Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Gaddafi's support to revolutionary movements
Gaddafi used his World Mathaba Organization to support various revolutionary separatist groups
Hasan di Tiro helped Mathaba and Gaddafi support the Free Papua Movement of Jacob Prai, the Kanak faction in New Caledonia, the South Maluku Separatists, and the Moro National Liberation Front led by Nur Misuari in the Philippines.
Republic of South Maluku Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor Papua conflict Free Papua Movement Moro insurgency in the Philippines Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and dispensing funds to liberation movements around the world, is run by a most unlikely radical. Tunku Mohammed Hassan di Tiro, a Sumatran prince, fervent Muslim and bitter opponent of Indonesia, is the chairman of Mathaba's political committee.... Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
Other information on Mathaba
Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/messagestick/stories/s1104740.htm
http://overland.org.au/2013/10/michael-mansell-australian-of-the-year/
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/470288/gaddafi-loses-touch-with-people-mansell/
http://books.google.com/books?id=a9ppOE30u8EC&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=AY-gZEaijmsC&pg=PA249#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964515,00.html
Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front
http://books.google.com/books?id=aVcG7EkuPgAC&pg=PA345#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 18
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
- Thanks for your information Rajmaan, but the article already specifies that Gaddafi's administration was involved in the funding of revolutionary movements across the world. Unfortunately, it would be impactical to include the entire list of groups that his government had supported over the years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- We need to create a separate article on the World Mathaba Organization, and some of the insurgencies like the Kanak insurgency against France don't even have their own articles.Rajmaan (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Length
I saw that this was put up for GA today--congratulations on all the improvements, and on bringing it this far! Since I've appeared in a few discussions here before, I won't attempt to review it, but I did want to note an early concern about the article's length. At 79kb readable prose (12472 words), the article's much longer than recommended by WP:LENGTH (which suggests a split after 50kb in most cases and after 60kb in almost all cases), and the longer an article gets, the less accessible/useful it is to most readers, who don't often have time to read the equivalent of 50 printed pages on their subject. Gaddafi's a significant enough figure that he seems like a logical candidate for spinoffs, but I'll try to focus here on how the main article can be brought within norms.
I'd suggest starting by cutting some of the obviously trivial details--medals from the Gambia, a street named after him in Mauritius, an honorary doctorate in Serbia, a military base in Uganda--unless sources about Gaddafi regularly discuss these as an important aspect of this life. (This seems to me highly unlikely).
More importantly, though, I'd suggest that the level of detail be slightly reduced throughout the article, and the prose be compressed where possible. For example, the paragraph:
- "Gaddafi took an active interest in the political changes being implemented in the Arab Republic of Egypt under the presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser of the Arab Socialist Union, who had ascended to power in 1956. An advocate of Arab nationalism, Nasser argued for greater unity within the Arab world, the rejection of Western colonialism, neo-colonialism, and zionism, and a transition from capitalism to socialism. Such ideas inspired Gaddafi, who viewed Nasser as a hero.[27] Nasser's book, Philosophy of the Revolution, was a key influence on Gaddafi; outlining how to initiate a coup, it has been described as "the inspiration and blueprint of [Gaddafi's] revolution."[28]"
could be rewritten to avoid some repetition without losing much detail:
- "Gaddafi admired the political changes implemented in the Arab Republic of Egypt under his hero Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser argued for Arab nationalism; the rejection of Western colonialism, neo-colonialism, and zionism; and a transition from capitalism to socialism. His book, Philosophy of the Revolution, was a key influence on Gaddafi; outlining how to initiate a coup, it has been described as "the inspiration and blueprint of [Gaddafi's] revolution."
The bottom line is that I don't mean to quibble over any specific detail here, but I do think there's room to get this article closer to Wikipedia norms through cutting obvious trivia, condensing prose, and cutting some of the less important detail. Good luck, and thanks again to everybody working on this important article! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I should add as a postscript that this isn't necessarily an issue for GA (aside from perhaps some of the trivial detail toward the end); criterion 3b doesn't really apply to length overall. I just thought I'd put it out there as a consideration while review and revision were taking place. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's some useful advice Khazar, and I thank you for it. I will definately do my best to cut down the text length over the coming days, and weeks. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The Provisional IRA was not an anti-Western organization
- But they were an organisation that fought against a prominent Western government which they deemed to be imperialist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Theodore! (talk · contribs) 02:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I'm excited for this review; it's an interesting subject, and I hope to complete my comments by Friday. In case you have any concerns or questions about any particular comments, please tell me so; also, don't hesitate to correct me if I make a mistaken assumption about something. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is much appreciated Theodore! Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Two observations about the article
- I understand that you've put a lot of work into this article; however, given the prominence of its subject, it inevitably attracts a ton of editing. This has produced a few general issues. Grammatical and structural inconsistencies seem to be a huge example of this; a major problem I've noticed is inaccurate pronoun usage. Also, I may use the word "you" throughout my review; I'm not blaming you for some of these issues, and understand the faults of high-prominence articles.
- I am more worried about the general tone of the article. Neutrality is key, and the usage of terms like "imperalist" can undermine it. I have noted usage of such terms as much as possible in the following review; in some cases, they are appropriate given their context and in others they are not. For example, the following sentence strikes me as unnecessarily opinionated; with this much detail, a quote is probably necessary to justify retaining it: "[[Gaddafi viewed]...the 1948 creation of Israel as an oppressive indignity forced on the Arab world by Western colonialists." In contrast, using the term "imperialist" in the context of Gaddafi's Third Universal Theory is a bit different, given that it's not overemphasized with the terms found in the prior example. Again, I understand that some of this is presumably a remnant of earlier editing.
Content review
General note: The advice offered by Khazar on the article talk page is excellent. Trimming excess details from the article would help in reducing the length, which is a bit excessive itself.
- Yes, I agree with Khazar's comments, and have already undertaken quite a lot of editing down since they posted it, particularly in the first half of the article. I agree that more can however be done in the latter part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Early life: Childhood
- I noticed that the family's economic status isn't really mentioned here (the occupations are, but little else); his father is said to be impoverished in the lead. Could you expand on this if possible?
- Fixed with "meager subsistence". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would advise against using terms like "unimportant" when describing complex social entities like tribes.
- Agreed, but nevertheless I was trying to explain that in the scheme of Libya's societal structure, the Qadhadfa wielded little economic or political influence at the time. Replaced with "un-influential". 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sentence beginning "Nomadic bedouin, they were illiterate..." should be checked for grammar. Breaking it down would help, as well.
- I have divided the sentence into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have nothing wrong with the sentence describing "European colonialists" and their actions in Libya, but would be happier with an alternative term.
- I would personally vote to keep the term "colonialists" here, as I think it an apt descriptor. I certainly don't think it POV. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sentence beginning "At World War II's end in 1945" needs one or more sources; they would be particularly useful for the part describing British and French desires to split the country between themselves. I don't dispute this, but sources are necessary for these types of facts.
- Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't the term "pro-Western" a bit anachronistic for the end of WWII? I don't really mind if you leave it in; indeed, I may well be wrong on this one.
- Hmm... good point. I used "pro-Western" here to indicate that they favoured the Western powers over the Soviet bloc, but if there is a more accurate term then I would be happy to use it here. The Idris regime certainly wasn't a staunch ally with the West, but they chose to do most of their trade (particularly in oil) with Western Europe and the US, and permitted the US and British to use Libyan territory for their military bases; this arrangement was certainly more pragmatic than ideological. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Early life: Education and political activism
- By "local Islamic teacher," do you mean education of a religious nature? I would presume most Libyan teachers at the time were Islamic.
- Good point. Gaddafi's education was of a religious nature, learning Qur'anic verses and such. I've changed the text accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you cite the statement that he passed through six grades in four years?
- Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sentences regarding Gaddafi's admiration of Nasser and Nasser's political beliefs need to be sourced. Even though the latter are relatively obvious, content which effectively makes a claim (even if a blatantly true claim) should be cited.
- Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Early life: Military training
- Source needed for the second sentence, and the same goes for the second-to-last sentences. Although it probably seems as if I'm demanding a source after every sentence (which is not a GA requirement) a lot of these statements make claims that could prompt the question, "what is this substantiated by?"
- In all of these instances, the statements in question are indeed sourced, but the sources can be found at the end of the following sentence; I am duplicating these sources at the end of both sentences in order to avoid the confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Libyan Arab Republic: Coup d'etat
- I noticed that the singular "King Idris's government" is referred to as "they"; check for similar issues throughout. Other than that, this section is excellent.
- Ah, good point! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Libyan Arab Republic: Consolidating leadership
- Where does the term "Free Unionist Officers" come from? Did they change their name to incorporate the "Unionist" term, and does this have something to do with the UAR?
- I have no idea – that "Unionist" shouldn't be in there... Thanks for pointing it out! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The last sentence fits in a bit unnaturally with the others; first, you talk about Gaddafi dominating the council, and all of a sudden some of them are trying to constrain him. Is there any more info on who they were, and by what means they tried to constrain him?
- Unfortunately, the whole scenario with the RCC is still shrouded in mystery; they were, after all, a very secretive bunch. I'm afraid I have no idea how they tried to constrain him at this point, I am just going by what the few English-language sources say. I've nevertheless edited and moved the paragraph around a bit, which hopefully flows a lot better for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are no problems with the second paragraph.
Subsection: Economic and social reform
- In the second paragraph, the sentence about social welfare projects definitely needs a source.
- Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not entirely understand what is meant by Gaddafi's "underdog status." Is this meant in relation to traditional social mores (the tribal structure)?
- Yes; he was from an underprivileged background, being a poor Bedouin from a tribe with little power. I've tried to clarify this inb the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Subsection: Foreign policy
- What types of experts did Egypt send over?
- I'm not sure; I would assume technical experts in management, governing and such ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This section contains one of my neutrality examples, the one about an "oppressive indignity."
- What I was trying to reflect here is that Gaddafi personally thought that Israel was an oppressive indignity (I disagree with him), but I can see how this might be misconstrued. I have replaced it with "viewing the 1948 creation of Israel as a Western colonial occupation forced on the Arab world". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Popular Revolution: subsection "Third Universal Theory and the Green Book"
- Just as a side note, I would imagine it's appropriate to leave the word "imperialist" intact in this context.
- "pro-Gaddafist" is a bit redundant.
- Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The Popular Revolution: subsection "Foreign relations"
- Would it be best to concentrate the Sadat info in one place? There's a bunch of it in the "Foreign policy" subsection of "Libyan Arab Republic," too. If not, I'm not overly concerned with it.
- What I was trying to do here was impose some sort of chronological order, but I am open to suggestions as to how this might be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure about the term "liberation struggle" to define the West Saharan independence movement. It might be fairly accurate, but it's the kind of terminology I expressed a concern about above.
- Agreed; replaced with the less ideologically charged "independence struggle". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Jamahiriya: Revolutionary committees and furthering socialism
- I don't have anything wrong with the third paragraph's content; however, a few phrases (1978 saw the Libyan government push toward socialism and the like) are a bit redundant.
- What pressures led to Hafez al-Assad's withdrawal from unification plans? It's not too important, but adds better context; the situation seems reminiscent of the Tunisian deal with Bourguiba, except that Gaddafi remained allies with the Syrians.
- Unfortunately I don't know; I would have included information on the issue if I had come across it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Jamahiriya: "International Pariah"
- I agree that a characterization of the Jamahiriya as a Soviet puppet is inaccurate, but can you extrapolate on this? He did have very close ties to the Russians.
- I based this statement on what I read in various sources; Reagan was misguided in thinking that Gaddafi basically took his orders from the Kremlin. In reality, the Soviet government were very wary of Gaddafi because they recognised him as a loose cannon who could not be controlled nor reasoned with much of the time. However, they were willing to trade with Libya and sell them military hardware because they recognised Gaddafi's utility to them in being a general nuisance to NATO and also rather liked the idea of an oil-rich state that was not beholden to the US. I personally feel that this paragraph is fairly clear on the issue, but am happy to discuss it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Double-check for minor grammatical and punctuation errors here; I'll fix the ones I saw, but there might be other small ones.
- The "names of the month" thing seems an odd way to end the section; what did he change them to? Did Libya use the Islamic or Gregorian calendar prior to this, and did it stick with the model previously used?
- I wholeheartedly agree that it seems like an odd thing to have at the end of this section, as it thematically does not relate to that which was being discussed before it. Initially I had placed it elsewhere, but ultimately I decided on placing it where it currently resides because, chronologically speaking, that it where it belongs. But again, I am open to discussion about moving it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Jamahiriya: "Revolution Within a Revolution"
- Is the word "erroneously" accurate when describing his claims about political prisoners? Would "falsely" be better?
- Sounds good to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am confused by the phrase "The Revolutionary Committees experienced a resurgence..." Did Gaddafi give them more authority? It seems doubtful that they received this renewal of importance on their own.
- I'm afraid to say I don't know, but I suspect Gaddafi was behind it. Vandewalle simply says that they experienced a resurgence to fight the Islamists. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Did his popular militia become the Libyan army, and was it an element of this force that launched the failed coup referenced toward the end of this section?
- Although the sources weren't too clear on this, I would suspect that it was another example of Gaddafi making a proclamation of radical reform but which didn't really get going on the ground. The elements who launched the failed coup were from the traditional army, who were being increasingly marginalized by Gaddafi, so I've made that a little clearer in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Jamahiriya: Pan-Africanism, reconciliation and privatization
- A phrase in this section calls Gaddafi one of the AU's founding "figureheads". Not sure how that got in there.
- Replaced with "founders"; Gaddafi was an important figure in the creation of the AU, which perhaps partly explains why retains a popular legacy across much of the continent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is British or American English standard in this article? I just noticed the word "utilised". If it is British English, it should be standardized throughout. If American, the same applies.
- I don't know; considering North Africa is on Europe's doorstep, I think that British English might be more appropriate, but it's not something I feel strongly about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I find it odd that he was disturbed by the idea of a "black Europe" but was interested in pan-African alliances. This is just my personal opinion, but is there any way to explore this disparity within the context of the article? If not, it's completely fine as it stands.
- At this time, Gaddafi was proud of his African identity, and in this context he didn't use "black Europe" in order to be derogatory to black people. However, he believed strongly in retaining traditional cultural identities, and was friendly with some European right-wingers, like Silvio Berlusconi, who were not terribly favourable toward the idea of increased African immigration to Europe. So what he was trying to convey here was that Europeans should be concerned that their distinct cultural identity would be lost were the "indigenous" white European population to be displaced by African immigrants. At the same time, he was also keen that the EU start giving Libya a lot of financial handouts, and so was pandering to what he thought many European policy makers wanted him to say; he was playing on their fears of exponential immigration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've changed the wording to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mean to seem burdensome, but could you include more of what you've said above, if you can source it? I'm no longer concerned about the length of biographical content; Gaddafi was a man of many nuances, so length is probably best in terms of quality. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm... I think that's a fair request, but I'm not sure how I would go about sourcing that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mean to seem burdensome, but could you include more of what you've said above, if you can source it? I'm no longer concerned about the length of biographical content; Gaddafi was a man of many nuances, so length is probably best in terms of quality. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Libyan civil war: Origins
- Would it be possible somehow to provide more context for the uprising in the section above? In particular, what led to the high unemployment, especially with foreign investment in the country? Speaking of the section above, could the slave trade thing be placed somewhere else? It kind of comes out of the blue.
- I'm not aware of any reliable sources that provide that greater context; it probably exists somewhere, but I'm not aware of it if that is the case. Just off the top of my head, I don't think that foreign investment always leads to greater employment; many of these western corporations brought their own trained staff from western countries to Libya, rather than hiring from the native population, which might partly explain the issue. Also, the privatisation of large chunks of the economy led to drastic cut-backs to the (very large) public sector, which undoubtedly was a major cause of unemployment. I also scrapped the slave trade bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Libyan civil war: NATO intervention
- I would suggest changes to the structure and tone of the last paragraph. It insinuates that Gaddafi retained popular support even after Tripoli fell; in fact, the Scott Taylor article used as a source (talking about the 3,000 tribes supporting him) was written before the capital was taken.
- I've started making a few changes, but would appreciate a bit more guidance here, if that's okay ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of course. Basically, I would prefer if the Scott Taylor stuff is mentioned before explaining that Tripoli fell in the 20th. The rebels' capture of the capital was a boost to the NTC, not to Gaddafi, so I don't think the Taylor article is relevant as a source for subsequent events. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Someone else added the Taylor stuff, rather than myself, and I must admit that I would rather see some corroborating sources on this issue. I mean, how would one even go about collecting approval ratings in the midst of a civil war ? Nevertheless, I've moved it and edited it down a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of course. Basically, I would prefer if the Scott Taylor stuff is mentioned before explaining that Tripoli fell in the 20th. The rebels' capture of the capital was a boost to the NTC, not to Gaddafi, so I don't think the Taylor article is relevant as a source for subsequent events. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've started making a few changes, but would appreciate a bit more guidance here, if that's okay ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal and public life: Ideology
- It seems contradictory that Gaddafi supported women's entrance into male-dominated fields, yet generally wanted them to remain in traditional roles.
- I agree, but Gaddafi was a very contradictory individual. In several instances he seemed to hold conflicting and mutually exclusive opinions on the same subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal and public life: Personal life
- I think "family-oriented" is the correct term, not "family-orientated". See the first paragraph, third line.
- Thanks for pointing that one out! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Check for spelling consistency: "Azizia" instead of "Aziziya". The same applies to jamahiriya and jamahiriyah; there is an issue with this somewhere else in the article. I can deal with some of these smaller things.
- Part of the problem when dealing with subjects where the primary language isn't Latin based! But thanks for pointing that one out too! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal and public life: Public image
- I would suggest sources for the first two sentences, unless they're covered by Blundy and Lycett (the third sentence's source).
- Yes, they are all from the Blundy and Lycett reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking of this, I've noticed that a lot of important info in the article is attributed to Blundy and Lycett. This isn't an obstacle for GA, but there is a rather heavy reliance on older material. If any new biographies of similar quality have surfaced, they might provide even more than what Blundy and Lycett had at their disposal.
- Unfortunately, with Gaddafi it's a case of a lot of the older material being a lot better in quality than some of the newer publications. In fact a lot of the newer stuff, like Kawczynski's biography, largely consists of rehashed information gleaned from those older biographies. Now that Gaddafi's dead and Libya is a representative democracy, I hope that historians will be able to work more freely over there and produce some fantastic biographical and historical studies of Gaddafi and his regime. If and when that's the case, then I shall be sure to make ammendments to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Honors and awards
- This section takes up a lot of space, and includes a lot of minor awards (e.g. the Collar of the Order of the White Lion, etc.). Couldn't a separate article be created for this? The major ones could still be listed here.
- I've moved this entire section to List of awards and honours bestowed upon Muammar Gaddafi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again, referring to the British vs American English thing: should it be "honours" or "honors"?
Legacy
- I understand that most Wikipedia bios have an obligatory "legacy" section, but is this one really necessary? Most of the info could be included elsewhere in the article; actually, some of it should be (e.g. reactions to his death, the changes to Libyan government following the revolution). The human rights record information should also be described in detail earlier in the article.
- Hmm... I personally think that the "Legacy" section is important. Admittedly it's less important than political leaders who had movements that continued to thrive after their deaths (i.e. Mao, Chavez, etc), but I still would rather see it left. I'm open to being convinced otherwise however! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Old notice
- Sorry for the lack of progress on the review today; I will have some free time tomorrow during which I can get it completed. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No worries; there is no rush on my behalf. It's just great that you are offering such a useful review. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
Comment
Question about NPOV, or lack thereof, in the article. I'm not sure the general level of length/detail and feeling of reverence for Ghaddafi is appropriate, especially in light of his unsuccessful threats to hunt down rebels "street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe", and subsequent killing.
For example, the issue of the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland where 270 people died is not mentioned in the lede -- the BBC obituary mentions it in the second paragraph -- but the "1986 U.S. bombing of Libya and United Nations-imposed economic sanctions" are, and we are given this fine distinction about his rule in the second sentence of the article:
"Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011 ..."
Likewise, there is a mention of how a "... particularly hostile relationship developed with the United States and United Kingdom", but nothing about the funding of the IRA, or the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher that might have provided an explanation of why the UK was less than friendly to the Colonel. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC) -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I am reviewing the article for GA and am going to address the lead last - a bit of an odd placement, but I wanted to get the content review done first. The lead is far more problematic than the rest of the article; however, the article is exceptionally long, so the content review is a bit larger. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Counter-comment
As the primary contributor to this page (whose contributions are under criticism), I take issue with the assertion that the prose used here exhibits a "feeling of reverence" for Gaddafi, and I contend that there is no evidence to support such an accusation. I also see no reason why Gaddafi's comments during the civil war and subsequent death somehow mean that there is less need for the "general level of length/detail" in this article; does an individual's death mean that what they achieved in life somehow becomes less significant ? If so, the entire discipline of history would be sorely negated. Furthermore, with all due respect to my fellow Wikipedia editor, I think that BoogaLouie's moralistic tone ("especially in light of his unsuccessful threats...") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as this one; it's fine if they don't like Gaddafi (I don't either), but this is not the place to express moral and/or ethical judgement of his actions, and to edit the page according to those opinions. This is the place to explain his historical significance, without ethical judgement.
Regarding BoogaLouie's more specific points, I must also express grave misgivings. It is a significant fact of Gaddafi's life that under his regime, a particularly hostile relationship developed with the U.S. and U.K, something that had significant repercussions for Libya's standing in the world. This occurred for a wide variety of different reasons, and not just those which BoogaLouie states here. The murder of Yvonne Fletcher (as appalling as I personally might find it), is really not very significant in the grand scheme of Gaddafi's life and regime, and would certainly not warrant inclusion in the introduction. We also have no need to explicitly state that Gaddafi's Libya funded the IRA here, because we already state that his administration "fund[ed] revolutionary militants across the world." Arguing that these things should be included in the introduction is pushing a very Anglocentric slant on the article, which is not in any way appropriate for Wikipedia.
Let's be clear on this: I am not a Gaddafist, nor am I favourable to Gaddafi. However, I am trying to pursue the path of neutrality on this issue and ensure that this article paints a fair, NPOV picture of this historically significant figure. Much western media (i.e. the BBC) has sought to almost exclusively demonise Gaddafi, emphasising his support for foreign revolutionaries/terrorists and his regime's human rights abuses while ignoring any social and/or economic achievements that his supporters praise him for. This is not surprising; after all, Gaddafi was a vociferous enemy of the West for most of his regime, and many of his actions are at complete odds with common western moral values. However, this largely negative image of Gaddafi does not accord with the more balanced picture that you will see in much Latin American, Sub-Saharan African, and Asian media, as well as in academic and specialist works of Libyan studies. For this reason I take issue with BoogaLouie's position, which appears to be arguing that in order to be more NPOV, this article should look more like western media obituaries of Gaddafi; I think that doing so actually makes this article less NPOV! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is neutral
I'm going to say that this article is actually one of the best articles on Wikipedia, neutrality wise.... Considering the fact on how his rule ended, Midnightblueowl has written a good article. I don't feel there is any reverence for Gaddafi in this text, there are facts. An example of an article which is not neutral is the Hafez al-Assad page (which is factual inaccurate, and the whole article is written in a pro-Assad tone), this, in contrast, is well written and when it comes to the accusation that the author revers Gaddafi those are , well, false. --TIAYN (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
NPOV analysis
I've decided to address this, as NPOV is an aspect of a good article review. To be clear, I do not see any non-neutral content in the article. While I would suggest that information on exactly why Libyan relations with the US and UK deteriorated be included in the lead, not including the IRA and Yvonne Fletcher items makes sense. As Midnightblueowl pointed out, these are really not essential to a biography of the man. They might well be crucial to History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi — an article needing much more work than the one in question — but are less important here, despite their historical significance. I have asked BoogaLouie to provide concrete examples of missing NPOV or a tone suggesting reverence of Gaddafi; I am highly skeptical that any can be found, and am inclined to disregard these concerns in proceeding with the review. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- From a Libyan perspective, the killing of Yvonne Fletcher and the financing of the IRA were fairly minor events; the only articles where (in my opinion) they deserve a mention in the lead would be in Murder of Yvonne Fletcher (obviously), and Libya-United Kingdom relations. Placing such information in the lede anywhere else would really be pushing a very Anglocentric (and by extension western-centric) approach to the subject of Libyan history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. I am in no way pushing for that stuff to be included in the lead here, as it's really not biographical material anyway. I do think that Lockerbie is important enough to be included, though. What is your opinion regarding that? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would certainly not be averse to the mention of information on the Lockerbie Bombing in the lead, as it did have significant repercussions for Libya. However, I think that we would have to be very careful about the language that we use. Although Gaddafi's Libya accepted official culpability for the bombing in order to end UN sanctions, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and many segments of Libya's government continued to assert that they were not responsible, and similarly al-Megrahi went to his grave professing his innocence. International organisations and figures like Nelson Mandela were very sceptical that Megrahi had had a fair trial, and even British Conservative biographer of Gaddafi, Daniel Kawczynski, expressed great scepticism over the verdict. Ignoring the fringe conspiracy theories that claim it was a western false flag operation, many reputable figures express doubt over Libya's guilt, suspecting a Syrian or Iranian origin for the attack. As such, I'm more than happy to see the lede state that the UK and US held Libya responsible for the bombing, but I don't think that we can state outright that Libya – or Gaddafi – were actually responsible for it, as if it were on un-disputed objective fact. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am perfectly fine with the "held responsible" qualifier, as long as the bombing is included. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've added the information to the introduction, with the qualifier "alleged". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am perfectly fine with the "held responsible" qualifier, as long as the bombing is included. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would certainly not be averse to the mention of information on the Lockerbie Bombing in the lead, as it did have significant repercussions for Libya. However, I think that we would have to be very careful about the language that we use. Although Gaddafi's Libya accepted official culpability for the bombing in order to end UN sanctions, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and many segments of Libya's government continued to assert that they were not responsible, and similarly al-Megrahi went to his grave professing his innocence. International organisations and figures like Nelson Mandela were very sceptical that Megrahi had had a fair trial, and even British Conservative biographer of Gaddafi, Daniel Kawczynski, expressed great scepticism over the verdict. Ignoring the fringe conspiracy theories that claim it was a western false flag operation, many reputable figures express doubt over Libya's guilt, suspecting a Syrian or Iranian origin for the attack. As such, I'm more than happy to see the lede state that the UK and US held Libya responsible for the bombing, but I don't think that we can state outright that Libya – or Gaddafi – were actually responsible for it, as if it were on un-disputed objective fact. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. I am in no way pushing for that stuff to be included in the lead here, as it's really not biographical material anyway. I do think that Lockerbie is important enough to be included, though. What is your opinion regarding that? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply
Theodore! asked me to offer
any specific examples of "reverent tone" or lack of neutrality within the article. It's hard for me to understand exactly what you're talking about unless I have concrete examples.
I guess I would have to say it's more the context, than the words that give the article, what IMHO a "reverent tone"
For example "... he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011 ...", is a factual statement (I'm pretty sure), but -- I would argue -- not of lede-level importance (and the lede is very long). Murder of Yvonne Fletcher -- where a police constable keeping protestors apart at the Libyan embassy was killed by automatic gunfire coming from the embassy -- i.e. by a embassy employee -- followed by Libyan radio reports that the embassy was stormed and that those in the building fired back in self-defence against "a most horrible terrorist action" -- all this is highly unusual in international relations. It caused a "siege" of the embassy by British police, was given huge billing in the British press, caused a rupture of diplomatic relations between the two countries, and the retaliatory holding of six British nationals as political hostages in Libya by "a Revolutionary Committee" for nine months. (In 1999, the government of Muammar Gaddafi accepted responsibility for her death and agreed to pay compensation to her family)
It might very well merit some mention in the article. (see below) Say: "events such as the 1984 killing of British police constable Yvonne Fletcher by gunfire coming from the Libyan embassy contributed to deterioration of British-Libyian relations," or shorter.
The IRA funding IMHO should also be mentioned. It may be true that "From a Libyan perspective, the killing of Yvonne Fletcher and the financing of the IRA were fairly minor events", but this is an encyclopedia with an international perspective not a Libyan one.
Doing a little research I found a line from Jane's Intelligence Review saying by 1996 "it is believed that the bulk of the material presently in IRA arsenals was shipped from Libya in the mid-1980s ..." Boyne, Sean. "uncovering the Irish Republican Army". 1996 August 1. Frontline PBS.org, reprinted from Jane's Intelligence Review. Retrieved 2013 August 19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help).
From Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign_1969–97#Libyan_arms:
In the mid-1980s, the Provisional IRA received large quantities of modern weaponry, including heavy weaponry such as heavy machine guns, over 1,000 rifles, several hundred handguns, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, surface-to-air missiles and the plastic explosive Semtex from the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi. There were four successful shipments between 1985 and 1986, three of these trips were carried out by the trawler Casamara and a fourth by the oil-rig replenisher Villa. All said, they brought in 110 tons of weaponry.[1][2][3] A fifth arms cargo on board the coaster Eksund was confiscated by the French Navy in 1987.[4] Reportedly, Gaddafi donated enough weapons to arm the equivalent of two infantry battalions.[5]
What did the I.R.A. do with its material? They came very close to killing PM Thatcher and her cabinet in the 1984 Brighton hotel bombing. They did well over £1 billion in damage in the 1992 Baltic_Exchange bombing, 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, and 1996 Manchester bombing, to name just the biggest bombings I know of.
In short I think it deserves more mention than the remark that Gaddafi "fund[ed] revolutionary militants across the world." (see below)
--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your first point is that the sentence "... he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011 ..." is not worthy of being in the opening paragraph of the introduction. If we were to extend that logic to other articles devoted to political leaders, then on the Barack Obama page we should be content to state that "he ruled America" rather than that he was "... President of the United States". The sentence which you find objectionable states – clearly and simply – what Gaddafi's official position was, and the full name of the nation-state in which that position existed. I cannot personally see how such vitally important information could be anything but lead paragraph material! If you are arguing that we should be treating Gaddafi's Wikipedia page differently than that of other world leaders (for whatever reason), then that would be a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- But who gave Gadaffi those titles? Who says he's/he was head of Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya rather than the Libyan Republic? Gadaffi does/did. So for outsiders, a simple "he ruled" for the
firstsecond sentence should suffice. As for Obama, the US has a 200-year-old constitution. There are a lot more people and institutions involved in US titles.
- But who gave Gadaffi those titles? Who says he's/he was head of Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya rather than the Libyan Republic? Gadaffi does/did. So for outsiders, a simple "he ruled" for the
- Your second point appears to be arguing that we should include information on Yvonne Fletcher's murder and Libya's funding of the IRA in the introduction of this article. I have critiqued this idea elsewhere in this thread, and shown it to be rooted in Anglocentrism. You then comment that such events "might very well merit some mention in the article". This perplexes me, because if you read the article you will see that information on both events is indeed included here, at the appropriate chronological juncture. I believe strongly that information on these events should be in the article; my objection is to them being included in the introductory paragraphs, as if they were major occurances in Gaddafi's life and the history of modern Libya, which they quite simply aren't. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please excuse my sloppiness. "might very well merit some mention in the article" The article mentions both. So that leaves the wording.
- Diplomatic relations also broke down with the U.K., after Libyan diplomats were accused of shooting dead Yvonne Fletcher, a British policewoman stationed outside their London embassy, in April 1984
- Was there more than just accusation? The official inquest into Fletcher's death concluded she had been killed by shots from a Sterling submachine gun fired from the first floor of the Libyan embassy. (quoting wiki article on the murder) In 1999, Libya admitted "general responsibility" for her killing, and agreed to pay compensation to her family. The authorities in Tripoli also agreed to cooperate with detectives from the anti-terrorist branch investigating the case. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/27/newsid_2502000/2502565.stm
- The article also says
Meanwhile, Libya stepped up its support for anti-western militants such as the Provisional IRA.
Not just "fund[ed] revolutionary militants across the world", as I erroneously stated.
I suggest that the sentence needs something more to say about what the support amounted to, and what its consequences were. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please excuse my sloppiness. "might very well merit some mention in the article" The article mentions both. So that leaves the wording.
- I agree with Midnightblueowl completely in regard to the title. His title, as extravagant as it was, was his legal title, and it needs to be included in the lead for accuracy's sake. In addition, I understand why the Yvonne Fletcher and IRA stuff might not be considered lead-worthy material. I still feel that it's important in a detailed discussion of his foreign policy, or in an article on his regime, but this is a biographical piece, and it's hard to justify its inclusion in the lead. I am open to hearing BoogaLouie's comments on this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The lede is quote long (almost as long as the lede for Mao Zedong and about as long as VI Lenin's, rather more significant historical leaders) and talks about Gaddafi's titles twice
- In the first paragraph of the lede:
- Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan civil war. and
- in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:
- Becoming Chairman of the governing Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), he dissolved the monarchy and proclaimed the Republic. Ruling by decree, he implemented measures to remove what he viewed as foreign imperialist influence from Libya, and strengthened ties to Arab nationalist governments. Intent on pushing Libya toward "Islamic socialism", he introduced sharia as the basis for the legal system and nationalized the oil industry, using the increased revenues to bolster the military, implement social programs and fund revolutionary militants across the world. In 1973 he initiated a "Popular Revolution" with the formation of General People's Committees (GPCs), a system of direct democracy, but retained personal control over major decisions. He outlined his Third International Theory that year, publishing these ideas in The Green Book.
- The lede is quote long (almost as long as the lede for Mao Zedong and about as long as VI Lenin's, rather more significant historical leaders) and talks about Gaddafi's titles twice
- In 1977, he dissolved the Republic and created the Jamahiriya, a "state of the masses" part-governed by GPCs. Officially adopting a symbolic role in governance, he retained power as military commander-in-chief and head of the Revolutionary Committees responsible for policing and suppressing opponents.
- If you shorten the second sentence: Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled Libya until 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan civil war.
- You still have all the detail in the second and third paragraph --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I strongly disagree with this suggestion. Gaddafi might not have had the global significance of Mao or Lenin, but he was still a very important part of 20th century history, and in particular of modern Arab history, thereby warranting this level of detail in the introduction. I have already tried to cut down the introduction to its bare bones, leaving nothing superfluous; what is left, I deem absolutely essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Why does the civil war and his death matter?
I also see no reason why Gaddafi's comments during the civil war and subsequent death somehow mean that there is less need for the "general level of length/detail" in this article; does an individual's death mean that what they achieved in life somehow becomes less significant?
Maybe this is kind of obvious, but if you bill yourself as a revolutionary leader and founder of a system of direct democracy, but then respond to a civilian uprising for greater freedom, not with offers of dialog but with threats to hunt down rebels "street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe",
and then (admittedly with the help of foreign airpower) are defeated and killed by those you promised to hunt down street by street etc. …
well then your claim to fame is greatly diminished, it would seem to me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right; indeed, I don't really disagree with you. But we are not judges of reputation. We are contributors with a goal of creating accurate content. A person who ruled a country for forty years inevitably did quite a bit with said country; it is important that this information be described somewhere. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't there have to be some judgement by editors in a wikipedia article? i.e. the more important the figure or issue the longer the article? Sure we have to leave judgement to posterity, but according to my calculations the text source for this article 140 kb compared to 147 kb for Gamal Abdel Nasser's article. i.e. the article is huge. Surely no one would argue Gaddafi has had anything like the impact of Nasser. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Gaddafi's "claim to fame" was certainly not diminished by his overthrow and death. These events gained global media coverage and scrutiny, with public outpourings of grief in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and public celebration in many parts of the Arab world. In death, he remained as famous, if not more famous, than in life. I disagree with your assertion that your argument here is "kind of obvious"; with due respect, I think it is illogical. Although you have not expressed it clearly, I believe that what you are trying to convey is that Gaddafi's Third International Theory is of less relevance now, because in later life he both negated many of his claims to being a great advocate of democracy with his violent actions, and because his Jamahariyah system was overthrown. I agree that Third International Theory is less relevant to the world today than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. But this article is about a historical figure, and is therefore about discussing the past. For this reason a discussion of the establishment of the Jamahariyah and his ideological ideas are incredibly important things to have in the introduction. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I have read through BoogaLouie's concerns. I don't mean to ignore them, but I do feel that the length of the article is appropriate given the variety of issues involving or instigated by Gaddafi. I agree with Midnightblueowl that the jamahiriya content is important to the lead; even though he created the titles, they were just as "official" in Libya as similar ones elsewhere (President, Shah, etc.). Regarding neutrality, I am fairly unconcerned. Nothing in the article leads me to believe there is pro-Gaddafi bias to the piece; it is not an obituary, and reflects an appropriately neutral stance. I am inclined to pass the article once I have read through all of Midnightblueowl's responses to my comments (I have replied to the more recent ones), and will post a checklist when I am finished. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot comprehend the argument that since Gaddafi didn't have the same influence on the world as Nasser and Lenin did, he doesn't deserve a long article... While there is rule on lengths of an article, there is not rules on how long articles should be based on importance.. Secondly, most articles on famous individuals "cheat" there way through. To take one example, Early life of Joseph Stalin.... --TIAYN (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure about this "cheat" there way through, but you may be right that wikipedia rules do not encouraging varying the length of an article by importance. Which I think is too bad but I'll abide by the rules. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot comprehend the argument that since Gaddafi didn't have the same influence on the world as Nasser and Lenin did, he doesn't deserve a long article... While there is rule on lengths of an article, there is not rules on how long articles should be based on importance.. Secondly, most articles on famous individuals "cheat" there way through. To take one example, Early life of Joseph Stalin.... --TIAYN (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Article passed
I've passed the article. I'm satisfied with the nominator's revisions, and the article meets the GA criteria - compliance with MoS, proper sourcing, proper image use and copyright status, etc. I am comfortable with article weight and length, and do not feel that there is a NPOV problem. On the contrary, the length of the article and the details included within probably add a great deal of neutrality to the article, as the nominator and others have pointed out. I apologize for the excessive amount of time it took to complete this review, and understand that it was most likely a frustrating experience for the nominator. Again, my apologies to him, and my thanks for his work in responding and addressing the concerns I listed above. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
adding to personal life section
Made some changes and additions here. Got rid of the statement "Gaddafi was a womaniser ...." replacing it with "Other sources describe Gaddafi as "extraordinarily vain",[6] and a womaniser.[7] ..." ("vain" comes from the text Described by Blundy and Lycett as "extraordinarily vain",[6]) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted information
A fairly large amount (-1,860 bytes) of uncomplimentary information about Gaddafi (including accusations of rape) was deleted here under the edit summary "moving sentences to human rights abuse section." But they were deleted, not moved anywhere. And there is no human rights abuse section in the article.
If someone thinks the text violates some wikipedia policy then we can hash that out. Saying information was moved when it was deleted is a falsehood. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- BoogaLouie, I was editing the article. I had saved several incremental edits. At around 6 am on 3 Dec, or maybe 2 Dec, I was unable to make any edits to Wikipedia article namespace. I saved the entire section to my sandbox. I will replace and repair now. Please see my reply to your note in my talk page, in this section for further details. I apologize for causing concern! I am a Jewish woman, and am not trying to conceal the allegations regarding rape. I am sorry. I have no objections to most of the content. I just wanted to make it more current, as you can see from the edit log on Dec 2, 2013. Some sections were written as though Gaddafi were still alive. Also, there were chronological errors, as the Colonel's biography was written in 1987, thus could not be used as a source for events that occurred 10 to 20 years later. --FeralOink (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, but it certainly looked a little ... suspicious. -BoogaLouie (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I promise that I will never, EVER mess with things that I don't have an adequate understanding of! OMG, as we say on Reddit. I have been totally immersed in the Gaddafi-verse for the past three days. I only visited the page because of a StackOverflow regex question and answer about the multiple spellings of his name. The historical, religious, cultural and geopolitical milieau of Libya, the continent of Africa and the Middle East are VERY complicated for the not-well-informed! BoogaLouie, you have been extraordinarily patient, kind and even-tempered. The most rational, fair minded Wikipedians that I have encountered are Norwegian and German, particularly German chemists and electrical engineers. Until now. You have been as fair to me as they are. And so has everyone else who edits this page. Thank you! If you ever need any assistance with financial markets or securitization edits, please feel free to summon me. I love doing due diligence too. They know that already, on the "paid Wikipedia editing tribunal" page :o)
- I am chatty. I'll get to the point. I didn't add a human rights abuse section, as I realized that I was in over my head. This page takes forever to load every time I try to make an edit. Makes me wonder if I have been Drupal hell-banned, even though MediaWiki doesn't use Drupal! The only item of substance that I removed was the forced cocaine portion, as I couldn't find a source anywhere that referenced it. However, I replaced it with the more authoritative ICC prosecutor's statement about the use of rape of women as warfare by the Gaddafi-ists. The article from the Times of India is a sensationalized rehash of the ones from the UK, so I removed one of the ref's to it, but left another, as a compromise. I hope that is okay? One last observation: Eventually, the citation style to those two British biographers who wrote their book in 1987 is likely to cause a problem. I just wanted to mention that, although it isn't an issue at the moment. It would be a nightmare to change or convert (shudder). Again, thank you. Rest assured, I learned my lesson this time! (I don't know everything!!!) --FeralOink (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- ah fugetaboutit. I'm really not that patient, kind or even-tempered. Thank you for working on whatever StackOverflow regex is, and the details you attend to that help make wikipedia more readable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Harnden, pp. 239–245
- ^ Geraghty, p. 182
- ^ O'Brien, p. 137
- ^ "Provisional IRA's history of violence". BBC. 1 September 1998. Retrieved 9 July 2010.
- ^ Gadaffi sued by 160 victims of IRA | Politics | The Observer The Guardian, 23 April 2006
- ^ a b Blundy & Lycett 1987, p. 24.
- ^ Harris 1986, pp. 53–54; Blundy & Lycett 1987, pp. 22–23.
8th Richest Person Ever
So I was wandering through the internet and came about this page, which is a list of the wealthiest people that have ever lived adjusted for inflation, and Mr. Gaddafi was listed as number eight. I don't think I saw any mention of this in the article anywhere. Opinion in regards to the reliability of www.celebritynetworth.com varies greatly on Wikipedia. While many don't consider it reliable, I have seen it used many times on many different articles. So with that being said, does anyone else have an opinion as to adding this fact in the article somewhere? Possibly a quick mention in the lead or more likely in the personal life section. The only reason I think it is worth adding is because it seems like a pretty substantial fact. I mean he is considered to be the eighth richest person ever, I think that qualifies as interesting. Thoughts?Zdawg1029 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is surprising that the article doesn't discuss his wealth more. One problem is that much may still be hidden[1][2] but it should be possible to mention what is known and the continuing uncertainty. But it's a long step from there to saying he was the eighth richest person ever; that implies knowing his wealth and the wealth of others each in their own time, currency, property values, average incomes and so forth and then being able to compare those values across different times and societies. It's entertaining to rank William the Conqueror above Henry Ford with Gaddafi in between, but it's not robust and can't be called a fact, let alone pass Wikipedia's tests for verifiability. NebY (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would have serious concerns about using this as a reliable source here at Wikipedia. After all, it offers no explanation for precisely why Gaddafi is seen as being so high up on the list; perhaps it assumes that Gaddafi personally controlled or owned all of Libya's oil wealth, thus explaining why he is positioned so highly ? I'm certainly not averse to including information about Gaddafi's personal wealth here at the article, but we must be very careful to use reliable sources when doing so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Laughably false claims
Listing all the falsehoods in this article would not be worth the effort, but some of more hilarious ones are that Libya was wealthier than the U.K. or Italy in 1979, that the Libyan oil industry was "turned over" to foreign businesses in 2003, and that he had a 85% approval rating in 2011 (which if true should have given his forces 5:1 numerical superiority over the rebels).
CJK (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please cite appropriate references to support your assertions, CJK. Note too, that the information that you believe to be erroneous is indeed properly referenced in the article to academic and other scholarly analyses from specialists in Libya studies. For that reason I have a hard time believing your assertion that they are "laughably false", but nevertheless, thank you for your interest in this article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- The per-capita income numbers seem to be correct.
- The material on the 2003 changes in the oil industry is very vague. Was it sold to foreign businesses? A more complete explanation would improve the article.
- The approval rating is not referenced from an "academic [or] other scholarly analyses from specialists in Libya studies." It is a quote from a newspaper columnist. A stronger reference would be an improvement.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello there SaskatchewanSenator; thanks for your input! I've made the appropriate correction to the text that reflects that large parts of the oil industry were sold to foreign corporations. Your third point is valid, and I will examine the appropriateness of that reference and the information it contains. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks like the information in question stems from a journalist working for Sri Lankan newspaper, The Sunday Times. It does not seem to be the most reliable of sources, and I've been unable to locate other reliable sources that back up its claims; ideally of course we would want a reference from a peer-reviewed academic publication in the field of Libya studies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello there SaskatchewanSenator; thanks for your input! I've made the appropriate correction to the text that reflects that large parts of the oil industry were sold to foreign corporations. Your third point is valid, and I will examine the appropriateness of that reference and the information it contains. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- "which if true should have given his forces 5:1 numerical superiority over the rebels" yet this is true, just how many native Libyan were in the rebels? Libyan were largely lost to foreign terrorism who had since move on into the fold of ISIL. western country stupidity in Libya has done nothing but armed radical in the region and help them build their own state. Akinkhoo (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Term end date
I understand the rationale behind 23 August 2011, as it was clear by that point that Gaddafi was rapidly losing control of his country (with his capital falling under rebel control and his brigades being effectively routed in western Libya). But for the purposes of the WikiProject, I'm not so sure. The civil war continued up until his death in Sirte, which the NTC and NATO hailed as overall victory and Ban Ki-moon said marked "a historic transition": [3] Gaddafi continued to act as head of state for his increasingly beleaguered government well past the fall of Tripoli; for instance, he declared Sirte to be the new capital in September: [4] Therefore, I suggest taking the latest reasonable end date for his term: his capture and death on 20 October. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's a very sticky situation. Generally, I'm happy for you to make the change but I think it would be worth looking into the possibility of there being any Wikipedia guidelines to advise us in this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Broken footnotes
This page had a lot of broken Harvard references – shortened footnotes that, when clicked on, don't take the reader to the relevant long-form citation (you can use this script to easily locate broken references). I fixed most of them, but some can only be fixed by someone familiar with the sources:
- Refs 53 and 57 cite "Bruce St. John 2011"; the only source in the bibliograpy by Bruce St. John was published in 2012. I assume this is the source that's meant, but I'd be happier if someone with access to the source could check on that.
- Refs 264 and 267 cite Bruce St. John without providing a year; again, it's likely the 2012 source is intended, but this should be checked.
- Ref 141 cites "Vandewalle 2012"; there are two sources by this author, one published in 2008 and one in 2011, so this needs clarifying.
Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Gaddafi Sharia was not a traditional Sharia, but a reformed version
Gaddafi stablished a reformed version of the sharia. It was based on the quran only and was a new kind of fiqh (Islamic law). it was mainly used for civil law. it also did not use the hadiths as a legal base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.206.87 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
وارث معمرقذافی
درذهن من مشغله فکریست شماهم جای من بودیدشایدسرسام میگرفتید.موضوع بسیارساده قابل فهم.قانونیست اماکوگوش شنوا؟ابنجاست که قانون2+2میشود؟؟؟و Fre58ezzat (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Given that this is the English-language Wikipedia, it would be good if you could leave your messages in English and in Latin script so that everyone can understand them. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141026154711/http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2011/06/judges-order-arrest-gadhafi-son-slayings to http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2011/06/judges-order-arrest-gadhafi-son-slayings
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015
 | This edit request to Muammar Gaddafi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Copypaste of infobox removed
79.17.183.151 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done This is not a "spot the difference competition"
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 20, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-10-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Airstrike 2011
Attempt to kill Gaddafi, however, is taking place without either a declaration of war by the US and European powers against Libya or even the invocation of the provisions of the War Powers Act and assasination of a certain person is a crime, even when theres a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.19.244 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The US has not declared war on anyone since 1942. (79.67.110.251 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
Soviet Union and Falklands
Gaddafi's Libya was a puppet state of the Soviet Union. Also the article should mention his active support for Argentina in the Falklands War. (79.67.110.251 (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC))
- Do you have any reliable references to support your claims? Certainly, the biographical studies of Gaddafi do not endorse the view that Libya was a Soviet puppet state. While Gaddafi undoubtedly was closer to the Soviets than the Western powers during the 1970s and 1980s, bear in mind that Gaddafist Libya never joined the Warsaw Pact, never embraced Marxism-Leninism, and existed for two decades after the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Gaddafi's ideological writings meanwhile espoused a path to socialism that he deemed to be quite distinct from the atheistic attitude of the Marxist-Leninists, even if there were undoubted similarities between Gaddafist and Marxist thought. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Gaddafi repeatedly threatened to join the Warsaw Pact and his regime was entirely dependent on aid from the Soviet Union. His policies changed considerably after the collapse of the USSR. The Soviets provided all the weapons he sent to Argentina in the Falklands War. (79.67.110.251 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
RfC on Lede Image
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The Basic Question: Which image of Gaddafi should we use in the opening Infobox - the established 1973 image or the 2009 image? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Longer explanation: Back when I brought the article up to GA status in September 2013, we had an image of Gaddafi taken in 2009 in the Infobox. Since then, another editor replaced that image with a photograph of Gaddafi from 1973, which in my opinion was more suitable because it depicted this political leader in his heyday, at the point when he was arguably most relevant on the world stage. At various points since 2013 other editors have added the 2009 image back into the Infobox, and others (myself included) have then reverted their edits, seeking to start the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle (although none have taken up the offer to Discuss the situation). Most recently, over the past few days User:Outedexits has repeatedly changed the lede image to the 2009 photograph, engaging in edit warring in order to do so and making some very uncivil comments about editors who disagree with them in their edit summaries (for instance "Who was the idiot that thought it'd be a good idea to add a black and white picture of gadaffi taken in 1973"). This being the case, I had a word with them on their Talk Page and have decided to bring the question here to RFC.
So, should we use the 1973 image or the 2009 image in the Infobox? The 2009 image is beautifully clear and colourful, but depicts Gaddafi as an old man, toward the end of his life, and also shows him scowling, which perhaps presents an unnecessarily negative visual portrayal of the man. Conversely, the 1973 image, which is also quite clear but is in black-and-white, portrays him in the prime of life and is a more 'neutral' image, as it were. Undoubtedly both images should be included in the article at some point, but the issue of dispute lies in which should be our lede picture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- As a note, it's so funny and ironic that in the section right above this one it says that the 2009 image is going to be the Picture Of The Day. Outedexits (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Midnightblueowl: What do you have to say about that? Outedexits (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- What is there to say? I've never denied that the 2009 photograph is of very good quality and deserves to remain in the article. However, I am still unsure that it is our best option for lede image, because a) it depicts Gaddafi in later life, after his socio-political status had arguably declined, and b) it depicts him scowling, which may be unduly 'negative'. For those reasons I deem the 1973 image, which shows Gaddafi in a more 'neutral' light and at the most significant part of his life, to be more appropriate for the infobox. Anyway, let's see what other editors have to say. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't find it neither funny, nor ironic. Being a WP:POTD just means it is a featured picture randomly picked that day. The 1973 image is not even eligible for such (see WP:FP?). So what? What does it have to do with being or not a good choice for lead picture? --Usien6 msg • his 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: just comparing the two images, I personally don't recognize him in the 1973 image. I would prefer the 2009 image or a third option, but I'll wait to weigh in after other comments. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Dear @Sturmgewehr88: The 2009 Gaddafi is certainly more recognizable than the 1973 one for everyone. Why? Because it is chronologically nearer to us. This is how we see him every day on the news. Journals are meant to be read in the very same day and to be rapidly understood without further research, so it's a lot more likely to publish newer photos than older ones. Also, due to technological and cultural shifts of the 2000's, recent photos are much more available than old photos. On the other hand, unlike journals, encyclopedias are WP:TIMELESS. They are meant to leave a record for the future generations. So, take the 10 years test: in 2025, will the 2009 Gaddafi be anything more recognizable than the 1973 one? I could bet in 2035 most of the people, educated or not, won't even acknowledge his existence! --Usien6 msg • his 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with the innovation. As Midnightblueowl pointed out, the innovative version undoubtedly portrays Gaddafi in an unfair and derogatory manner, while the well-stabilished version is neutral. Our fellow also brilliantly noted that the earlier portrayal comes from a time when the Gaddafi's relevance in the geopolitical scenario was a lot higher. Condemn Outedexits' behavior. Firstly, for his scandalous edit summary, which should be punished with a block. (in verbis, Who was the idiot that thought it'd be a good idea to add a black and white picture of gadaffi taken in 1973). Later, for having committed the innovative version more than three times before consensus in this talk page. --Usien6 msg • his 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- PS.: Knowing that it may sound like an ad hominen at the first sight, I'm compelled, though, to bring up the following fact: the author of the innovation is under investigation for sock-puppetry. I'm confident you'll agree that such kind information is indeed relevant in the context of an edit-war RFC due to its nature. --Usien6 msg • his 03:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- As an update, it might be worth pointing out that Outedexits has been found guilty of sock puppeting and issued with an indefinite block on editing Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- PS.: Knowing that it may sound like an ad hominen at the first sight, I'm compelled, though, to bring up the following fact: the author of the innovation is under investigation for sock-puppetry. I'm confident you'll agree that such kind information is indeed relevant in the context of an edit-war RFC due to its nature. --Usien6 msg • his 03:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Use 2009 Image. As others have said, the 2009 is more iconic, more recognizable. If I had seen the 1973 image without caption and been asked who it was, I would not have been able to answer. It is true he is not smiling in the 2009 picture and looks less than happy (I wouldn't call his expression an "evil scowl"!) but he did meet his end being killed by a mob, so perhaps looking a bit glum is not unfitting for the lede picture. (editor replying to "feedback request service" for RfCs) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The 1973 image depicts a Gaddafi who is almost unrecognizable and I also don't believe 1973 was his "prime". At the same time, I also believe the 2009 image is not a neutral choice because of that evil scowl. Surely, there are more images available that could be used instead of these two for the infobox, even if a Commons image needs to be cropped. Preferable, the infobox image should be relatively recent and should depict the subject neutrally. What about this image: File:Muammar al-Gaddafi 1-1.jpg or this one: File:Muammar al-Gaddafi-30112006.jpg? Also, I think the 1973 image should be kept in the article: it's a great quality image of Gaddafi as a young leader. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Use 1973 Image - As others have previously mentioned, I think that the 1973 image is a better option due to it's professional and neutral look. Yes, the 2009 photo may be more recognizable but I also think it depicts him in a negative and derogatory light. He is scowling in the photo, which immediately triggers a sense of negativity. The 1973 photo may be a little old for younger readers, (perhaps there are more recent pictures that could be suggested), but for now I think it should be the photo used in the infobox. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Use 2009 image. There seem to be a lot of emotional issues going on here. But looking only at "The Basic Question: Which image of Gaddafi should we use in the opening Infobox - the established 1973 image or the 2009 image?", I would say use the 2009 image for two reasons: it is much more recent, and it is much more recognizable.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)- Yet as was pointed out above, Wikipedia is supposed to avoid recentism, and thus the statement that it should be used because it is more recent doesn't hold water here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had not heard of "recentism" before, so I checked out WP:RECENTISM. And I applied the ten-year test. And I can honestly say that I believe, at least for the next decade, it is likely that the 2009 photo will be more representative of how he is remembered, discussed, etc. than the 1973 photo. That may or may not be the case twenty or thirty years from now; but the photo could always be changed then if appropriate. So with all due respect, I stand by my previously stated position in favor of the 2009 photo.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had not heard of "recentism" before, so I checked out WP:RECENTISM. And I applied the ten-year test. And I can honestly say that I believe, at least for the next decade, it is likely that the 2009 photo will be more representative of how he is remembered, discussed, etc. than the 1973 photo. That may or may not be the case twenty or thirty years from now; but the photo could always be changed then if appropriate. So with all due respect, I stand by my previously stated position in favor of the 2009 photo.
- Yet as was pointed out above, Wikipedia is supposed to avoid recentism, and thus the statement that it should be used because it is more recent doesn't hold water here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Use a color image if possible. Neither of these images are ideal. The 1973 one definitely has recognizability problems because of its age, and it doesn't represent Qaddafi as he usually was (he was prone to wearing various uniforms and pseudo-uniforms with military decorations, and, later, elaborate forms of traditional dress, but not often seen in business suits like contemporary leaders in most other countries. He set himself apart with two distinctive forms of self-image projection, and this early image is the furthest thing from either of them. However, the 2009 image accidentally or intentionally captures him looking his most negative (while the '73 one looks like a male model posing). None of the images on Commons are really ideal [5], either. If we have to choose between these two, use the 2003 one, which is by far the preferred image on other-language Wikipedias. But seek another image that's less glum, probably. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- What of this image from 2006, which User:Al Ameer suggested as a third alternative? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- To be totally honest about it, to me the 2006 image makes Gaddafi look rather silly. I'll agree that in the 2009 photo he appears to be scowling, but the 2006 photo almost makes him look like a clown. I'm not sure which one is worse.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- To be totally honest about it, to me the 2006 image makes Gaddafi look rather silly. I'll agree that in the 2009 photo he appears to be scowling, but the 2006 photo almost makes him look like a clown. I'm not sure which one is worse.
Update as of 17 November: So almost two weeks have passed since the RfC was initiated, and we currently have three editors who have expressed preference for the 1973 image, and two editors who have expressed support for the 2009 image. A further three editors have weighed in to offer their dissatisfaction with both images and their hopes that a third option could be found; one suggested a possible 2006 image, however another expressed opposition to that option too. (I am excluding Ouedexits' opinions because a) they didn't make an explicit statement of support in this RfC, and b) they were a sockpuppet who shouldn't have been active on Wikipedia to start with. To take their opinion into consideration would be to endorse the practice of sockpuppetry from blocked editors). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It might be a good idea to make this a two-step process. First locate and identify all the available images we wish to consider for use; then have every editor who wishes to participate specifically choose one image from among those. There is a potential problem with this idea, however: the originally stated question of this RfC was to choose between one of two images. But since we seem to be expanding the original scope of the RfC anyway, I figured I'd make the suggestion.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, that would be a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging: @BoogaLouie: @Midnightblueowl: @Al Ameer son: @Iloilo Wanderer: @Borsoka:
- It's nice that we agree on this, but does anyone have any actual additional images we could add to those being considered? If not then maybe we should just go ahead with the three we already have (1973, 2009, and 2006).
Also since there are only about ten days left in the normal 30 day run of the RfC, maybe we should consider extending its run.
And finally, if and when we do call for editors to select one from the three (or more) images, we should probably ping everyone who has posted so far; some who posted early on may not be aware that some additional options have been added.
Richard27182 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- We could always put this, this and this up as options? Not that any of these are ideal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- [inserted 07:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Hi Midnightblueowl. I'm not clear if you mean just those three photos, or those three plus the other three. One thing we should probably be careful about is having too large a number to choose from, especially if some photos are similar and others are more unique; that could cause the !vote to fragment and result in either no consensus or in a relatively unpopular photo winning by a tiny plurality. One solution would be to require winning by a certain percentage (say at least 30‑40 %) and requiring a runoff !vote if no photo gets a high enough percentage. How would you (and the others) feel about that? Also how do you feel about extending the RfC's end date (the date when the RfC template is automatically removed)? It's rapidly approaching.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)- I think that those are all good ideas, Richard27182. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Use 2009 image. Richard27182 consider me chastened. :) 2009 is superior to 1973 (IMO) because it is color and more recognizable. [File:Muammar Gaddafi, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria.jpg This] suggested by Midnightblueowl is similar and also OK. I think Gaddafi has the same basic facial expression in both. They are equal from an NPOV. More important than neutrality is the "oh, yeah, I know him" value of an image. When people come to the page, will the photo help people place Gaddafi? The later images are superior for that. During the latter part of his public life, his image -- his brand -- that which makes he recognizable -- was, at least in the latter part of this public life, one of wearing Arab African clothes. Plus his hair cut and lines on his face, and even his bodyguards -- these all were part of his image. Whether we like it or not, political leaders are recognized usually by images of them later in life -- think George Washington, Queen Elizebeth II, Winston Churchill, Mandella, Ghandi, Queen Victoria, etc. They are remembered not for how they looked when young but when older after they have been established in power and influence.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Iloilo Wanderer.
- I think you pretty much hit the nail right on the head. You make an excellent point about recognizability. There have been suggestions that using one of the newer photos could be seen as recentism; but your argument involving examples of historical figures from the past and how they are pictured today makes a good strong counterargument to that. (Although I think it's a bit premature to include Queen Elizabeth II.) I myself would go with any of the color shots that show Gaddafi with the Arab African clothes; that's how he's remembered now, and probably how he'll be remembered for decades to come. I think we're pretty much on the same page here.
- How do you feel about my suggestions in my earlier message to Midnightblueowl concerning the idea of !voting on a limited number of photos with the idea of a possible runoff !vote? I'd also be interested in your view on possibly extending the original end date for the RfC.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Use the 2009 image. From a disinterested RfC request participant. This is the most recognizable to a majority of the population today. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- 1973 Image - This image shows subject in a neutral pose with neutral facial expression. The 2009 image is likely to engender negative feelings toward the subject due to the facial expression the photo captured. LavaBaron (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yaki Kadafi
I added a hatnote ("Kadafi" redirects here. For the rapper, see Yaki Kadafi.) Yaki Kadafi was frequently known as "Kadafi" and is often attributed as such. MB298 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Wig
Should the article mention he wore a wig? (217.42.104.129 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC))
Absolute monarchy
- "in 1969 they seized power from the absolute monarchy of King Idris in a bloodless coup"
- King Idris wasn't an absolute monarch, we had a constitution and a Parliament under him. Can someone please fix that? 41.254.5.74 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- We have reliable sources that have been cited in the article testifying to the fact that Idris had established an absolute monarchy at the time that he was deposed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Re-order sentences in intro
- "Gaddafi's support for foreign militants and alleged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing led to Libya's label of "international pariah". A particularly hostile relationship developed with the United States and United Kingdom, resulting in the 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya and United Nations-imposed economic sanctions. "
- The Lockerbie bombing was in 1988, it couldn't have resulted in the U.S. bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.161.172 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sentences being cited don't specifically claim that the Lockerbie bombing resulted in the U.S. bombing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Spelling errors on this page
You've misspelled his name: Qaddafi His son's name is Saif, not Seif David N Seaman (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
True/Resolved
See Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - this has been corrected by now. Robert Pollard (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Significant Omissions
This is a stub Elaboration of details are invited. Having stumbled across this page, I was struck by significant omissions, including:
- Libyan Gold Dinar Gaddafi's creation of an African hard currency to replace the dollar and euro. Why Qaddafi had to go: African gold, oil and the challenge to monetary imperialism, End of African Gold Standard -The Oil / Dollar Relationship
- The Great Man-Made River Massive fresh water delivery to major cities and its role in supporting Libyan prosperity and growth.
Robert Pollard (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article has long made mention of the Great Man-Made River... It is hardly a stub article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- The one about currency is an absurd conspiracy theory with no basis in reliable sources (or evidence and logic). Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Wealthiest man in the world at time of death?
This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures claims that Gaddafi had a net wealth of over $200 billion at the time of his death. The article here only mentions he had $1 billion in assets in the UK. Maybe both are correct and he had $200 billion in total but if the $200 billion is correct then it should be mentioned in this article because the next closest known wealthiest person in 2011 was bill grates at ~$50 billion. Lenneth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- All Gaddafi's assets had been frozen at the beginning of the civil war. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:114D:9B61:B11D:4379 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC))
- I added "citation needed" template to the article "List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures", someone also mentioned it at the article's Talk page a while ago. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Name
Shouldn't we have his name given in Arabic script, with Latin transcription and Arabic (preferably local Libyan) pronunciation? I recognise that there are issues with the transcription of Arabic, but we do it for other Arab-speaking individuals (e.g. Saddam Hussein, though IPA would be nice there too). I came specifically to check it and was disappointed by its absence. Coreydragon (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with doing so is that the opening paragraph ends up getting longer and longer and gets clogged up with what might be regarded as superfluous information. In doing so it may actually serve to put off the reader. For instance, the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin does not contain a transliteration of his name in Russian Cyrillic for this reason. If there were a place that it could be incorporated other than the opening sentence however (perhaps in the infobox?) then I would be fairly supportive of any such addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- The original name is already in the infobox, by the way… --Usien6 msg • his 15:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- According to our guides WP:LEAD and WP:PRON if the lead section becomes too cluttered, then the excessive information is hidden under the footnotes. As you may have noticed both the article about Lenin and this article follow these guides.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Terrorist
As Gaddafi funded and armed terrorist groups throughout the Western world for decades, should he be described as a terrorist? (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:A860:B147:EFD2:F419 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC))
- See WP:TERRORIST. On Wikipedia it would more usual to say "funded and armed..", etc, than directly describing him as a terrorist. Indeed, the lead of the article currently says, appropriately, "internationally condemned as a dictator whose authoritarian administration ... financed global terrorism", and there is a lot of explanation in the rest of the article. See also this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Gaddafi had training camps in Libya for terrorist groups, so he could be described as a terrorist. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:AD6D:518C:B266:AA83 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC))
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Muammar Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206125143/http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2009/09/how-many-different-ways-can-you-spell-gaddafi/ to http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/how-many-different-ways-can-you-spell-gaddafi.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126093043/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552527 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552527
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312181034/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494/browse?type=title to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494/browse?type=title
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Family dictatorship
@Midnightblueowl: I'm asking you since you wrote most of it.. but is it worth noting that Gaddafi laid the ground for family rule / dictatorship, similar to that of al-Assad's Syria and the Kim family of North Korea? It seems very fitting to describe how his family managed to become so influential / powerful.... From what I understood he was grooming one of his kids to succeed him..
I don't know.. I don't know a lot about Libya. But it would show how personalistic his rule was.
So what do you (and others) think? --TIAYN (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- If we have good, reliable sources indicating that there were plans afoot for some sort of familial succession, then I'd certainly be open to a sentence or two being added to the article. However, I do think some caution is needed; that Gaddafi's son Saif (and some of the others) clearly benefited from being their father's child does not necessarily mean that Gaddafi sought to have them replace him directly, ala the Assads and Kims. Indeed, given the constitutional nature of the Jamahariyah state, I'm not really sure how such a succession would have worked in practice. There are certainly media sources that have speculated that Saif was the "heir apparent" and that sort of thing but as far as I am aware, that remains speculation until hard evidence comes to light indicating that that was Gaddafi's intention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Permission to edit in second paragraph?
@Midnightblueowl: I thank you for indicating my flawed vocabulary on my edits to this page. However, I am frustrated that my edits were reverted as a whole and would have appreciated minor changes instead of an entire reversal. When I edit descriptions on a page, I try to change the vocabulary and wording so first-time readers are able to fully understand Gaddafi's life and governance as a whole. I am inquiring about editing smaller parts instead of the entire paragraph.
- Thanks for bringing this issue to the Talk Page, User:Ryan1783. This is the proper place to discuss your desired changes to the lede ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). Please, don't edit war any more in trying to force your edits through; let's discuss them here first and see if you can get some sort of consensus for your proposed changes. My concerns about your edits were fourfold. First, there was the issue of them being pushed through unilaterally. This is the lede section of a GA-rated article; that's not to say that it is sacred and cannot be changed, but given that the present form is GA-rated and has remained stable for so long, any changes are potentially going to be controversial, and it would be appreciated if you discussed them here first. Second, the edits in question lengthened the third paragraph, from eight lines (in my browser) to ten lines. That is unnecessarily long; if you look at the FA-rated lede sections of two other political biography articles, Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin, you will see that the equivalent paragraph is eight lines long (again, according to my browser). Why should Gaddafi have so much extra text? It is not necessary and makes the lede increasingly unwieldy and off-putting for readers, particularly as the expansion is not due to the addition of important information but is just rhetorical stuffing.
- And that brings me to my third point, that most of the added text was really superfluous. Why go from "captured and killed" to "He was captured and summarily executed"; what does "summarily" add? Why change "into civil war" to "into a massive armed conflict"? Why add the date on which Gaddafi was killed to the third paragraph when it is already in the very first sentence of the lede anyway? Why change "he was Chairperson" to "he served as Chairperson"? Why switch from "The government was overthrown" to "the NTC successfully overthrew his government"? And why add "the NTC declared "the liberation of Libya" and the end of the civil war on 23 October 2011."? This is all completely unnecessary padding. It bloats the third paragraph for no reason. Fourth, many of the edits introduced factual error. It was not support for "Islamic militants" that led to Libya's increasing ostracisation on the world stage; it was also support for (hardly Islamic!) groups like the Provisional Irish Republican Army and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. As for the statement that "In 1999 he openly denounced socialism", again it's just wrong. Gaddafi always claimed to be a socialist, even while engaging in the privatisation of state-owned assets; indeed, he tried to describe said privatisations as a form of socialism, as it stated in the article itself. Now, I'm quite a verbose person so I can appreciate longer text in many things, but frankly the lede of a Wikipedia article is not the right place for this; in the lede, as throughout the articles, we need clean, sharp precision. That's what the longstanding version provides. So why change it needlessly? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I thank you for your response and I apologize for my reckless editing. I can honestly say that I did not expect a response this long and articulate. From now on I will try to make edits to pages that are not overly large or summarized too much.
The reason I added this large edit was because of my own personal belief that the original text was too generically written and needed an edit to make the introduction more articulate for first readers. When I saw your most recent response, I was almost enraged (again, you did nothing wrong) because I thought I was still in the right and I was almost ready to find pages you had put major contributions to and reverse those entirely as retaliation, but I managed to calm down and analyze my vocabulary mistakes.
I had made this major edit because I had previously entirely rewritten introductions to other articles entirely, and these edits, including ones to the pages of Jozef Tiso and John Belushi, had not elicited any response from other editors. I convinced myself that I had the power to edit whatever I wanted and not expect a response that would point out the flaws I had made. But your response helped me understand that my actions would not go this way.
Now, I try to be as transparent as possible in my apologies, but to me, your most recent response seemed almost insulting as it was articulate. I must emphasize that you had the complete moral high ground, but I feel that what you wrote aimed to point out just every single flaw. Again, I am not trying to insult you, I just ask that you be more transparent and less blunt in your next response.
@Midnightblueowl: I edited the third paragraph again but did not change the final section related to the civil war. I hope that my edit is acceptable. I aimed only to change the vocabulary slightly.
- Thanks for your response, User:Ryan1783. It's not, in my view, an issue of anyone having the "moral high ground" here. It's just about adhering to Wikipedia's policies and producing text that is as readable and accessible as possible. If my message above came across as insulting, well, I'm sorry about that. I don't go out of my way to upset anyone. But I wanted to make my views crystal clear so that there was no room for misunderstanding. The reason that I cited such a long list of issues was because I wanted to make it very clear why I disagreed with the edits and why they needed to be undone. Had I not done that, then it may have looked like I was simply expressing WP:Ownership over the article, which is not the case. I have no objection to other editors contributing this article, but they have to be constructive edits.
- I'm afraid that I've also reverted your most recent alteration to the lede ([12]). Again, there are the same problems at play. There is a factual error: you changed text to "Libya's conflicts with Chad and Libya" - how on Earth could Libya have a border conflict with Libya! Again, the paragraph is being unduly lengthened, from eight lines to nine. Changing "Lockerbie bombing" to "1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland" is more detailed, certainly, but at this point in the article it is too much detail given how little space we have to play with. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as pedantic and ungenerous. I don't want to be these things. But Wikipedia has standards and we need to stick to them as far as possible. If you are going to edit the lede of a GA-rated (or indeed FA-rated) article, then real caution is needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just as an update to what I believe to be your concern about the lack of geographical detail about Lockerbie in the lede, I've reincorporated mention of "Scotland" in the lede, at the appropriate juncture. I can appreciate how that information may certainly be useful for readers who have never heard of the incident. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for clarifying and correcting my error. I wanted to write Egypt, but sometimes when I type a word multiple times I inadvertently substitute that other word.
"Rejected Arab socialism" too blunt and incorrect?
In the third paragraph, just before it starts talking about the civil war, the paragraph writes that Gaddafi "rejected Arab socialism", though @Midnightblueowl: pointed out to me earlier that his policies had elements of socialism involved. I will edit this introduction to make it seem less blunt, and tell me if you think that my edit fits it better. If not, that is alright.
- It's a difficult one. Gaddafi still talked about himself as a socialist, certainly, and yet post-2009 engaged in economic privatisation, which is about as un-socialist as you can get. When he continued to emphasise his Arab identity post-2009 I am not sure, but he certainly wholeheartedly embraced an African identity at that point. My concern about the change from "Arab socialism" to "Arab socialist policies" is not that it is inaccurate, but that (coupled with the other recent additions) it lengthens the paragraph from eight lines (really, the maximum) to ten. Ideally, any additions of any words to these paragraphs have to be accompanied by removals elsewhere so that the lede does not get unduly lengthened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Transition into sentence about civil war; possible improvement?
In the third paragraph, the article writes that the situation descended into civil war after the Arab Spring reached Libya in 2011; but it feels that the section does not do enough to explain what caused the civil war. Admittedly, Libyan citizens wanted greater accountability, a tougher crackdown on corruption and more respect for human rights and personal freedoms, there was no expectation for a civil war despite Gaddafi's history of quickly suppressing opposition. Should the section be re-edited to explain how Gaddafi's reaction to the protests only added fuel to the fire for the civil war?
- Again, adding additional information to the lede just ends up lengthening it more and more and it's already pretty much at the maximum length it should be (comparable to the FA-rated articles on Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin). The lede already stipulates that the initial protests that started the civil war were against unemployment and corruption, so some context is already provided. Were extra information to be added into that third sentence, it would mean that we would have to remove something first. That's certainly an option, but I'm not sure what could reasonably be removed. We should be cautious not to over-emphasise the civil war that ousted Gaddafi over the many things that he did while in power. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
"Rejected Arab socialism" too blunt and incorrect?
In the third paragraph, just before it starts talking about the civil war, the paragraph writes that Gaddafi "rejected Arab socialism", though @Midnightblueowl: pointed out to me earlier that his policies had elements of socialism involved. I will edit this introduction to make it seem less blunt, and tell me if you think that my edit fits it better. If not, that is alright.
- It's a difficult one. Gaddafi still talked about himself as a socialist, certainly, and yet post-2009 engaged in economic privatisation, which is about as un-socialist as you can get. When he continued to emphasise his Arab identity post-2009 I am not sure, but he certainly wholeheartedly embraced an African identity at that point. My concern about the change from "Arab socialism" to "Arab socialist policies" is not that it is inaccurate, but that (coupled with the other recent additions) it lengthens the paragraph from eight lines (really, the maximum) to ten. Ideally, any additions of any words to these paragraphs have to be accompanied by removals elsewhere so that the lede does not get unduly lengthened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Transition into sentence about civil war; possible improvement?
In the third paragraph, the article writes that the situation descended into civil war after the Arab Spring reached Libya in 2011; but it feels that the section does not do enough to explain what caused the civil war. Admittedly, Libyan citizens wanted greater accountability, a tougher crackdown on corruption and more respect for human rights and personal freedoms, there was no expectation for a civil war despite Gaddafi's history of quickly suppressing opposition. Should the section be re-edited to explain how Gaddafi's reaction to the protests only added fuel to the fire for the civil war?
- Again, adding additional information to the lede just ends up lengthening it more and more and it's already pretty much at the maximum length it should be (comparable to the FA-rated articles on Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin). The lede already stipulates that the initial protests that started the civil war were against unemployment and corruption, so some context is already provided. Were extra information to be added into that third sentence, it would mean that we would have to remove something first. That's certainly an option, but I'm not sure what could reasonably be removed. We should be cautious not to over-emphasise the civil war that ousted Gaddafi over the many things that he did while in power. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Question
"Between 1973 and 1979, Libya provided $500 million in aid to African countries, namely to Zaire and Uganda, and founded joint-venture companies throughout the country to aid trade and development."
Which country was it, Zaire, Uganda, or both? I can't access the source to verify. Mimihitam (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mimihitam: Thanks for the ping. I don't have the source on me to verify, but I imaging "country" should be "countries" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019
| This edit request to Muammar Gaddafi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It does not state when Gaddafi was born, but Gaddafi was born June 7, 1942 and died at age 69 Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Date of Birth
I know I previously added it but basically every source states that Gaddafi was born on June 7, 1942 Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically every source which copies from Wikipedia. Do you have a single reliable one? Mewulwe (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.onthisday.com/people/muammar-gaddafi, https://www.biography.com/political-figure/muammar-al-qaddafi, https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/muammar-gaddafi-3727.ph Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Almost all the reliable published biographical sources about Gaddafi state that his birthdate is not known, and wasn't even known to him (we cite these in the article body). A few web sources seem to actually provide a date: it is therefore likely that the latter are simply wrong. Why this should be the case is not quite clear. Maybe Gaddafi himself or someone in his administration just made up a date at some point so that he could celebrate a birthday each year. Perhaps someone on the internet just made up a birthday for him and other sources copied it, assuming it to be correct. Either way, Wikipedia should not perpetuate this misinformation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Don't see where it states it was wrong on the OnThisDay article but ok Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- OnThisDay is hardly a reliable source of information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Don't see where it states it was wrong on the OnThisDay article but ok Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Anti-Communist
Someone added "African anti-communists" to Gaddafi's categories. Not saying he wasn't anti-communist, but could someone cite a source for this? Out of curiosity. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article does cite his hostility to Marxism (largely because of its atheism), but not necessarily to "communism" more broadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Image change -- issue 1
I have no opinion on the image, but I had to change it because it is most likely non-free. Thus, I swapped it for File:Gaddafi 1972.jpg because it was from the same time period. Those who are interested in the FFD discussion can go to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 30#File:Muammar_Gaddafi,_1973.jpg. —howcheng {chat} 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- And unfortunately, I had to change it again, this time using File:Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg for the exact same reason. —howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Midnightblueowl. This is really a case of recentism. Gaddafi was at his most "notable" in the 1970s and 1980s when he formulated his ideology and enacted major political changes in Libya. Using more recent photos would seem strange in this context. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Which image should we include in the infobox?
There is a clear consensus to use Option A (File:Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg).
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg)
Which image of Gaddafi should be included in the infobox: Option A (File:Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg) or Option B (File:Muammar al-Gaddafi-30112006.jpg)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Context: The previous image which was used in the infobox for several years was deleted from Wikipedia amid copyright concerns last year. Option A was added to the infobox as its replacement although there was never clear consensus for it. Thus a discussion is needed, and an RfC is a good means of determining a consensus. Option A is a clear image and shows Gaddafi in his prime; however, it is in black and white and depicts Gaddafi looking to the right, away from the text itself. Option B shows Gaddafi at a later date but also shows him looking left, towards the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Survey
- Option B Its the better image of the two; its in color and its my mental image of Gaddafi, and likely the readers as well. ~ HAL333 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Option A Mostly because he looks like he's been caught off guard being photographed from below and does an awkward smile. Plus, an older picture doesn't matter because he was already in the position he was most notable for. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Mild preference for Option A I'm persuaded by your argument above, Midnightblueowl, that an image of him in his prime is appropriate. His attire in that photo also seems to be more formal. I also think a serious image is more appropriate than a smiling image given his bio. That said, the lack of color and disconnect from my mental image are major downsides. But Option B is just not a great photo — it's a little blurry and the background is distracting. Are there no better alternatives than these two available? Sdkb (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- A third option that we have is File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg. Although a nice clear image, and one that is in colour, it replicates some of the main problems of both Option A and B, and brings with it some additional issues. The photograph shows Gaddafi as an old man; it has him facing right, away from the text; and has him looking rather moody, which could be construed as a deliberate attempt to portray Gaddafi negatively in the lede. In my view, it's not worth seriously considering as an option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A: It seems reasonable to have an infobox image showing a public figure "in their prime", as Sdkb puts it. For Gadaffi, that was undoubtedly in the 1970s. The guidance on WP:Recentism is also relevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A – Makes sense to picture him in his prime. And I also share Sdkb's concerns about option B. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- How about both? See example here. I don't find it jarring to have two images of him in the infobox (even though it's not the norm here on Wikipedia). I find it more jarring that I need to scroll down half the article before I see a picture that matches my recentist mental model of him. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure that works, to be honest. It would be highly irregular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely irregular. I would be strongly opposed to that. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure that works, to be honest. It would be highly irregular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A Aside from the technical qualities of the image (B being poorer, A taken at a closer range and giving far greater facial detail) personally I find black and white images for portraits can be quite powerful. I also favour an image that conveys an historic context, even if only implicitly, and, as above, avoids RECENTISM. --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A is a much better photo, and capture an historic moment. A more recent (older Gaddafi) photo could be used, but the suggested one in B is much poorer than A.--Eostrix (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option B Because the portrait B (the right one) looks to be closer (to his actual face) in the mind of the readers in comparison with the other image which looks younger ... As well as this, being a colorful image might be more attractive for the readers, too. It was my personal view! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A I agree with Brigade Piron about the importance of showing a public figure in their prime. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A On Wikipedia, the overwhelming precedent is every powerful person or entertainers have their pictures changed to an old (usually black-and-white) one on the same day they died. Some recent examples are Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Kirk Douglas, Daniel arap Moi, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Pope John Paul II, Kim Il-sung, Slobodan Milošević. For people who are still alive, we obviously would go with the more recent photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A Prime Gaddafi. I don't think the most illustrative photo is (in principle) the most recent one, thus Wikipedia shouldn't use the most recent photo just because "it is the closest to this day and age", either if we deal with a deceased individual or a living one, because enforcing such emphasis detracts from the encyclopedic quality of the articles just to please RECENTIST sensibilities.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A This was when Gaddafi was at his height of activity. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A - taken at a time when Gaddafi was among the most influential people in Africa and the Arab world. Applodion (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A per above, in particular per IceFrappe's comment. The "mental image" of younger readers (as of today) is quite irrelevant. --MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Option A, since it is the more serene and relaxed of the two images, during the dictator's early years of power.Davidbena (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Closing comment: The legobot has ended the RfC after a month. It looks like we have a very clear consensus in favour of Option A. Many thanks to all who offered their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was just about to publish my idea but by which time you had already posted the closing comment, so a edit conflict occured but that is my fault as I took too long, I gather it is too late to post now Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- By my all means, feel free to offer your view below, Lochglasgowstrathyre! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion ended at 06:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC). The conclusion was to keep the image, because there is no copyright problem.
Image change -- issue 2
The lead image should be changed to either one of these images to the left
The reason is that those images are more well-known than the current picture, and that the current picture is low-quality. You wouldn't, for example, have Ronald Reagan or Mao Zedong portrayed as young men in their infoboxes. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The previous discussion in 2015 did not reach a consensus. I agree that it would be better to have a newer picture of him, but I get that neither of them are ideal. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could we somehow get a new consensus? I don't know how it works. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, a consensus can be reached if enough people voice their opinion in this thread. Another possibility is to open up another request for comment which would get a wider community input. I would support choosing the first image as it's a good photograph and he's recognizable there, even though he's pouting. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I know i'll get reverted if just change the image without a consensus, and I don't want to make a request for comment yet, so I guess i'll have to wait to see if more people show up and share their opinion. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, a consensus can be reached if enough people voice their opinion in this thread. Another possibility is to open up another request for comment which would get a wider community input. I would support choosing the first image as it's a good photograph and he's recognizable there, even though he's pouting. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could we somehow get a new consensus? I don't know how it works. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the claim that the current picture is "low-quality". As far as I can see, it isn't. The parallels with Reagan and Mao are also misleading. Reagan and Mao only reached political power later in life; Gaddafi was still a young man when he became leader of Libya. Indeed, he was perhaps at the apex of his international influence in the 1970s, which is when the photograph of him currently in the infobox was taken. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have a better analogy; Franz Joseph I, Queen Victoria I, and Elizabeth II all began their reigns as young people, yet on their lead images, they are not portrayed as young, I know that just because it is like that on those articles, doesn't mean it has to be on this article, i know that.
- While I do not believe that the current image is very bad, the upper image that I have uploaded here, on this talk page, has a higher quality, both in resolution and in cinematography. It is very atmospheric, you get a sense of Gaddafi as a person that you do not get from the black-and-white photograph. The black-and-white photograph appears to be taken at some kind of event, thus Gaddafi seems prepared, he's putting on a face. While in the upper image, Gaddafi appears to be in deep thought. It is a very moving photograph, and the photographer definitely deserves a Pulitzer (if he/she hasn't won one already) for capturing such a definitive photograph of the Libyan leader. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with the above post from IP address 78.108.56.35. I favour the existing image.
- According to the article, Gaddafi managed his public image. A candid photo would be completely unrepresentative. Further, he portrayed himself as strong and confident. Thoughtfulness was not his most recognizable attribute, certainly not outside of Libya. Anyway, I disagree that the photo with traditional African dress portrays him as thoughtful. To my eyes, he seems either sour or bored.
- As for the example articles mentioned by 78.108.56.35, the first two (Franz Joseph I and Queen Victoria I) reached their greatest fame and influence later in life, as most rulers do. So, we use images from their later years. The third example (Elizabeth II) is of a living person, who actively maintains and updates her public image on coinage, on bank notes, with TV appearances, etc. She is arguably less famous now than earlier, when she ruled an empire, but an image from her youth would conflict with her public image and confuse Wikipedia readers. In a few decades, it might be appropriate to switch to an image from her coronation or from mid-life.
- To demonstrate the same principle yielding the opposite result, here are examples of Wikipedia articles whose leading images correctly show people in youth, when they reached the height of their fame/power/achievement, rather than in old age, for which they are less remembered, if at all: Elvis_Presley, ABBA, the Olsen twins, Constantine_II_of_Greece.
- Here are examples where recentism lead Wikipedia astray: Carrie_Fisher is shown in old age, when she had virtually disappeared from the public sphere. Saddam_Hussain is shown with a beard, which he only cultivated in the last two years of life, while hunted/imprisoned and rarely in view of the public, let alone in power. Let's not repeat those mistakes in this article.
- I favour keeping the existing image of Gaddafi because, in my opinion, it portrays him in the way in which the largest number of people saw him: in a military uniform. Note that mine is a Western perspective. An interesting question is whether Africans remember him more for his pan-Africanism (later years) than for his militancy (earlier years).
- --Black Walnut (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
The final brutal moments of Muammar Gaddafi?
I've seen them on youtube, and it's something this wikipedia article could really use, regardless on how offended people become. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGm492qVEzA&t=67s> LockyHimself (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Does the description of that brulity in the existing section ("Capture and death: September–October 2011") not suffice? What more would you write?
--Black Walnut (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Western Bias
 | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This article relies very much upon Western sources often funded by the American State Department, which do not present an unbiased view. My changes made this clear, so why were they reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
If there are no objections to my changes in talk by the end of today, I will return them, as they seem quite reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- You may be right about the bias of the sources. But, as I understand it, prior to your changes, the article's wording accurately reflected its sources, as it must. Perhaps the right solution is to add reliable sources which support your view. Such sources could inform the discussion and facilitate a new consensus on the article's wording.
I had nothing to do with undoing your changes but I do think that an article's wording should reflect its sources.
— Black Walnut talk 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
(The message below, by Wikipedian Oea the King, was removed by another Wikipedian, who believes that Oea should be blocked from editing Wikipedia, at this time. I restored the message in order to respond to it. I believe that both sides are acting in good faith. I also consider the question legitimate and politely worded. Civility demands that it receive an informative answer, and this is a reasonable forum. This may also benefit others who stumble upon this conversation. — Black Walnut talk 00:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
I didn't change what the sources were saying, I just put them in context. Is this not what we're supposed to do? The edits just clarify that the sources are not always reliable.
Oea the King (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes and no. It is indeed important to ensure that any bias in the sources is recognized, in order to treat the subject from a neutral point of view (NPOV). But we mustn't merely apply our personal knowledge of what is and isn't biased. Instead, we must provide published (and reliable) sources which support our attribution of bias. This leads to useful articles whose facts and perspective are both verifiable. It also reduces disputes between editors, so it is especially important in articles where editors have different opinions, as appears to be the case here.
— Black Walnut talk 00:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC).
Human rights in lead section
I believe it is necessary to emphasize human right abuses in the lead section of this article. The problem with it only saying that "[Gaddafi] was condemned by many as a dictator whose authoritarian administration violated human rights and financed global terrorism" is that it implies that it is too general and deemphasizes the gravity and scale of human rights abuses committed under Gaddafi's regime. Even places like Norway with the best human rights in the world sometimes violate human rights with regards to the treatment of the indigenous Sami people. It is therefore more WP:NPOV to say that Gaddafi's opponents accused him of not just abusing human rights, but abusing them in a significant way. Human rights organizations such as Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders have all characterized Libya's human rights situation under Gaddafi's regime as very poor, despite its high quality of life due to Libya's oil wealth and small population. I propose that some sort of adverb or descriptor should be added to the last sentence of the lead section, such as that "[Gaddafi's] authoritarian administration systematically or egregiously abused human rights". DeathTrain (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think egregiously might be editorializing, “dictator” and “authoritarian” emphasize that we are talking about significant violations. Systematically or something close to that does strike me as a good addition though, it gets across the point that the violence was more a part of the system than a glitch. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: So should I make the edit, then?DeathTrain (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: So I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muammar_Gaddafi&type=revision&diff=1011621982&oldid=1011575628 DeathTrain (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: So should I make the edit, then?DeathTrain (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Gaddafi' real birth date
Does anyone know his real birth date, U know that many people say that he was born between 1942 and 1943, is he might older? Osmnvc15 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution
It says he was Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution from 1969, but in that year jamahiriya didn't exist. Can someine change it please? I think the right year is 1977, 1979 or 1980. Osmnvc15 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
| This edit request to Muammar Gaddafi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
without altering the text of this paragraph: He was condemned by many as a dictator whose authoritarian administration systematically violated human rights and financed global terrorism.
I believe this paragraph needs citations, otherwise it's validity is questionable. RedesigningTheMindOfTheMasses (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: This is supported by citations elsewhere in the article (specifically the section on reception and legacy). Also, lead paragraphs do not generally have many citations in them, as they serve the purpose of summarising the article, and their facts are substantiated elsewhere in the article. TungstenTime (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
27 November 2021
User:Michael58137543 What are these edits you are making? Deleting "presidents" and then renaming "prime ministers" as "presidents"? It looks very confusing and I am inclined to revert your edits. --SVTCobra 00:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
"1970 Libyan coup d'état attempt" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1970 Libyan coup d'état attempt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#1970 Libyan coup d'état attempt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
X is for Gaddafi
The correct spelling of his surname begins with the letter X doesn't it?
N.B. Not that anyone spells it "XADDAFI" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.124.188 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, his name uses the Arabic letter qaf which is normally transliterated to Q, not X. Kindlecandle (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I started voting for Infobox image of this article
The proposal no. 1: Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg
The proposal no. 2: Muamar Kaddafi.jpg
The proposal no. 3: Muammar al-Gaddafi-30112006.jpg
The proposal no. 4: Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg
Александар Вучић (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I vote for proposal no. 2 Александар Вучић (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)- I vote for proposal no. 1 Gudi129 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I vote for proposal no. 2 Olga311 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I vote for proposal no. 3 as that shows him looking normal. Kindlecandle (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Latin vs Arabic name
At the beginning of the article, we see Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi[b] (Arabic: مُعمّر محمد عبد السلام القذّافي, c. 1942 – 20 October 2011). The third Latin token is ‘ABU’, whereas, the third Arabic token is ‘عبد’ which is in Latin ‘ABD’ (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_(Arabic) ). I am not sure if this is correct or if this is a mistake. 96.240.29.204 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are correct that there is a mismatch. The fourth token is also mismatched. The Latin reads Abu Minyar whereas the Arabic reads Abd Alsalaam. Kindlecandle (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the reply. Is there a standard by which they are supposed to match, or is this something that is acceptable in some cases? 145.43.254.26 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Terrorism
The lede should make it clear that he funded and armed terrorist organisations during the 1970s and 1980s. 2A00:23C5:C410:5601:450F:B6E:785A:3B28 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- It already does. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Wrong word in his name.
At the beginning of the article, his name appears in Arabic as مُعمّر محمد عبد السلام القذّافي, but the fourth word (السلام)[Al-Salam] is not equal to the fourth Latin token [Minyar]. I think that the right Arabic word is (منيار)[Minyar]. So, السلام should be changed to منيار. Hene Stuchi (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't speak Arabic, but the name here matches the one at ar.wiki. The word "منيار" appears at the notes under Modern Standard Arabic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Death
I see zero mention of his death and what happened. Please update. 100.4.105.230 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I made his death a separate section. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Birth date
I searched this guy about a minute ago, and he was born on June 7, 1942, and died at age 69. 173.77.146.12 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Intent of Gaddafi's foreign funding
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Foreign_relations, I made an edit where I deleted "Gaddafi was indiscriminate in the causes which he funded" because it seemed contrary to the point made by the rest of the paragraph. Based on the groups that were funded and based on Gaddifi's categorization of those groups as given in the concluding sentence of the paragraph, the use of "indiscriminate" seems inaccurate. It seems like Gaddafi had strong ideological/political reasons. The editor who reverted my edit noted that one example is given where Gaddafi changed funding targets. But that seems insufficient to me, since the given example was a 30-year-long event and groups may have shifted in ideology/purpose.
I do not have any prior knowledge on this subject. I'm also not familiar with Wikipedia's rules for articles. But as a casual reader, I edited the paragraph because it was inconsistent. If Gaddafi's funding was indiscriminate, the existing paragraph should be changed - or a new paragraph should be added - to support that. 66.44.7.62 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Excessive Length and Deterioration in Quality
Hello. I've been monitoring this article for many years now, having been the editor responsible for getting it to Good Article status back in 2013. Since that time, the article quality has begun to erode through the addition of more and more little bits of information, often borderline trivia. Not all of these additions are properly referenced, but have sometimes been inserted into already-referenced sentences to make it appear like the existing citations support the added information, which they don't.
Along with this general decline in quality, the article, which was long even in 2013, has now ballooned and become even longer. (Here you can see how this has been a problem since 2015 but has worsened since 2022). At present, the article is 239,550 bytes long. This is despite clear instructions at Wikipedia:Article size that articles in excess of 100 kB should be divided. Clearly, the article needs to be trimmed for concision and readability. It needs to be about half its current length.
For this reason, I would ask that User:IceFrappe reverse their mass reversion of my recent edits. The edits in question both made a start at cutting down the excess length and also removed some of the unreferenced statements that had been sneaked into the article in recent years. The article's GA-level quality (and its potential ability to reach Featured Article status) can only be retained if edits like this are made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- 239,550 bytes is total size, not prose size. Apparently those "clear" instructions were not at all clear to you. That being said there are a few sections which don't have their own page which could, personal life and Reception and legacy seem like the low hanging fruit. I'l split off Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi and we can see if thats enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have a low opinion of this article despite its apparent "good article" status as User:Midnightblueowl stated above. Before I started working on this article about a month ago, the vast majority of "sources" are based on two books no Wikipedian has access to (Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution by Blundy & Lycett and Seeking Gaddafi: Libya, the West and the Arab Spring by Kawczynski) and we're expected to trust whoever that cited these 2 books to as editing in good faith. Almost the entire article is paraphrased exclusively from those 2 books. Based on my extensive research, some of the readily available sources actually contradict with the claims made in these 2 books. I agree with User:Horse Eye's Back that that the "reception and legacy" and "Posthumous assessment" are especially bad. The attempt to psychoanalyze Gaddafi, the Max Weber part about Gaddafi's supposed "charismatic authority", and claims of Gaddafi changing clothes multiple times a day and being a self-proclaimed fashion icon are clearly subjective opinions, unencyclopedic, and things we could do without.IceFrappe (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Those sections have already been cut down. The sections which still need to be cut down are Early life and early career, Libyan Arab Republic, Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Libyan Civil War. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The priority for cutting down should be the tabloid-stye gossips (self-proclaimed fashion icon, sexual advances on female reporters, "extraordinarily vain", large wardrobes, etc), attempts at psychoanalysis (why is Max Weber's name even in the article?), and the overall reliance on one single source (the Lycett/Blundy 1987 book that most Wikipedians don't have access to and whose many claims have since been proven false by more recent reputable sources). The vast majority of the article reads like a paraphrase of the 1987 book and there's no way for any editor to verify some of these wild claims and gossips since we don't have access to that book.IceFrappe (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- What about that is tabloid style gossip? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- To give you a few examples, there are plenty of reputable sources that claim that Vladimir Putin is on the autism spectrum.[1], that Donald Trump has a litany of undiagnosed mental illnesses [2] [3] [4] [5], and there are plenty of speculations about George W. Bush's psyche during the buildup of the invasion of Iraq [6] [7]. Despite the fact these speculations all come from reputable sources, it doesn't mean any of these "diagnosis from afar" are anything more than tabloid-style gossips, much less encyclopedic for Wikipedia standards [8]. My main problem with this article is that it is dominated by one single source (the 1987 book by Lycett/Blundy) and treating it as some sort of holy grail. The problem is a. this source is extremely dated, b. almost no Wikipedia editor has access to this book to verify some of these wild claims, c. Gaddafi's Libya was extremely isolated and essentially the North Korea of the Arab World in 1987 (a lot of the weird personal quirks and psychoanalysis about Gaddafi in 1987 read like what we're hearing about Kim Jong Un today); some of the claims from that book have since been proven wrong after Gaddafi's rapprochement with the West, and d. no article should rely so much on one single source.IceFrappe (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- We actually cover that extensively at Goldwater rule. Also note that those are living people, Gaddafi is dead so the rules are different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- To give you a few examples, there are plenty of reputable sources that claim that Vladimir Putin is on the autism spectrum.[1], that Donald Trump has a litany of undiagnosed mental illnesses [2] [3] [4] [5], and there are plenty of speculations about George W. Bush's psyche during the buildup of the invasion of Iraq [6] [7]. Despite the fact these speculations all come from reputable sources, it doesn't mean any of these "diagnosis from afar" are anything more than tabloid-style gossips, much less encyclopedic for Wikipedia standards [8]. My main problem with this article is that it is dominated by one single source (the 1987 book by Lycett/Blundy) and treating it as some sort of holy grail. The problem is a. this source is extremely dated, b. almost no Wikipedia editor has access to this book to verify some of these wild claims, c. Gaddafi's Libya was extremely isolated and essentially the North Korea of the Arab World in 1987 (a lot of the weird personal quirks and psychoanalysis about Gaddafi in 1987 read like what we're hearing about Kim Jong Un today); some of the claims from that book have since been proven wrong after Gaddafi's rapprochement with the West, and d. no article should rely so much on one single source.IceFrappe (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- What about that is tabloid style gossip? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The priority for cutting down should be the tabloid-stye gossips (self-proclaimed fashion icon, sexual advances on female reporters, "extraordinarily vain", large wardrobes, etc), attempts at psychoanalysis (why is Max Weber's name even in the article?), and the overall reliance on one single source (the Lycett/Blundy 1987 book that most Wikipedians don't have access to and whose many claims have since been proven false by more recent reputable sources). The vast majority of the article reads like a paraphrase of the 1987 book and there's no way for any editor to verify some of these wild claims and gossips since we don't have access to that book.IceFrappe (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution is available for free and in full through the Internet Archive (the article's reference links to it). Seeking Gaddafi: Libya, the West and the Arab Spring is available through Library Genesis. — Goszei (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks I'll look into it. I read a lot of books about Libya in Arabic, English, and French, so looking forward to perusing those two. I do take issue with how much this entire article relies on the 1987 book Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution at the expense of all other sources. RegardsIceFrappe (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can't get away by citing example of Vladimir Putin here since that page ensures that we are discussing an unproven claim from otherwise reliable sources.
- When the source itself is unreliable, but covered by a reliable source then still we are obliged to assess credibility of the sources.
- What some Brazilian nurses tell today without any evidence is not fit for inclusion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, Blundy and Lycett shouldn't be considered above reproach either. The inner-working of Libya was extremely opaque in 1987, just like North Korea is now. Blundy and Lycett clearly relied on unreliable sources to compile their book in 1987 and some of their claims have been proven false in the decades since (especially after Gaddafi's rapprochement with the West). Are we gonna include every single one of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung's supposed personal quirks and eccentricities just because it was in a book rather than a newspaper? Give me a break! The highly respected and well-connected Bob Woodward wrote many articles for The Washington Post around the same time as Lycett and Blundy [9][10]. Are you going to dismiss him just because his reports weren't in a book? The Washington Post is universally accepted as a reputable source and Woodward is frankly a more reputable source than Lycett and Bundy.IceFrappe (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- As already told to you by Horse Eye's Back and Midnightblueowl, your edits are only ruining the quality of this article.
- This disruptive whataboutery is not going to work. If you want to remove those reliable sources then you will need consensus for it. Right now you are just trying to make a WP:POINT which is deemed disruptive by everyone.
- News outlets are known for publishing initial reports but every other popular subject but it doesn't mean we need to include them all per WP:UNDUE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You don't get to unilaterally decide what is due and undue. Read WP:OWN. You also don't get to unilaterally mass remove well-sourced edits from good-faith editors in order to conceal certain unflattering details about Gaddafi from readers. You don't get to unilaterally decide a random 1987 book is better than the most respected news outlets in the world. The only one being disruptive is you. Refrain from mass removal of content and stop wikilawyering. Throughout my time writing this article, I did not remove any content. Horse Eye back and Midnightblueowl did not have problem with my writing; they were concerned about the length of the article and they were open about de-emphasizing the 1987 book from the article. Don't misrepresent their positions to try to game the system. IceFrappe (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You get to decide what is due and undue just by reading WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE.
- The "random 1987 book" is there since before this article became a "Good article".
- By frequently demanding removal of that book when your own problematic edits are being questioned, you are just proving the point that your edits are not defensible.
- I am sure I am correctly representing positions of other editors given the amount of disruption you are causing on this page with your baseless whataboutery as justification. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing in WP:UNDUE said we must respect the 1987 book at the expense of all other sources when the length of the article becomes an issue for some. Nothing in WP:UNDUE said books trump all other form of sources, no matter how reputable they are. Again, read WP:OWN.
- You are also deliberately misrepresenting my position. I never "demand removal" of the 1987 book; I simply stated that large portion of the article shouldn't be a "copy-and-paste" job from one single source (especially one from 1987), especially given how much other reputable widely-available sources there are about the subject matter. You seem to believe tabloid-style gossips, such as Gaddafi was a "fashion icon," "had a big wardrobe," and "thought personal appearance was important" (according to who? Lycett and Bundy themselves?) are all fine and dandy just because it was "in a book", but my well-sourced, well-researched edits must be removed because they weren't "from a book." That's not how Wikipedia works.
- You are also deliberately misrepresenting others' positions. Their concern was length and I was perfectly happy to work with them to add subheadings, re-arrange headings from chronological order to foreign policy, domestic policy, etc, and trim down all tabloid-style gossips (whether from books or newspapers) and/or move them to subpages before your disruption. Last not but least "whataboutery" is neither a word in the English language nor a Wikipedia policy. "Whataboutism" is just a cop-out and buzzword when one cannot defend his/her double standards and hypocrisy. You're the one wikilawyering and being disruptive.IceFrappe (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are sticking to your fallacious belief that criticizing a "1987 book" can be a scapegoat for your problematic edits.
- Yes you have demanded removal of 1987 book by frequently calling it unreliable whenever your own edits are being questioned and reverted.
- Given your edit war with the other 2 editors,[13][14] it is apparent that they found your edits to be problematic.
- If you would like to talk without using that book as scapegoat then tell about it. So far, you have only shown your inability to do so.
- Yes "whataboutery" is a word used in English language. It clearly defines the misconduct you are engaging in.
- You are supposed to discuss why you deem gossips from Brazilian nurses to be reliable and why you are incapable to back [this information] from a scholarly source instead of initial reports about "leaked 2009 State Department cables".[15] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing problematic about my edits. My dispute with others was about the length of the article and there was no so-called "edit war" until your disruptive edit-warring. And as I noted in my edit summary, there's nothing "scholarly" about the 1987 book as you falsely claimed because they were, in fact, written by two journalists. How are they better than the long form journalism others, such as Bob Woodward, produced in the same era? How are they better than the materials that came to light after Libya stopped its isolation and re-entered the world stage in the 2000s? Look, I have no problem with the book per se, but there's no reason for such a large portion of the article to be exclusively a copy-and-paste job of that book, especially when a. someone took issue with the length and b. plenty of other materials from reputable sources are available about the subject matter.
- The only one who have committing misconduct is you, who have shown no interest whatsoever in actually researching the subject matter and writing/improving this article, but merely mass-removing content with misleading edit summaries. Making ad hominem personal attacks would not help your case. Again, anybody who uses whataboutism as an insult is someone incapable of defending his own double standards and hypocrisy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs)
- Little, Brown and Company (publisher of 1987 book) is known for academic publications. It is far more reliable than the initial and outdated "newspaper" reports you are including while unsuccessfully using the actual reliable sources as scapegoat to justify your problematic edits.
- Now I would again repeat that you
are supposed to discuss why you deem gossips from Brazilian nurses to be reliable and why you are incapable to back [this information] from a scholarly source instead of initial reports about "leaked 2009 State Department cables".
- Make sure you don't bring up 1987 book again as long as you haven't resolved this issue with your edits. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nice try. Little, Brown and Company is not an academic press. I can bring up the 1987 book as much as I like. You don't get to tell me what to bring up in a content dispute. The articles I cited are no more "outdated" than an 1987 book published at a time when Libya was completely cut of from the rest of the world. Btw the Brazilian were doctors, not nurses, so once again you're misrepresenting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs)
Little, Brown and Company (publisher of 1987 book) is known for academic publications.
Read it again.- Yes it is necessary for you to stay on the topic and avoid making WP:POINT. If you can't do it then I will have to look for additional sanctions on you.
- There is nothing wrong with a 1987 reliable source talking about what happened in 1970s. But adding outdated initial reports from news sources requires extra scrutiny and you are failing to provide justification for your edits.
- Libya was NOT cut from the world.[16] It is your personal POV which you should not bring per WP:NOTFORUM. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- As a historian and academic researcher, Little, Brown and Company is not considered an "academic publication." Any serious scholar would tell you the same. Even its own Wikipedia article does not claim it is an "academic publication". It is not a university press; it is a mainstream publication and a Time Warner subsidiaries, which frankly makes it no different from big publishing houses like HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster. You're either demonstrating your ignorance or being willfully obtuse.
- Go right ahead and try to sanction me. Given the way you're going about it on Wikipedia, you will end up getting sanctioned yourself. Your empty threats don't faze me.
- There is nothing wrong with any of the sources in this article. All of this would've been a non-issue if Midnightblueowl didn't have a problem with the length of the article. I've been working with other editors to find ways to trim down the article or create additional subheadings to make it easier to read before your disruption.
- I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that New York Times link. There are similar articles recently about North Korea. In fact, North Korea even has its own social media influencers [17] [18]. It doesn't mean they're not still the most isolated country in the world, just like Libya in the '80s, and most of the so-called "palace intrigues" we hear about in the West are merely speculations from flimsy sources. I just started reading the 1987 book and already found numerous mistakes. For example, no else one called the Shalhi group "Black Boots" and there was nothing "revolutionary" about Shalhi (in fact, he was a favorite of King Idris and very much a palace insider). You clearly don't know anything about Libya. Read WP:COMPETENCE for your own benefit.IceFrappe (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Thus it matters less what you claim about yourself. If you are treating Little, Brown and Company, which has engaged in academic publications, at same level as Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins then you are ensuring it to be far more reliable than the sources you are using.
- Yes there is a lot of wrong in your sources. We hear initial reports about just anything but it is necessary for us to assess the credibility and importance (see WP:UNDUE) of the information depending on the time.
- By comparing North Korea with Libya, despite the latter fared much better than former at human rights and freedom, you are just showcasing your own POV which is totally irrelevant for this discussion.
- You are basically trying to claim that before 1987 nobody could write a single sensible sentence about Libya. Anyone can agree that you need to focus a lot more on your WP:COMPETENCE before even thinking of citing it here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nice try. Little, Brown and Company is not an academic press. I can bring up the 1987 book as much as I like. You don't get to tell me what to bring up in a content dispute. The articles I cited are no more "outdated" than an 1987 book published at a time when Libya was completely cut of from the rest of the world. Btw the Brazilian were doctors, not nurses, so once again you're misrepresenting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs)
- You are also deliberately misrepresenting others' positions. Their concern was length and I was perfectly happy to work with them to add subheadings, re-arrange headings from chronological order to foreign policy, domestic policy, etc, and trim down all tabloid-style gossips (whether from books or newspapers) and/or move them to subpages before your disruption. Last not but least "whataboutery" is neither a word in the English language nor a Wikipedia policy. "Whataboutism" is just a cop-out and buzzword when one cannot defend his/her double standards and hypocrisy. You're the one wikilawyering and being disruptive.IceFrappe (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You don't get to unilaterally decide what is due and undue. Read WP:OWN. You also don't get to unilaterally mass remove well-sourced edits from good-faith editors in order to conceal certain unflattering details about Gaddafi from readers. You don't get to unilaterally decide a random 1987 book is better than the most respected news outlets in the world. The only one being disruptive is you. Refrain from mass removal of content and stop wikilawyering. Throughout my time writing this article, I did not remove any content. Horse Eye back and Midnightblueowl did not have problem with my writing; they were concerned about the length of the article and they were open about de-emphasizing the 1987 book from the article. Don't misrepresent their positions to try to game the system. IceFrappe (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, Blundy and Lycett shouldn't be considered above reproach either. The inner-working of Libya was extremely opaque in 1987, just like North Korea is now. Blundy and Lycett clearly relied on unreliable sources to compile their book in 1987 and some of their claims have been proven false in the decades since (especially after Gaddafi's rapprochement with the West). Are we gonna include every single one of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung's supposed personal quirks and eccentricities just because it was in a book rather than a newspaper? Give me a break! The highly respected and well-connected Bob Woodward wrote many articles for The Washington Post around the same time as Lycett and Blundy [9][10]. Are you going to dismiss him just because his reports weren't in a book? The Washington Post is universally accepted as a reputable source and Woodward is frankly a more reputable source than Lycett and Bundy.IceFrappe (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks I'll look into it. I read a lot of books about Libya in Arabic, English, and French, so looking forward to perusing those two. I do take issue with how much this entire article relies on the 1987 book Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution at the expense of all other sources. RegardsIceFrappe (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- @IceFrappe See [19] and [20]. Your welcome. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Those sections have already been cut down. The sections which still need to be cut down are Early life and early career, Libyan Arab Republic, Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Libyan Civil War. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, adding my two cents, firstly please don't edit war. Also, I agree on the points that we should move some sections to new articles and leave summaries here as the article is very large, and also that the information here must be reliably sourced and key details, not any gossip or petty trivia unless it's truly significant or related to his significance. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have a low opinion of this article despite its apparent "good article" status as User:Midnightblueowl stated above. Before I started working on this article about a month ago, the vast majority of "sources" are based on two books no Wikipedian has access to (Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution by Blundy & Lycett and Seeking Gaddafi: Libya, the West and the Arab Spring by Kawczynski) and we're expected to trust whoever that cited these 2 books to as editing in good faith. Almost the entire article is paraphrased exclusively from those 2 books. Based on my extensive research, some of the readily available sources actually contradict with the claims made in these 2 books. I agree with User:Horse Eye's Back that that the "reception and legacy" and "Posthumous assessment" are especially bad. The attempt to psychoanalyze Gaddafi, the Max Weber part about Gaddafi's supposed "charismatic authority", and claims of Gaddafi changing clothes multiple times a day and being a self-proclaimed fashion icon are clearly subjective opinions, unencyclopedic, and things we could do without.IceFrappe (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Locker, Ray. "Pentagon 2008 study claims Putin has Asperger's syndrome". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (2021-09-15). "Donald Trump's mental health becomes an issue again | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ "Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, says leading psychoanalyst". The Independent. 2020-08-11. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (2021-09-16). "Paul Ryan was convinced Donald Trump had narcissistic personality disorder | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ III, George T. Conway (2019-10-03). "Unfit for Office". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ "CNN.com - Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad' - Sep. 27, 2002". www.cnn.com. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ News, A. B. C. "Is Bush's Iraq Stance Rooted in Revenge?". ABC News. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
{{cite web}}:|last=has generic name (help) - ^ Parkinson, Hannah Jane (2016-11-30). "No one should be diagnosed at a distance – even Donald Trump". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-02-26.
- ^ Woodward, Bob (1986-10-02). "Gadhafi Target of Secret U.S. Deception Plan". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
- ^ Woodward, Bob (1984-04-29). "Qaddafi's Authority Said to Be Weakening". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-03-05.