Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 1

message: This page should be moved to Muammar al-Qaddafi, which is what the whole article uses. An admin will have to do this. --Cantus 00:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page

message: Dear lord.  VV, if you're going to get into a massive revert war, you ought to have some written justification of it beyond "reverting misinfo".  Why are 172's additions misinformation?  I've protected on 172's version. john 05:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls.  (a) The new text is slanted (e.g., merely having a "stance" on Palestinian independence, like, say, I don't know, Saudi Arabia?).  (b) It repeats the unproven assertion that Qaddafi's daughter was killed.  (An adopted daughter may or may not have been killed.) -- VV 06:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: For several years, the Libyan government has held a handful of Bulgarian nurses under the charge that they deliberately spread the AIDS virus amongst patients at a children's hospital in Benghazi. Last May, a Libyan court convicted them to death by firing squad on the basis of evidence that was derived through torture-induced confessions. A new trial is in progress, but the case could last for years. It is speculated that Libya is doing this to force Bulgaria to give them money or to have Sofia excuse Tripoli's debts.
Anyway, the nurses are innocent. An AIDS expert looked into this case and linked the outbreak to the poor sanitation in the hospitals that facilitated dangerous transfusions. Based on information regarding incubation period, the expert also noted that the children were infected BEFORE the nurses arrived.
Why is there no discussion on this?? posted by 129.170.246.74
* Because nobody has created such an article yet. I think this is a good idea, but it belongs at Foreign relations of Libya or in its own separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything on the Bulgarian nurses? 

message: why is he so bad? What did he do? im doing an assignment and i cant get any info on what he did wrong...
pls help
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.248.75 (talk • contribs) .
He killed a lot of people, apparently mostly political dissenters; established some strict offical public codes of morals; and supported terrorism: he is believed to have ordered an early 1980's bombing at a night club (popular among American soldiers) in Berlin that killed Germans and Americans, and he has been implicated other terrorist activities mentioned in this article.  Also, he curried favor with the Soviet Union (another not-so-nice goverment - but don't look to Wiki to find out why, the historical info isn't in that section either).
He did a lot more than just that. There is also no freedom of expression or opinion in the country. He floods the country with his bogus propaganda. You only know of the pan-am flight bombing, but he also destroyed a libyan aircraft going frmo benghazi to tripoli killing 157 people in 1992, and then claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people. Also in 1996, the Abu Salim Prison massacre took place, where approximately 1700 political prisoners were killed. In the 1970's University students who opposed military draft were arrested, and many were hanged in public. 
*note* While it may seem that he had favored the Soviet Union; that is not entirely true, he hated them , and they didnt like him much either. He purchased weapons from them but as far as foreign policy goes, they werent friends.
*note* Quote: "He floods the country with his bogus propaganda" How is this any different than American media? Is it different?  I make no claims, but you should ask yourself those questions. Any person with average intelligence should examine these claims.
Quote:"...claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people."
You should also ask yourself how do you know if the claim is true or false? I admit I am skeptical of the (Gaddafi) claim, but how can you claim he 'killed those people' You don't know that. You weren't there. How many "bogus explainations" have been readily accepted by the American public regarding everything from watergate to the so-called "terrorist attack" on Sept. 11, 2001? Can we say "Snowjob" ?
If Gaddafi "floods the country with his bogus propaganda" what makes you think that you are immune to "bogus propaganda" in your country?
I must ask myself "Why is the United States so hated?" It's not such a mystery to me anymore.
WAKE UP. SEE THE LIGHT.
From an American born citizen. I would rather be here than anywhere else but that doesn't mean I love my Government. I hate no one. I do not hate Gaddafi, I do not hate America or my Government. I just see them for what they are.71.193.253.74 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Gaddafi so hated? 

message: * There seem to be some material in this article coming from here, or the other way around, would somebody verify that? Lincher 17:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio maybe 

message: As Maximusveritas correctly points out today in the Gaddafi article–in reverting an inappropriate edit–Saddam's overthrow by coalition forces in 2003 cannot be described as a coup.Phase1 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coup d'état 

message: I saw several instances of the word "poopy" in the article, so I deleted them.128.211.249.179 00:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poopy 

message: Without any textual amendment to the Gaddafi article, the following new website was added today as an external link by anon.IP 24.86.60.230:. I removed it because not only is it still under construction and largely unfinished, but also because what there is of the website – apart from a rather confused Libyan History section and a reference to Amnesty International – is basically an uncited tirade against Gaddafi. I suggest re-checking this anti-Gaddafi website periodically to see if it merits a mention in the article and inclusion as an external link.Phase4 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon IP 24.207.35.97 has today added the same link without textual amendment. For the reasons given above, I've removed it.Phase4 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good plan, Phase4. The emphasis on exclusion should be on the unfinished nature of the site. Regards, Lambyuk 12:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The site is now wholly completed except for the forum. Regarding the comment abou the site being an uncited tirade against Gaddafi, the articles do contain resources. The site provides key insights into the true personality of Gaddafi. If the site is deemed to be biased one doesn't have to be a genious to figure out the outstanding bias of Gaddafi's site, thus it serves as giving a different point of view. The site divulges into the real Gaddafi which has been shielded due to Gaddafi's control on the freedoms of speech and press and also due to the lackluster job of the western media. The site also contains interesting videos relating to Gaddafi. In addition there is a list of all the people that have been killed by Gaddafi. If Wikipedia practices the principles it praises it should post this site.
I've started a new section "Internal dissent" and included the anti-Gaddafi website together with other opposition websites in that section. "External links" also updated.Phase4 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Gaddafi website 

message: I would appreciate seeing the name of his killed daughter, and clarification of which two sons were injured in the same operation Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See for name of adopted daughter [Hanna] killed in the 1986 bombing raid. Can't help on the names of the injured sons, though.Phase4 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have the pictures online, that would be great.  While they wouldn't likely be suited for this article, they could like be composited into an image for the article on the operation itself :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of children

message: 에피소드의 기술이 삭제되고 있다.이것은 매스컴에 발표된 올바른 기사이다.왜 삭제하는지 노트에 이유를 적었으면 좋겠다～～～
Phase4 has deleted description, without describing a reason.
He should now be blocked "sine die"220.210.7.136 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode 

message: 64.110.37.244 has introduced 16 edits into the Gaddafi article in the past 36 hours. I've had to revert them because in the main they are not up to the Wikipedia standard. Numerous assertions are made without sources being cited. Names are frequently misspelled (eg Patris Lumobaba is presumably meant to be Patrice Lumumba) but, again, there is no source for the actual assertion made.Phase4 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced edits by 64.110.37.244

message: Does anyone have an opinion on this rather massive rewrite? At first glance (I didn't actually read all of it, admittedly), it seems to me that pretty much the entire article was replaced with an inferior, unwikified text that vaguely smells of having been copied from another source (legally or illegally). I've reverted it for now. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such rewrite should have been discussed here first. Reversion is correct.Phase4 08:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite by [[User:Freeas]] 

message: I put in templates showing al-Gaddafi as having been Head of State and Prime Minister. For the Head of State part, I have two justifications. First, logic: al-Gaddafi headed the Revolution in 1969 and before "relinquishing" power to various front-men in succeeding years, he was the sole head of Libya for a decade. In terms of a concrete citation, we have the March 2, 1979 New York Times, under the headline Libyan Leader Quits a Post But Seems to Stay on Top: "Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya since 1969, has resigned his post as secretary general of the Libyan People's Congress". The phrase "leader of Libya since 1969", in political science terms, is "head of state". Anyone removing the template should show that he was not head of state in that period, and who was.
For the Prime Minister part, I have a citation from a scholarly work (Libya: a country study, Harold D. Nelson (ed.), American Univeristy, 1979, Washington, D.C.): "Qadhaafi became prime minister in January 1970...In July 1972 [Major Abdal Salaam] Jalloud assumed the position of prime minister."
My confidence in this matter is strengthened because templates on the Polish and German Wikipedias show the same thing–I didn't just come up with this out of nowhere. So if you remove the templates, please provide adequate justification. Biruitorul 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have just edited Gaddafi into Heads of Government of Libya so presumably the PMs' template can stay. I'm still wary of accepting the NYT citation you give for calling him "head of state", since the position Gaddafi was reported to have resigned from (Secretary-General of the Libyan Peoples' Congress) has traditionally been a prime ministerial position. Both templates spell the country incorrectly (Lybia) but that in itself is not a good reason for removing them. Maybe others have a view?Phase4 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the spelling–thank you for pointing that out. You are correct that, since 1977 (two years before his resignation), General Secretary... has been used for PMs, according to our list. However, it is important to remember that between 1969 and 1979, except for 1970-2, when he was PM, other men served as PM: al-Maghribi, Jalloud and al-Obeidi. If they were PM, then al-Gaddafi had to be something else. Now, I don't have 100%, black-on-white proof that al-Gaddafi was "head of state" from 1969 to 1979, and indeed the situation is complicated by the fact that titles of the sort we might be used to haven't been in fashion in Libya since the Revolution. However, the facts I have enumerated strongly point in the direction of his having been head of state for that first decade, so I would ask for some more evidence before we remove that. As Phase4 asked – does anyone else have an opinion? Biruitorul 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I feel that the existing wording is fair, as IRA was widely viewed by the international community as a terrorist organisation in the 1980s.  They were officially listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries.  This is discussed in detail on Provisional Irish Republican Army#Categorisation (and see ).  They were recently uncontroversially referred to as a terrorist organisation by the President of the UN General Assembly.
Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for existing wording 

message: I'm satisfied with the current version, so will not go ahead with the third opinion. Chovain 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest change 

message: Is anyone able to find refs for the "TV trivia" (I've moved into its own "Trivia" section for now).  It seems out of place in this article to me.  Does anyone out there actually feel these bits are notable?  I have a feer that if we listed every refernce to Gaddafi in pop culture, we'd end up with more trivia than article. Chovain 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if references can be found to support the "TV trivia" bits, I'm not convinced they're notable enough to be included in the Gaddafi article. I'd like to see the section removed.Phase4 12:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree - that's pretty trivial trivia.  A whole show centered on Gaddafi might be notable but not an offside comment. Do we include it every time someone on TV criticizes George W. Bush?  Simesa 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Trivia 

message: Might want to mention Escape to Hell and anything else Qaddafi has written, somewhere in the article Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add reference?

message: I've never seen this mentioned before. Both Dirk Vandewalle (in all his books, unless I've missed something) and the 2006 and 2007 editions of "The Middle East And North Africa" specifically state that the Free Officers went to the military academy cos that was the only way they could get an education. I've seen several other authors espouse this point, but only in one place (here) have I seen this mentioned. I think it should be deleted if noone can come up with a trustworthy quote (I'll leave it there as all I have is lack of evidence that's true!)
PS: As for spelling, it's regional. Qadhafi would be the 'most precise' translitteration of the written arabic form of the Colonel's name (although the second a should have a line over it, as it's long) - if one agrees that Classical Arabic is also correct Arabic, and that all the modern regional variants are inferior and wrong. I'm quite sure Qadhafis mum will have called him 'Gadaafi' (long a).88.212.93.179 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made your point about the law studies (don't forget to add 4 tildes after each edit!) and I have added the "citation needed" tag at the appropriate point in the text of the article. As for the spelling, Gaddafi is accepted throughout Wikipedia – so we can put that one to bed now.Phase4 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qadhafi studied Law?! 

message: When coming to power in 1969, Qadhdhafi flung out thousands of Europeans in hours and
seized property worth millions with no compensation. He required those visiting Libya
to have passports in Arabic, not Berber or Tubu, which have been spoken in Libya for
longer than Arabic. Of course, the borders of Libya are new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: Recently, malber has added the "Living people" category to the Gaddafi article three times, and I removed it twice.
I can see the logic of having such a category for doubtful cases but my reasoning for its removal in regard to Gaddafi is that he appears in the "1942 births" category and, because there is no year of death category, it is superfluous – if not downright fatuous – to categorize him as living.
Other editors' comments would be appreciated.Phase1 13:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think it's a bit of a kludge. I can see where it'd be useful to get a list of living people with articles, but I think it'd be better to create some sort of query to generate the list automatically based on the presence of a birth category and absence of death, as you describe. Probably not a big issue worth fighting over, though. Bryan 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now seen some of the discussion here which, although not entirely convincing, does at least give one utilitarian reason for having a living people category.Phase1 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living people category