Talk:The Green Book (Gaddafi)

message: I ordered a copy from the Libyan Mission to the United Nations about a year ago for free, so I don't think it's out of print. --Seselwa 10:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can this be ordered from? Could you also fill in some of the publishing details (if there are any), as its very unclear what is 'official' and what isn't when it comes to the Libyan government. Bungopolis 18:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd also be interested in finding out what the copyright status of the text is (I don't know much about Libyan copyright law). Since there seem to be quite a few unauthorized publications, and the government gives it away for free, I would imagine it's not strictly protected. Bungopolis 19:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: While there might not be a copyright statement or ISBN, the Berne Convention on copyright does tend to imply that copyright is automatic. So while one probably wouldnt get into to trouble distributing it, that doesnt mean its necessarily legal to do so without permission. With all that said, I highly doubt Mr Gadafi will be rising from the grave to issue a DMCA. Duckmonster (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: availability

message: Green book search on Google News --Rarian rakista (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being mentioned in the news 

message: The link goes to the English translation, not to the Arabic original. I think this should be noted. -- 77.189.25.3 (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to text should be marked "(in English)" 

message: This is a pretty big accusation thats missing any explanation or sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.129.163 (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  its authorship is disputed 

message: Gaddafi, all by himself, is sufficiently unbalanced and absurd without certain Wikipedia editors trying to assist him by being more absurd than he is. For example, the first and third quotations in the section titled Excerpts are translated in such a way as to make Gaddafi seem even more ridiculous than he actually is. This just undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. If you want to ridicule Gaddafi, the best and most solid way is to present him exactly as he is. Where the article focuses on ridiculing what is in the Green Book it should stick to a reliable translation. I'm not sure what a reliable translation would be, that needs an assessment from an expert. Perhaps this one. Anyway, to the editors who think this is a good way to go, if your main energy is just to write comedy spoofs on Gaddafi, go write your own blog, but keep it away from Wikipedia.  --Epipelagic (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. Only official translations can be used and even then, the selection of passages is not neutral. --damiens.rf 12:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you Ken. I'm the arsehole who removed your contributions, and told you to put them here instead. I agree completely that the excerpt from the Green Book you mention is tendentious garbage, and I have removed it. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of versions listed in "External links" at the bottom. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is not even-handed

message: Why are there two pictures of the cover of the Green book? One in English and one in... Russian?
Is the one who posted these pictures thought that the original Green book's language was Russian?
Or did you think that this is how the Arabic writing looks?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.152.113 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green book covers 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg Nominated for Deletion

message: It is quite strange that among the "western viewers" there is a quotation of an article of a BBC journalist published on October, 21, 2011 one day after Gaddafi's death.
Martin Hasser is known for his highly biased articles to BBC.
BBC and CNN were at Tripoli:
"The mainstream media, including CNN and the BBC have direct links to NATO, the Transitional Council and Rebel Forces. They are serving NATO interests in a direct way through massive media distortion. 
At the same time, those within the Rixos Media Centre who are committed to the truth are the the object of veiled threats. In the case of Mahdi, the threats were very explicit."
This is at Globalresearch.  
At Globalresearch there are many western thinkers that have other opinions about Gaddafi and The Green Book.
Maybe the title should be changed because there are other western views.
I could not help noticing that you took the line about freedom of speech from Martin Hasser's article. It only shows that this article is highly poor.--Justana (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western View 

message: The Criticism section is vague and poorly argued. Together with complete lack of any supporting statements it makes the whole article look biased. I suggest to revisit the Criticism section and also look for the other side (for much of the theses in the Green Book are sound, like, for example, when it comes to needs and freedom), or, if that is not possible, remove the Criticism section until actual evidence in either direction is found. —j9t (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Criticism 

message: An anon IP removed this from the end of the article:
:
But another editor (User:Arthur Rubin) restored it. But:
*It's not cited and has been tagged for over a year, which is sufficient time for someone to find a cite, and
*Both Staging Memory and Stefania Del Monte are redlinked, so that's no help, and indicates that they may not be very notable.
*And I can't find anything on Staging Memory except listings of the book for sale at places like Amazon -- no reviews and suchlike -- which means I can't ref the statement, and also this is further indication that the book may not be very notable.
So I'm wondering if we should really have this sentence. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon is the banned "Michigan kid".  If an unbanned editor wants to confirm the change, go ahead.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhhh OK. For my part I'm not willing to confirm the change because there's a counter-argument: here's an actual real published book (which may even deserve an an article, possibly, for all I know) with a whole section in it devoted to the Green Book. So might be a worthwhile point. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  re ''Staging Memory''