is immediately setting up headquarters in the capital city. Gaddafi's rule is over and now he is just a fugitive. (92.10.130.158 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
Not sure why you keep commenting when each time all you do is make a super-biased statement. The goal here is to write an encyclopedic neutral-point-of-view article, not an opinion piece. -- Avanu (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters who's in control of the capital city. The NTC regime wasn't in control of Tripoli until a few days ago, but at that time some countries still recognised that regime as the legitimate rulers of Libya (I think). Now things have changed, with the NTC regime being in charge of Tripoli and the Khaddafi regime not being in charge of Tripoli, but why would that affect whether someone is "in office" or not? The Republic of China has not been in control of its constitutional capital since 1949, but is still recognised as a country by 23 other countries. (Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Many newspapers and other sources are now referring to Gaddafi as "Libya's former leader", and his "ousted regime". (92.10.130.158 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

And as usual, you bring nothing but your opinion to support this statement. Please either help by researching and providing reliable sources, or just lay off the 'armchair editing'. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC for a start. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

He is actualy still in control the cities of Bani Walid, Sirte and Ghadames and the whole of Fezzan governorate, which is more than a third of Libya in itself. EkoGraf (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi/Archive_4&oldid=1159327051"