Talk:HIV trial in Libya/Archive 1

message: I cannot believe the shocking bias repeated over and over and over again in this article. I don't know how many more ways one can slip in the case for the defense of the nurses, but I'm guessing most permutations have been tried. Either we add the Libyan case more thoroughly or we delete large junks of this tendentious piece that repeatedly churns out case for the defense. 
If anyone bothers to read the literature with even a remotely open mind, and just a quick pointer I would suggest reading the piece by the Professor from South Carolina University Medical School in the Libyan Journal of Medicine published in March 2007, you find a formidable response to the western scientific point of view. In fact it appears quite clearly to win the argument. One should read it then make the changes. Until this occurs I shall delete the unnecessary repetition of case for the defense - that is remedy the flagrant bias in this article.
Right, I'm sure the rantings of an obscure professor from Nowhere University the mainstream scientific consensus.  If you have even studied HIV for TWO minutes you could see what absolute rubbish he is spewing.
: Please sign your post. Some (Libyans) call it bias, others (World) call it scientific truth. The co-discoverer of HIV, Dr Luc Montagnier, said the virus in the hospital predated the coming of the foreign medical personnel. That much fact should explain any "bias". --Cryout 18:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: terrible bias throughout the article

message: It really needs a better title - this is wordy and unless you already knew the story, doesn't give you any info on what the article is about exolon 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Benghazi six brings up hits on google at least. Benghazi six trial may also work. I guess it depends on how the article is being written. But what is clear is that Trial of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor in Libya is horrible, it sounds like a bad novel, not an article. --Falcorian 06:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Agree that the article should be renamed Benghazi six trial.  "AIDS scandal in Libya" is WAY to vague and could refer to almost anything involving AIDS in Libya.  Nick 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It seems a little NPOV. --Falcorian 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why? It is a scandal! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about AIDS controversy in Libya? Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Controversy -- maybe. How about Disaster. There are suposedly 426 *children* that have somehow contracted HIV. That's a disaster. Unless you are suggesting that 426 children never contracted HIV in the first place. Jeff Carr 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 'Scandal' in a headline should be reserved for a tabloid.  The German and French pages use the title "HIV Trial in Libya."  Would there be any objection to this change?  Gilliamjf 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems ok to me Yellowmellow45 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Gilliamjf 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to throw my support behind the change as well. --Falcorian | Talk 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Title 

message: I think this article is sorely in need of information regarding the popular opinion in Lybia throughout the incident.  Possibly Bulgaria as well though that might be superfluous as their opinion might be obvious. Uly 15:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular opinion 

message: does it matter that it is Christmas day ?
--Jerome Potts 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  december 25th 

message: I've moved the original discussion on this page here to help better organize the talk page. I hope that's ok. I suspect these comments were added before wikimedia had the added feature to have talk topics. Jeff Carr 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a better suggestion in mind right now. If there's a name the Bulgarians are giving it, I don't know it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Assuming you mean the Wikipedia search, I'm not sure what you mean by "create a link". The title Bulgarian nurses would not by itself be appropriate. There should be another version titled with the word nurse which is more common in the US than medic (here limited to military or emergency responder usage), but the article really needs a better name. I found Benghazi six and made a redirect, but that's obviously not the common name nor is it very descriptive. I've decided to post this naming conundrum to the Village Pump and get some wider input. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Libyan HIV trial ? Simesa 11:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like either of those much, partly because I think it's misleading (i.e. POV) in that it accepts the Libyan prosecution at face value, which is to say, as an honest attempt to ferret out the truth. That just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I also strongly prefer keeping the accused in the title, somehow, as the article is much more about their plight than the HIV epidemic. But then we're stuck with either a non-specific portmanteau phrase like "foreign medical professionals" or using the phrase we've got "Bulgarian medics and a Palestinian doctor" because we can't leave one of them out. That said I could accept a move to something like Libyan prosecution of foreign medical professionals, although that almost sounds like an article detailing multiple prosecutions over a number of years rather than one incident dragged on. (By the way, my request at Village Pump was fruitless, but I'll try again.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think your perspective is slightly skewed here.  That the Libyan government is charging them with causing an HIV epidemic is a fact; we also have an article on witch trials- that doesn't mean that we are accepting the "crime" as real.  It is also clear that "explaining" the HIV outbreak is at the heart of the charges, rather than say, a particular animosity for Bulgarians.  I don't see how including "HIV" in the title is POV when that is what the subject is all about.--Pharos 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My perspective is slightly skewed?! Seriously, dude. The widespread majority opinion outside of Libya is that this is an unjust prosecution, a scapegoating, which the Libya government is using for two purposes: to deflect criticism from its own poor health-care practices, and to shake down Western governments for cash. Calling this the "HIV trial" presumptively implies that the trial is actually about finding the source of the HIV infection, when top HIV experts have said that it's medically practically impossible for the epidemic to have been introduced. I'm all for simplification here, but I'm not going to do it where the price is allowing the fantasy-level (witchcraft-trial) legal theories of Libya to frame the entire story. I actually have thought that it would be a great idea to have a separate article on the Benghazi HIV epidemic all by itself, in part to support this article. The pawns in all of this, of course, are not just the medics, but the Libya people, who have been frighteningly misled. That may be POV, but I believe our responsibility to the truth -- and to medical safety -- is higher. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think you've misunderstood my meaning here.  I just don't see how semantically the term "HIV trial" implies the prosecution is legitimate at all; the phraseology has been used in a number of mainstream reports   that are highly critical of the trial.  I just think that having a name people are more likely to search for will make the facts more accessible to the world at large.  Of course, I agree it would be a very good thing to develop a separate full article on the actual HIV outbreak.--Pharos 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Discussion 

message: I'm reading The Arab Mind.  This is a controversial book.  It offers relatively simple explanations for the actions of Arabs.  The point I wish to address here is that a Middle Eastern writer (not the author of the book) wrote that Muslims must only be governed by Muslims.  This may lead to the rejection of the study published in Nature, as it did not come from a Muslim source.  However, the authors of the study have published, for use by anyone, the data they collected and used in their study, in encouragement of having the study reperformed. Simesa 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly get the relevance of the book to the article. Nil Einne 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the interjection of a quasi-racist book of pop psychology is what the article needs either.  Ford MF 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also doesn't you marginalizing resources. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a great deal of the bias in the trial is explained in the book.  I've read it - have any of you? Simesa 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but IMHO we need a greater degree of relevance before we add links. Just because one or two readers feel a very controversial book (which wasn't even written for this event) helps then understand the event is not sufficient relevance to add it to the article IMHO. Let's not forget that Libyan's are only part Arab anyway Nil Einne 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Arab Mind]] 

message: The meaning of "electrocute" is to KILL with electricity, so the medics were not alleged to have been electrocuted, as stated, but rather to have suffered electric shock treatment. As the word "electrocuted" is contained within a quotation it cannot be altered (unless the quotation is replaced by a general statement) but still needs some correcting notation. User:Shulgi 19 December 2006, 15:10.
I don't think that's the ONLY definition for "electrocute".  71.216.188.161 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture 

message: *Is there a schedule now that the death sentence has been confirmed ? Hektor 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The defendants' lawyers have 60 days to file an appeal with the Libyan supreme court. Simesa 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So no emergency there. Does anyone know if by Lybian law the head of state or any other official has the possibility to pardon or commute the sentence ? Hektor 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Execution

message: It says that Ashraf al-Hajuj also has the alias al-Hadjudj. This I find does not constitute an alias, simply a different transliteration. It sounds exactly the same, and does not really seem an alias. Kaiser matias 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alias 

message: There is quite a bit of info on the Bulgarian response but nothing about the Palestinian response.  Has there been any response worth noting concerning the fate of their national?  Libya obiviously has more cultural and political points of contact with Palestine than Bulgaria so I was expecting something.  Thanks.  --JGGardiner 09:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not much, there is a petition which I included in the article. Some sporadic reporting.68.60.68.203 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Doctor

message: Some evidences can show their guilty or innocents?Nevertheless,the ones (no matter the bulgarian or not) who infect the 400 childrens with HIV are  damned to hell.Ksyrie
**I was here just to condemn those who did this nasty evil.Why not create another topic to talk about the truth of this case?Ksyrie
***You may want to actually read the article. They are most likely innocent, at least according to the journal Nature. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-20 14:59Z
**** The article proves only one fact ... Few libyans are using the internet and very few of them know what is wikipedia! Islampedia 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone can find the truth?

message: I couldn't find the exact number on the page. --Bentendo24 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactly how many kids have died? 

message: addition "were arrested (on December 18, 1998" is incorrect - This evidently the basis also for the removal of my post about the Bulgarians being present during WHO inspection. 2 Bulgarians were detained on December 14 and RELEASED on December 16 ,  The WHO team came   28 December 1998 – 11 January 1999 The nurses were detained again in February. Well actually they "had gone missing" Feb 10 and were reported as kidnapped by the Bulgarian embassy. They WERE on staff during the entire period that the WHO team based its report on. My post was correct, and should be reverted.Furthermore of persons detained on Dec 14 and released on Dec 16 only two were Bulgarian and only one would eventually become one of the 6, Snezhana Ivanova Dimitrova. So the 6 were not arrested on Dec 18 only Snezhana Ivanova Dimitrova was detained on Dec 14 and she was released on Dec 16. If you  read the section  Final Report of Montagnier and Colizzi I entered they present unequivocally that "Three Children (Category B) were admitted and found seropositive after the 9 February 1999, date of departure of the Bulgarian staff." , perhaps that eluded you. The false date should be removed as well. I have two independent corroborating PRIMARY sources so February 9 is carved in stone as far as I am concerned as relates to the presence of the Bulgarian nurses on the Wards.That representatives of the World Health Organization made an inspection at the peak of the crisis while the Bulgarians were there and made a report is of primary significance. It is the only independent direct observation we have.68.60.68.203 06:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say, that there was, that we don't have 68.60.68.203 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical staff involved--Dates--Bulgarians present during WHO inspection

message: This article is very long, very dense, and very difficult to read. Can someone please work to clean this article up? I don't even know where to find what the people confessed, or why they did it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, and I am sure that will happen eventually. It is alleged that confessions were extracted through torture/abuse of the prisoners who signed documents in Arabic they could not understand. It would be pretty hard to find anyone who actually thinks they "did" take a geneticaly engineered  HIV virus to Libya and conspired to purposefully infect hundreds of kids, for any reason, who could  explain that to you.  Oh wait - there is the Libyan government - they did it to test a vaccine that didn't work, and brew illegal alcohol. 68.60.68.203 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, no one has suggested the virus was genetically engineered. Indeed this doesn't make much sense since if you're testing a vaccine, you'd want a normal virus not something that's been modified Nil Einne 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't this happen now? I came here because it was linked from the front page and was slightly embarrassed for Wikipedia that a high-profile article is in this state. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the cleanup.  But I venture that we may not have heard the last of this issue this year.  Simesa 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but the article can be updated in its entirety, rather tha just adding new caselogs to the end. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 07:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CLEANUP PART ONE WORK ON A COMPREHENSIBLE  INTRODUCTION The HIV trial in the country of Libya concerns the trials of six foreign medical workers accused of conspiring to deliberately inject 393 children with the HIV virus, causing an epidemic at El-Fath Children's Hospital in Benghazi. The main defendants were five Bulgarian nurses, and one Palestinian physician. There have been a number of trials, appeals, retrials, convictions and death sentences imposed, reversed and reimposed over a period of many years. From the outset a highly charged  atmosphere surrounded the case. It involved the largest outbreak of hospital-induced HIV in history, there have been allegations and seperate trials for torture, confessions, retracted confessions, charges of cia/mossad plots and vaccine tests gone awry, genetically engineered viruses,  the exclusion of scientific evidence, international appeals, and speeches by world leaders. The latest case ended on December 19, 2006, with a conviction, and the defendants were again sentenced to death by firing squad. The nurses had been recruited in Bulgaria and began work at the Libyan hospital in early 1998. A crisis erupted that summer when a local newspaper reported cases of AIDS at the hospital having been contacted by the parents of two dead children. The crisis deepened as more parents came forward, the newspaper was shut down, but it was eventually revealed that some 450 people, mostly children, had been infected. A WHO team was sent in December and stayed through January of 1999, the report is classified and issued a classified report. In February the Bulgarian embassy reported that 23 Bulgarian specialists had been kidnapped. A week later they are informed by Libyan authorities that “precautionary measures” have been taken against Bulgarian doctors and nurses working at the Benghazi Children’s Hospital. On March 7, 1999 six members of the group subjected to "precautionary measures" are formally arrested on a warrant in connection with the case of infecting children in Benghazi with HIV. They are Kristiyana Valtcheva, Nasya Nenova, Valentina Siropulo, Valya Chervenyashka, and Snezhana Dimitrova. Along with Palestinian physician Ashraf al-Hajuj, they are later to become widely known as "the Benghazi Six" Almost a year later February 7, 2000, the first trial, Case No. 44 of 1999 against six Bulgarians, eight Libyans and one Palestinian, began. charging them with, indiscriminate killing of people for the purpose of subversion of the security of the State, conspiracy and collusion, Causing an epidemic by injecting 393 children the AIDS virus, and Premeditated murder. Separate charges entered against some or all of the Bulgarians only were: engaging in illicit sexual relationships, drinking alcohol in public places, distilling alcohol, and illegally transacting in foreign currency.I am trying to make a start on this 68.60.68.203 07:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You write a lot, and you write very well, but you have to cite your sources!  A simple description< will work.  Verifiable sources are going to be vital in this issue - we can't be accused of turning into a propaganda piece. Simesa 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting to that this all has to be whittled down its mostly here [http://www.bta.bg/site/libya/en/02chronology.htm www.bta.bg<   and the bulgarian embassy site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh crud 68.60.68.203 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just neeeded a close brackets ] as in www.bta.bg Simesa 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Since Bulgaria is a member of NATO, would Libya executing or even threatening to, the capitves, invoke the 5th clausule of NATO-OTAN base treaty? That one is about mandatory joint military action, which would mean EU and USA can lay its hand directly on the oil, by removing Mr.G...
:Probably not. These people have been found guilty of a crime. Yes they may not have received a fair trial and don't appear to actually be guilty of the crime, but I would assume the 5th clause doesn't cover situations when someone is executed because they are found guilty of a crime. Otherwise NATO might be invading the US Nil Einne 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing that in the article might be regarded as a threat by the Libyans. Simesa 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 5 

message: (PUBLISHED IN STATE GAZETTE NO. 56/29.06.1993)
Part One
COPYRIGHT
Chapter One
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subject Matter
Article 1.
This Law shall regulate the relations connected with creation and distribution of
literary, artistic and scientific works.
Arising of Copyright
Article 2. Copyright on literary, artistic and scientific works shall arise for the author upon
the creation of the work.
Chapter Two
SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT
Protected Works
Article 3. (1) Subject to copyright is any literary, artistic and scientific work which is a result
of creative activities and is expressed in whatever manner and whatever tangible form, such as:
1. literary works, including works of scientific and technical literature, publicism, and
computer programs;
2. musical works;
3. stage works - dramatic works, dramatico-musical works, pantomimes, choreographic works
etc.;
4. films and other audiovisual works;
5. works of fine arts, including works of applied art, design, and folklore artistic crafts;
6. works of architecture;
7. photographic works, and works created by a process analogous to the photographic;
8. projects, maps, schemes, plans and others related to architecture, territorial lay-out,
geography, topography, museum activities, and any other field of science and technics;
9. graphic arrangement of a printed edition.
(2) Subject to copyright shall also be:
1. translations and adaptations of pre-existing works and folklore works;
2. arrangements of musical works and folklore works;
3. periodicals, encyclopaedias, collections, anthologies, bibliographies, data bases, and other
works similar to the above, which include two or more works or materials.
(3) Subject to copyright shall also be a part of a work under paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as
preparatory drawings, plans and other works of the kind.
Exceptions
Article 4. The following shall not be subject to copyright:
1. normative and individual acts of state governing bodies, and the official translations
thereof'''''
2. ideas and concepts;
3. folklore works;
4. news, facts, information and data.
68.60.68.203 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAW ON COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBORING RIGHTS Bulgaria 

message: They're back - Gaddafi still thinks either American, Israeli or Bulgarian intelligence is behind the HIV infections. Qaddafi Plays Again Spy Link in Bulgarian Medics' Case Simesa 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spy allegations 

message: Is a list of 400-odd children's names really necessary in this article?  I don't see what it will bring to the table other than a massive gap of whiteness. IanUK
:If the names of the nurses are pertinent, the names of the children may be also (but as a separate page!).  However, our new editor apparently also wants to deny that the blood samples used in the study reported in Nature came from the children, and he'll have to produce a cite from a reputable source for that statement! Simesa 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Islampedia apparently insists on putting all 426 names at the head of the article.  His edit comment was that they are the victims in this trial.  I will leave a note on his Talk page explaing that the nurses' names aren't any higher than the link to the page I made for the names. Simesa 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated Postscript:  The page I made for the childrens' names was deleted, primarily on the basis that "Wikipedia is not a memorial", but also on privacy grounds for the families.  Finally, there apparently is no open source for the names of the children. (Note: I'm not saying I agree with the article as currently laid out.)  Simesa 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well I was not around for all this flaming nonsense -but in point since then I managed to hunt down the published court record from the Libyan Supreme court (thanks to google translator and one vague reference on novite)  this has all changed. The names are certainly all there and could easily be plucked out if someone wanted to. They are listed. More importantly, a lot of the vague incoherent gobldygook in this article about what took place when in Libya, as far as the history of the trials would be rendered clear.  But I don't speak Arabic and  google translator is not quite up to that task. 68.60.68.203 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of 400-odd names? 

message: The study was reported in a "brief communication" pending full print.  A "brief communication" constitutes peer-reviewed scientific results - it is NOT an "Editorial".  As best as I can tell the full report has not been published yet, although the data used has been released for use by anyone. Simesa 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the study has been published: but it isn't freely available on the web.  See . Simesa 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well it wasn't then it was, and now they seem to have taken it off line again only available for subscribers.68.60.68.203 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of genetic analyses references 

message: List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya has been created and linked 3 times in this article. If anyone has more information about the children, please expand the new article. -- Scientizzle 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya]] 

message: According to many sources an international fund named "The Benghazi International Fund" was set up by US , EU  and libyan government. This fund is not mentioned in the artilce in a clear manner. There was an agreement signed in tripoli on 17.nov.2005 about this fund according to aljazeera international  http://english.aljazeera.net/News/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=16286 Islampedia 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Benghazi International Fund 

message: Now that the 3RR-violation Block has been imposed, in addition to User:Deiz's changes I changed back the disputed text.  This borders on a 3RR violation myself, as I have one change and 3 reverts in the 24 hours previous to this, but I believe it fulfills the intent of the administrators.  Other editors should feel free to change it back if they disagree. Simesa 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this after Islampedia's username was brought up at WP:RFCN. Regardless of the name, some of his edits are frankly bizarre, and any changes to improve the article, remove POV etc. shouldn't result in 3RR problems. The some/only thing is frankly ridiculous, WP readers are entitled to make up their own minds after reading facts. Reinserting this arbitrary, inaccurate quantification can probably be considered vandalism and therefore safe to revert at will. If neutral admin eyes are needed here in the future you can give me a shout. Deizio talk 13:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed back

message: In the international reactions part nothing is written about these reactions and in the whole article nothing is written about their reactions the only exception is one Libyan reaction on 28.dec Islampedia 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Tripoli, Libya 01/01 - The African Union (AU) Commission has expressed concern at what it calls "politicisation" of the case of the medics who have been convicted to death by a Libyan court after they were found guilty of deliberately injecting 426 children with the AIDS-causing virus. The Libyan media quoted the AU Commission as saying the entire Africa was monitoring the case with great interest, and that attempts to politicise the matter must stop forthwith. Instead,  it said, people should stop interfering with the judiciary, adding that the court decision must be respected by all  . It  urged the world to have faith in the Libyan judicial system, which it described as competent and respectful . A Libyan court sentenced to death, on 19 December, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor after they were found guilty of inoculating children with the HIV at a paediatric hospital in Benghazi, east of capital Tripoli. The case has provoked reactions from all over the world with politicians and the media in Bulgaria condemning the verdict. Sofia (Bulgaria) has so far sought the intervention of the European Union. The AU also expressed solidarity with the families of the victims and its desire. It said people should not aggravate the tragic case, where 56 of the infected children have already succumbed to AIDS.  http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=498504    Islampedia 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I added this statement in. Presenting useful news stories is a good thing. Accusing people that don't conform to your exact viewpoint of being Bulgarian or anti-Libyan is not a good thing. -- Scientizzle 20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attacking authors when they post facts which you can not ignore is a bad thing. It seems that we need bulgarian permission to make any change to this article. This time I got permission next time I do not think. It is very sad that wikipedia is under control. When some author make changes to the text it should be dicussed at least for few hours if not days then u can delete or call bulgraian admins. specially when the change it one word which reflects an important critic about that stupid report. The way u terrorize authors is a bad thing Islampedia 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * On 24.dec.2006 The Arab League (AL) issued an appeal to Tripoli and Sofia not to politicise the trial against the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor. The League asked all countries not to politicise the issue, as the accused have still one more chance for appealing their sentence. The League also  underlined the need to be compassionate to the HIV-infected Libyan children in order to curb the consequences of this "painful human catastrophe" . Sofia News Agency [SNA]http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=74522 (requires subscription)  Islampedia 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia thinks that the reaction of one country like US or bulgarua MUST be included in bold and the reactions of 22 countries represented by the Arab League MUST be rejected. Another prove that this article is an extension to government.bg  Islampedia 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the discussion and the words of Islampedia. And I don't know where to start with my dismay. Mostly, because this is a person (or maybe people) who read the policies of Wikipedia with a clearly stated goal of turning it into an "Islampedia" - all this while Wikipedia is by rule against any political, religious, ethnic, etc affiliation. And finally I see the only logical twist in his (her or their) thinking - that anyone else editing the article is a member of the Bulgarian cabinet or a close supporter: referenced by government.bg. Now, this sounds insane enough to me - first, because Bulgarian officials have neither the time nor the need to war-edit in Wikipedia; and second, because an article like this is under so much sctrutiny, that it would be very hard for a single entity to impose its own viewpoint. Please, Islampedia, grow up, read at least one other article on Wikipedia, then stop and rethink your aggression! You don't help anyone with your current behavior. --Cryout 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is easy to see from the text of anyone if he is one person or many. I am telling you a simple fact why the reaction of the Arab League is rejected in the international reactions section ?. Would you please concentrate on the issue of this section. If you have other issues against me u r free to post on my talk page. Please grow up and answer the simple question why this article is rejecting the reaction of th 22 arab countries ? why the reaction of one country like US , Bulgaria is included ? I am asking a simple question which helps to improve wikipedia and u claim that there is a group and many peoples this sounds very sick Islampedia 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading a text, it is indeed easy to see whatever you are looking for - but this doesn't automatically turn a speculation into fact. I just added the viewpoint of the Arab League. Their words are important and influential and, according to me, very well put. Having said this, I want to remind you that being compassionate with the children's faith has absolutely nothing to do with one's viewpoint to the Benghazi Six case. The international community, for example, has expressed both its pain for the AIDS tragedy and its concerns with the way the case is executed by the Libyan judiciary. Finally, it is hard to depoliticize a case that Gadafi already turned into an international matter - starting with his position a few years back that the medics injected the children and the whole thing was organized by CIA or Mossad. Furthermore, for the Libyan government this a 100% political case - because if the judiciary admits that it is the health system to blame for the tragedy, then many people politicians there will lose their jobs, if not their lives. Again, go back, think and please don't turn my arguments back at me: because I think about what I talk about. --Cryout 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Politisation started when the Bulgarian FM announced that "23 Bulgarian were kidnapped " in Libya the Bulgarian FM Knew that there is an investigation and the Bulgarian were arrested with many other Libyan but they wanted to trigger the Media against Libya and turn the issue to political, the field where Libya is weak. The statements of Ghadafi came years after this and years after the EU , US and other countries put their noses and started a political campaign against Libya. Claiming that Libya wants the issue political is completely wrong. Every statement from Libya started with emphasis that the trial should not be politicized. Statements from Bulgaria on the other hand are interested to make it political because they know that Libya is weak politically and they can win this way but in terms of the court they can do nothing Islampedia 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Any editor with serious concerns about another user's behaviour can bring the matter up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Deizio talk 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libyan , Arab League and AU points of view and reactions are ignored 

message: I can't get the Le Temps (Switzerland) link to work.  It just takes me to their main page.  Is that just me?  I couldn't find the article in their international section either.  --JGGardiner 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Le Temps

message: The synopsis in the article is very confusing. Could someone who understands the issue please re-write it in chronological order? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 07:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems pretty clear to me68.60.68.203 07:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Inhumandecency was referring to the intro and not the synopsis, which actually contains a summary of colizzi - salient points ie date and origin of original infection and means of spread. Caution should be taken to avoid "beating a dead horse." syndrome and partisan creep in intro to insure that the information contained in the article will be interpreted by readers with editors point of view in mind. Since the synopsis contains everything, more or less, the intro was very short - 1,Q what is it. 2A trial of nurses accused of X Q3 who is accused 3A "foreign medics" Q4 who are the victims A4 450 libyan kids Q5 why is this in the encyclopedia, important  A5 international event because largest case and controversy over verdict. IMO that is all that should be in intro -not include evidence this side / evidence that side, supporters this side / supporters that side. Formerly the whole shebang was in intro and someone wisely created synopsis section (not I) for all that material which I thought was excellent move. Now everyone is wanting to get in their points in the intro.(not just you) It would be better If people were worried about substance of article and not first paragraph. I would like to get some sort of consensus going about intro and lock it down with some rules about editing it. What do you think?68.60.68.203 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Intro should state the most important facts, in a neutral fashion, so that the reader can grasp the core of the situation at once.  Wikipedia's Manual of Style doesn't talk about Intros specifically, but does say there's a "simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read".  I agree that the Intro as written now is unbalanced, and we should add some Libyan perspective.  (But I don't think we want to add there that Libya explicitly offered to trade the Lockerbie bomber for the nurses.) Simesa 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lookout Below!!!68.60.68.203 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis re-write? 

message: RE: with the western nations largely citing scientific studies indicating the epidemic started before the six arrived in Libya and the African Union supporting Libya's contention that they got a fair trial (the last of which excluded those studies as evidence).
First address this myth that "(the last of which excluded those studies as evidence)." The only so called study which the Libyans did not take into evidence was the nature study which came out after the trial was over(and adds nothing to the case except timely media propaganda value as part of the 'Nature' journals advocacy campaign . IMO) This should not be confused with discounting the obvious facts which WERE presented to the courts, which is why i called this section BEATING A DEAD HORSE, and it undermines the tediously researched article that follows. 
Second for anyone who has ever followed any kind of court case through an appeals process (which the "last case" was should know that courts of appeal do NOT CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE normally. This is as true in the United States of America as elsewhere, so this statement is  misleading and once again undermines the article's neutrality and credibility.
Third  I feel it is improper to set this piece up as US vs THEM in the intro IE "the west" vs African Nations. For starters, under other circumstances Bulgaria and the Palestinians would not be described as the "west" and are arbitrarily crammed in under this rubric to set up a prejudiced reading of the article.68.60.68.203 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beating a dead horse 

message: Seems wrong to include unreferenced material about a false rumor which was denied by both sides. I have removed it. 68.60.68.203 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed the whole section as the only other thing in it was speculation about Libya's incentives which at best are OR (unreferenced) and are just random speculation on the part of the author.68.60.68.203 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rumored trade embargo 

message: Rather than add a new section at the bottom for every news blip that comes along, which seems to be the process so far please put them here and migrate them from here to an appropriate existing subsection when appropriate.68.60.68.203 08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Breaking News Section 

message: Much needs to be done here, to remove  POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to remove perceived POV. I tried to remove most of the redundant qualifications (e.g. "great", "many"). This part of the article, however, is an account of a certain viewpoint and all we can do is remind the reader that this is not Wikipedia's viewpoint, but that of certain roganizations. On the other hand, the recent events in Bulgaria deserve much more attention, since they are currently defining much of Bulgarian society. To clarify, the protest, the media campaigns, the personal initiatives and the strengthening governmental position on the issue amount to the one single most important political issue in Bulgaria at this moment. --Cryout 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  as a solution I have renamed section "Bulgarian Advocacy Campaigns" which seems like a valid thing to include & removed some random editorializing68.60.68.203 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also a little uncomfortable with the giant size of the ribbon photo especially given that its the only photo on the page. On the other hand  I would like to work a link to this photo of Romano Prodi wearing one under the Advocacy topic.  68.60.68.203 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 68.60.68.203 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Bulgarian Reaction amounts to Opinion Blog 

message: All citations from the Sofia news agency on http://www.novinite.com/ expire in very short order leaving a lot of dead links. All future citations from novinite.com (which is a great resource should be archived using 
http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php
which is a simple process resulting in a url like this http://www.webcitation.org/5Me9JUXmq. It would be a good idea to do this for all serious citations, and to start to use either the  citation templates 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates 
or the Reference generator 
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php
Please include a descriptive title (preferably part of the actual title of the article) in the Reference ID if using the generator or add a ref name= manually —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  novinite.com Serious Problem for citations (Sofia Weekly) solution 

message: The text of the judgment and ruling issued on 19 / 12 / 2006 the Court of Appeal in Benghazi (in Arabic)  
I have located this here libya-alyoum.com  and archive it for future reference. Even a quick google translation reveals that it outlines the entire history of the case, all of the charges, the list of victims named in the indictment (as requested earlier) witness testimonies etc etc. I am picking through it as best I can. It would be a real coup to get this translated.68.60.68.203 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript of ruling issued on 19 / 12 / 2006 the Court of Appeal in Benghazi (in Arabic) ] 

message: "Please describe the article in a few sentences and provide reference instead"
if this is really your concern, then why delete the whole section, including link? "Why not describe the article in a few sentences and provide reference instead" 68.60.68.203 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I didn't have the time to do it. Also, I left the comment exactly so that somebody does do the job (for example myself, but later). --Cryout 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look forward to seeing it68.60.68.203 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: also my excuse is same as yours- however I prefer to err on side of inclusion rather than exclusion.  But believe me I did not just copy wholesale without major editing down of material.68.60.68.203 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is to err on the side of exclusion, not inclusion; the addition of content must be justified and pro forma. I sympathize with your conundrum; I rarely have the time to edit I used to... but that doesn't mean that half-hearted editing is acceptable. If you are unable to find the time, I think you can rest assured that someone of similar disposition will. 72.240.124.107 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Refutation in The Libyan Journal of Medicine 

message: I am disappointed to have to say it, but the article is desperately in need of a full rewrite. Simesa 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: elaborate and maybe respond to below proposal68.60.68.203 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok I did a lot, think you will find it better, stuff still needed. Reorganized synopsis to respond to previous complaint. Should work better for people now -added short 1 paragraph subsections for synopsis of different aspects- removed a lot of unness subcatagories68.60.68.203 11:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rewrite mostly done 68.60.68.203 15:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: See Above Synopsis re-write? I wrote 
...partisan creep in intro to insure that the information contained in the article will be interpreted by readers with editors point of view in mind. Since the synopsis contains everything, more or less, the intro was very short - 1,Q what is it. 2A trial of nurses accused of X Q3 who is accused 3A "foreign medics" Q4 who are the victims A4 450 libyan kids Q5 why is this in the encyclopedia, important A5 international event because largest case and controversy over verdict. IMO that is all that should be in intro -not include evidence this side / evidence that side, supporters this side / supporters that side. Formerly the whole shebang was in intro and someone wisely created synopsis section (not I) for all that material which I thought was excellent move...
The HIV trial in the country of Libya concerns the trials and appeals of six foreign medical workers charged with conspiring to deliberately inject 426 children with HIV in 1998, causing an epidemic at El-Fath Children's Hospital in Benghazi.[1]
The main defendants are a Palestinian medical intern and five Bulgarian nurses (often termed "medics"). They are presently under sentence of death, pending a final appeal, but Libyan officials have stated that they will not be executed.
slight change here because I think we should reserve last sentence or two of intro for the latest news.
The epidemic at El-Fath and the subsequent trials have becomeARE highly politicized and controversial.
blockquote>
The epidemic is the largest documented out break of HIV within a hospital in history, and the first time AIDS has become a public issue in Libya.  
</blockquote>
Ok all you partisans here is where I have to justify this  departure.
*I am putting the epidemic and the reaction to it in Libya in a position of primacy for the following reasons. 
*1 no aids no trial, simple
*2 the dimension of the epidemic is historic, not Libya's (government) weirdness, which is nothing new.
*3 obviously everything flows from what happens in Libya (public and official)
*4 for anyone who says "but this is about the TRIAL and not the EPIDEMIC, well there is probably never going to be a split, and I would object strongly to it, at this point. So next:
Bearing in mind the above points (everything in the west flows from what Libya does at this point, not the other way around) 
The Libyan public was enraged and the foreign medical workers were arrested. Moamar Gaddaffi initially blamed the CIA or Mossad for plotting to carry out a deadly experiment on the Libyan children. However, Libya also requested and received help by two of the worlds foremost HIV experts, including one of the original discoverers of AIDS, who led a scientific investigation into the causes of the epidemic. These experts submitted a report, which traced the origins of the outbreak, and blamed poor sanitary practices in the hospital wards for the cross-contamination of the patients. This report was also introduced into evidence, at a criminal trial of the medics in Benghazi and the scientists testified on behalf of the defense. The prosecution introduced a report, by Libyan scientists which contradicted the original one. The medics were found guilty.
The number of trials and appeals has multiplied since the original conviction, and with each new result the case has drawn more, and more international attention. Attempts to resolve the situation have involved world leaders, appeals from scientific and human rights organizations, and various diplomatic initiatives. It remains unresolved.
Thats about as far as I want to get into "BLOOD MONEY" and sundry flames, anyone wanting more can read the article or edit it.
----
The HIV trial in the country of Libya concerns the trials and appeals of six foreign medical workers charged with conspiring to deliberately inject 426 children with HIV in 1998, causing an epidemic at El-Fath Children's Hospital in Benghazi.The main defendants are a Palestinian medical intern and five Bulgarian nurses (often termed "medics"). They are presently under sentence of death, pending a final appeal.
The epidemic at El-Fath and the subsequent trials are highly politicized and controversial. The epidemic is the largest documented out break of HIV within a hospital in history, and it was the first time AIDS became a public issue in Libya. The Libyan public was enraged and the foreign medical workers were arrested. 
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi initially blamed the CIA or Mossad for plotting to carry out a deadly experiment on the Libyan children. He has also repeatedly linked the case to the Lockerbie trial.  However, Libya requested and received help by two of the worlds foremost HIV experts, including one of the original discoverers of AIDS to conduct a scientific investigation into the causes of the epidemic. These experts submitted a report, which traced the origins of the outbreak, and blamed poor sanitary practices in the hospital wards for the cross-contamination of the patients. This report was also introduced into evidence, at a criminal trial of the medics in Benghazi, and the scientists testified on behalf of the defense. The prosecution introduced a report by Libyan scientists which contradicted the original one. The medics were found guilty.
The number of trials and appeals has multiplied since the original conviction, and with each new result the case has drawn more, and more international attention. Attempts to resolve the situation have involved world leaders, appeals from scientific and human rights organizations, and various diplomatic initiatives. It remains unresolved.
THE END
The latest and greatest can be added to a SINGLE tag line at the end of the intro if it really changes anything. the criteria would be something along the lines of the situation NO LONGER being unresolved. ie they are actually set free or Libya actually kills them.
Sincerely hope to get some responses to this 
68.60.68.203 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so I have asked Inhumandecency, Cryout and Simesa as most recent editors to comment on this so we cat maybe get something going
68.60.68.203 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposals for a consensus based Intro 

message: as an aside of no great importance - it really pisses me off that Nature made such a big fuss - and also claims that all these reports are available free - and then after everything dies down they revert to making the real deal (ie the actual study) only available to their subscribers. Just shows we have to be vigilant about caching important data right away with webcitation.org. I downloaded the study myself but that doesn't help for wiki68.60.68.203 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  replaced broken link nature study 

message: But al-Hajuj is an ethnic Palestinian Arab with no citizenship who became a naturalized Bulgarian national. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.113.17.208 (talk • contribs).
::correct-Ashraf was granted Bulgarian citizenship on June 19. 2007 information has been updated.71.227.123.187 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction: All of the accused are Bulgarians

message: There are way too many external links.  Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, I'm cutting out news stories and posting them here in case anyone editing would like to use them as references:
*NY Times article with evidence, December 20, 2006
*Medics sentenced to death in Libya (Nature News), 19 December 2006
*Nature Special Report: 'A Shocking Lack of Evidence'
*Al Jazeera story December 19, 2006
*Guardian update December 17, 2006
*Reuters alert December 16, 2006
*Medical Workers' Trial is Test Case for Libya's Progress - December 13, 2006
*Der Spiegel newsarticle of 9 November 2005
*Quiet diplomacy is not enough, an article by the British Medical Journal.
*Libya lifts 'HIV medics' sentence
*Relief over Libya medics reprieve
*New trial for Libyan HIV medics
--Gloriamarie 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut down external links

message: The intro is beyond sucky.--Cerejota 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: Speaking as newbie I feel this news article is too long... The only people who will read this all are the people who made it. If this is a news article is going to be accessible to a wide public it needs to be concise like a newspaper but not have POV to be a credible source of information. We should remember Wikinews is in competition against reputable sources such as CNN, The Times, BBC etc. Monsta666 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a news article.  It's an encyclopedia article, so it should be comprehensive in its coverage.  17Drew 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not Wikinews, it's an encyclopedia article.--Gloriamarie 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is also a very strong case for NOT being like everything else out there which already exists, which has been corrupted in its form by the demands of the televisual medium, into things short and sweet and purportedly "simple to understand" but of course in fact actually usually fatal oversimplifications in the name of "viewer accessability".  Reality doesn't care about viewer accessability; it is whatever it is and it can well be hard, long and difficult to understand.  The inability of television to deal with such material is the primary reason for the lack of meaningful public discourse in our modern society for there are many issues of vital importance to us which are hard, long and difficult to understand and the absense of discourse in these vital matters is a cause of immense harm; not being like this is one of the reasons the Wikipedia is important.  It fulfils a need unmet by traditional media.  Toby Douglass 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia should never give in to over-simplification just because some of the audience has a short attention span. Claim about the need to compete with international fast-food chains is simply strange. --Drieakko 10:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the Wiki is not in competition with the CNN, The Times, etc.  Those entities are commerical and compete because they compete for readership which in turn for them roughly equates to income which in turn drives profit.  The Wiki has no need to be popular.  It does not compete because it has no need to do so.  As such it can concentrate on reality and truth, not viewing figures.  Competition generally is a wonderful thing, but not when it comes to news on television or in print.  In those cases, the medium converts news into entertainment and so competition in that field amounts to ever increasing efforts to subvert news into entertainment.  Toby Douglass 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Really long... 

message: I don't think this article belongs in the virus catagory.  Legal yes, virus no.  Have a look at the virus catagory - lots of pages on actual viruses, not on legal cases which involve viruses.  Toby Douglass 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  virus catagory 

message: I edited this section to make it NPOV. IMHO it should be deleted. Thoughts? --ukexpat 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a strong statement that is not only uncited but contrary to the European Union's position.  It should be deleted. Simesa 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following cite says "... a mysterious $438 million fund has been set up for the victims. The precise origin of the funds remains murky."   Until the origin of those funds is clarified, I think we should note the EU's stance, Libya's stance and the popular press's opinions. Simesa 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR is clear here--we can't determine how much money came from whom for what and why. I've made a modest effort to try to display the sides in that section. — Scientizzle 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  cites a rumor that the Qataris came up with the cash.  While this shouldn't be taken as reliable, it is an indicator of how complex this deal was. Simesa 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Summary of terms of release" section 

message: I guess I'm confused why this is still an ongoing issue - and if I am, then the readers will be also.  Can someone explain why Libya is now resurrecting what was a closed issue?
Bulgaria is happy, basically - yes, some lawsuits were proposed, but I imagine that Bulgaria and the EU will handle them.  The EU is happy, not only is the issue resolved but the Libyan/EU relationship is about to have a renaissance.  Saif al-Islam sounded happy; he's going to get a lot of credit for the resolution.  The families of the victims all signed for their money, supposedly they were happy.  Libya had to know that the Six were going to be freed upon reaching Bulgarian soil, that couldn't have been a surprise - certainly Libya intends to free the Lockerbie bomber if he ever gets back to Libya.   The Arab League apparently isn't very happy about this landing in its lap.    So I'm perplexed. Simesa 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer may lie partially in , where the Bulgarian Intelligence chief is quoted as saying 'the fate of the medics was nothing more than "a grain of sand in the eye of an enormous hurricane bringing together major interests" in Libya, including arms sales and oil concessions,'. Simesa 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 

message: The article says in a couple of places that Ashraf al-Hadjudj lost an eye and that one of his hands was paralyzed. Since the release, he has given numerous interviews and talked about how he was tortured, but I haven't seen this mentioned once (in articles I've seen written in English, German or Bulgarian). Also he has said that he wants to finish medical school in Bulgaria and train as a surgeon. I rather doubt that this would be proper training for a one-eyed man with a paralyzed hand. The man is clearly intelligent and outspoken (even in his non-native Bulgarian), and we're bound to hear more about him as books and movies (www.sixthsenseproductions.com/press.htm) are produced on this topic. So I think we should try to get the facts straight here. Dale Gerdemann 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashraf al-Hadjudj