Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Introduction

Why does the lede say he is still in power? (92.7.13.71 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

He has not officially been ousted, I don't think. It's difficult, because some say he is in power and some say he isn't. The article at present notes the disputed state of his leadership - I think that is enough, until he either takes power again or is formally deposed. ItsZippy (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Most newspapers and channels are referring to him as the "ousted leader" and his "ousted administration". Since he lost the capital and will certainly never be able to defeat the NATO-backed TNC it is ridiculous to claim Gaddafi is in any way still in power. (92.7.13.71 (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

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

image not working?

File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg A March 7, 2011 cover of Time magazine of Gaddafi saying it was his "last stand". His regime lasted another 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingjackal1001 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reflist warning

At the end of the article, I find a warning:

"Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references group="nb"/> tag; see the help page."

Can someone who knows more about this add a suitable reflist tag at some suitable place? (Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

Title

Is his title "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution"? I remember it was just "Leader and Guide of the Revolution" a few months ago. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

International Law Omissions

I would echo the concerns of other posters about the propagandistic tone of this article, which falls far beneath the standards of encyclopediac objectivity Wikipedia normally requires. This is not CNN, after all, or other Western news media acting as branches of the American State Department while posing as objective. For example, why is every fact that can be cited which makes the West look bad and the Colonel look good followed by expressions of scepticism, while no doubts are ever expressed about anything pro-West?

A key example of this is the international law perspective, which omits mention of the many respected professors and other scholars of international law who have condemned the Western attacks on Libya as lacking foundation in international law. A moment's unbiased reflection should alert anyone to the fact that every nation has the legal right to use force against domestic insurgents seeking to overthrow the government by force, so how does this suddenly become an international crime justifying foreign intervention -- unless perhaps NATO is trying to recover Italy's old oil colony under the guise of humanitarian action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.164.54 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Middle name?

In some articles, Gaddafi's full name is denoted as "Muammar Mohammed Gaddafi" (including this article); in others, its "Muammar Abu Minyar Gaddafi." Anyone know why this is the case, and if one of them is more correct than others? Seleucus (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

With regards to popularity, Muammar Abu Minyar [1] appears to be somewhat more popular than Muammar Mohammed [2].Seleucus (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[3] This is the ICC's arrest warrant, which actually has both last names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph needs cleanup

In the opening paragraph, see: "Gaddafi has lost almost all domestic and international recognition, and has lost control of the majority of Libya. He abolished the Libyan Constitution of 1951, and adopted laws based on his political ideology", the old info from when he was in power (He abolished...) needs to be moved down a paragraph or two, because the above quote does not make a whole lot of sense in its present form. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean up the lead, but this article still needs attention, especially to its style and flow. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Strategies for defining the date of his end of rule

Rather the promoting debate about the date of his end of rule, this section seeks to encourage discussion of history, persons whose rule ended somewhat ambiguously in the manner of Gaddafi, and the general difficulties in making the determination. The new government may settle the matter by declaring a "Freedom from Gaddafi" day. Anthony717 (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 September 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) 10:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific problems with the article

Hello, I was just checking this article for current news on Gaddafi's situation and I was pretty much shocked to see what a garbage article this has become. Noticing how everyone who speaks up about this here is being told to cite specific issues, I'm going to do that.

- After seizing power, Gaddafi ... severely restricted lives of ordinary Libyans This needs some specifics written into it. At present, it just sounds like a propaganda statement. What rights were restricted? Furthermore, "ordinary Libyans" gives this a populist slant. It can easily be replaced with "Libyan citizens."

- Gaddafi started several wars, had a role in others, and spent on acquiring both chemical and nuclear weapons. Again, this is just a list of vague statements meant to call him a warmonger. The specific wars should be mentioned, and "spent on acquiring both chemcial and nuclear weapons" sounds like a sixth grader wrote it. Change the wording on that.

- "Gaddafi responded by dispatching the military and plainclothes armed men on streets to attack demonstrators; however, many switched sides. Gaddafi went into a civil war with the movement." Once again, just very shoddy writing. Clearly anti-Gaddafi. "Gaddafi went into a civil war" is written pretty much to imply that he started it. Can someone take more than ten seconds to think about a better way to write this? Is this honestly writing Wikipedia would be proud to show off?

- "He faces prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity.[18][19] Billions of dollars of his assets have been frozen around the world." Can we add something about the fact that his current whereabouts are unknown after the fall of Tripoli? I think that's fairly pertinent information.

- "Muammar al-Gaddafi was raised in a bedouin tent in the desert near Sirte." Dramatizing. "Muammar al-Gaddafi was raised among bedouins in the desert near Sirte."

- "Gaddafi despised the Christian calendar and changed Libya's into a Muslim-based one. " Poor grammar there at the end.

- "He was fiercely anti-Western." Show, don't tell. He put anti-Western policies into practice? Anti-Western rhetoric? What?

- "Libya enjoys large natural resources, but the high gross domestic product has been concentrated on Gaddafi's family and his elites, who have amassed vast fortunes.[56] Most of the business enterprise has been controlled by Gaddafi and his family.[57] Meanwhile, a large section of the population lives in poverty. One of the worst situations is in the eastern parts of the country." Honestly, most of this article sounds as if it's taken from a sixth grader's persuasive school report. "Libya enjoys large natural resources." Vague once again. What resources? I don't think Libya enjoys anything. I don't think large is a great descriptor for the resources. "The high gross domestic product has been concentrated on Gaddafi's family and his elites." This is just an outrageously shoddy sentence, nevermind the issue of factual accuracy. "Meanwhile, a large section of the population lives in poverty." More vaguery. How large a section? At what level of poverty? "One of the worst situations is in the eastern part of the country." This describes nothing. What is this situation? The poverty, I'm assuming? What makes it one of the worst?

- "Gaddafi spent much of the revenues on arms purchases and on sponsoring his political projects abroad." Bias again, lacking specifics. He did spend much on improving the domestic situation for Libyan citizens as well. Either get some figures to back it up or simply say he invested on arms purchases and political projects abroad, without implying he wasted his country's money on it.

- "Not much housing or infrastructure were developed for 40 years." For God's sake, this is embarrassing.

- "once a breadbasket of the ancient world" Relevance? It hasn't been a breadbasket for centuries, so why are we putting this in here to imply that Gaddafi somehow ruined centuries of prosperity?

- "Gaddafi described the Great Manmade River as the "Eighth Wonder of the World".[66]" This comes out of nowhere and has no context. Maybe you should add that he had it built?

- "Gaddafi ordered the Libyan National Telescope Project, costing about 10 million euros" Relevance? Bias? The price tag is obviously being thrown in to say that Gaddafi was wasting his money on stupid bullshit while his people had no medical care.

- "A Westerner was shocked in 2005 to see Libyan society" Who is this mysterious Westerner? Even if the source isn't named, how about some context like "a [insert nationality] traveler..." "Was shocked in 2005 to see Libyan society" is another bias statement. You already have the quote. Unless you can quote the person saying they were "shocked to see Libyan society" this doesn't belong.

- "tried to get the People's Republic of China to sell him a nuclear bomb.[97]" How about "attempted to acquire a nuclear weapon from the People's Republic of China?" Sounds less amateurish.

- "His military forces killed rebelling civilians, and relied heavily on the Khamis Brigade, led by one of his sons Khamis Gaddafi, and on tribal leaders loyal to him." This sentence is full of grammar issues.

- " A NATO airstrike on 30 April killed Gaddafi's youngest son and three of his grandsons at his son's home in Tripoli, the Libyan government said." "According to the Libyan government."

- "During Rice's visit to Libya as Secretary of State, the wealthy Gaddafi showered her with gifts, including a diamond ring in a wood box, a locket with his photograph and a DVD with a musical instrument, with total value $212,225 (2008 value.)[213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221]" Why is this wall of ten citations there? It looks unbelievably stupid. I've not taken the time to peruse each link, but I'm guessing at least a few of these are redundant. "The wealthy Gaddafi." Trim to "Gaddafi." Why do we need the exact value of the gifts? Is this Cosmo? Just say "During Rice's visit to Libya as Secretary of State, Gaddafi showered her with expensive gifts." And if you're keeping the specific list, change "a DVD with a musical instrument." I don't know how the DVD and the instrument are connected.

- This entire paragraph actually is just garbage. I just went back up and saw the heading. The heading is, "Battle of Tripoli." Yet 2/3rds of the text is about his Condoleeza Rice obsession. This is ridiculous. Move this crap somewhere else if it's deemed worthy of keeping.

- "Gaddafi has been an unabashed supporter of Islam" ...Are supporters of Islam supposed to be abashed? Should they be ashamed of their religion? "Gaddafi has been a vocal supporter of Islam."

- "often with blatant disregard for religious tolerance" Specify god damn it. Say that opposes religious tolerance and how.

That's not all of the specific issues, but I don't have all day to enumerate them. Throughout the article in general, a lot of vague statements need to be made more specific and supported, and poor quality writing needs to be corrected.

165.134.209.174 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk to Screwball about it, he's the one who unilaterally made all of these changes. I'd like to just revert all of them and go back to the revision before these changes. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense. I did not make most of these changes. Your personal attacks are not helpful, my friend.--Screwball23 talk 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather we deal with them point by point than mass revert, as many of us editors have put in a lot of work on this to clean up his edits and add other content. To the OP, We appreciate you singling out an impressive list of potential changes, amny of which look pretty reasonable to me. I would caution, however, using such an accusatory tone. Making specific references is exactly what you should do, but there's no need to laden it down with quite so much accusation and value judgement. You can accomplish the same thing, and have a much better chance of consensus, if you approach things more civilly and assume Good Faith. Much of what you point out is in need of editing. You don't need to browbeat the other editors to convince them of it.204.65.34.50 (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The op is correct, this article is terrible and has clearly been written/editted with an anti-Gaddafi attitude and no one is doing much about it. I did a bit to fix it and will try to do more...Public awareness (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work Public Awareness, I dont know how many times i deleted some of that "He is part Jewish" gossip and it keeps coming back when i go to bed.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Green book

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) 04:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The person who took the picture is a Russian and must have had copies of the English and Russian editions. It would be great if an Arabic edition had been pictured. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stupid propaganda even in wikipedia

Why don't you put a pic of people support Gaddafi on the streets and not just two people and one with a transparent Gaddafi is a murderer. Keep lieing and good, lock such threads important for the USA lies!109.121.14.221 (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well IP, choose any of the thousands of photos of pro-Gaddafi supporters on the web out and post it yourself. Oh, having trouble finding some? Maybe because - they don't exist? Dinkytown talk 16:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah.. Yes. Most of the sources lead to the U.S Government website, a link in the CIA biography, and supposed photographs of Gadaffi killing his own people with jet planes, yet the people were charred alive by what seems to be an explosion. Wikipedia doesn't know any better, afterall; apparently Gadaffi was a terrorist bent on world destruction and murder, hogged all his money and allowed the country to be slaves, and never did anything good for anybody and the U.S is saving the day, like they so often do. Of course; this war wouldn't have anything to do with Gadaffi wanting to change the currency from U.S Dollars to his own, so he could dictate prices of resources. --Suffery (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Suffery - wht are you whining about? Get your own sources and put it up there, instead of complaining about wiki... Dinkytown talk 16:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did. They were removed when this Libya war began. The entire page has transformed. I'm not whining about anything you Amerikan blip, check the History. The page was once neautral and unbiased, it showed some of Gaffi's achievements, images of people cheering his name and him kissing an infant on the forhead. Now? Two non-local rebel's holding English signs telling Gadaffi to get out, Gadaffi supposedly murdering millions of people, a site that lists Gadaffi as the "Third anti-christ", the U.S Is invading to "free the people", Gadaffi murders children, Gadaffi cowardly runs away, Gadaffi is arming terrorists to destroy Amerika, Gadaffi vows on world destruction, Gadaffi has nuclear weapons! Sources have been replaced with the Whitehouse's sources or /gov sources, regardless of proof, evidence, photo's, testimonies that alot of people liked Gadaffi. I suppose if the Whitehouse publishes a contradictory wall of text without any proof, valid names (because you know, they don't want the agents identity disclosed, sorta like the Allen incident), photo's or word from any Libya official, person or anything. I have supplied proper sources that meet the WIKI requirements, and they were replaced with this Government propaganda. Amazing- He runs a regime for forty years, and it's only when Gadaffi wants to change his currency that the U.S Decide to "Free the people". --Suffery (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This was an superbly written redraft of the first paragraph. I'm always astounded how the most murderous thug's Wikipedia entries make them sound like they are all Mother Theresas. Only in some alternate universe is Gaddafi a Politician and a Democratic leader. My kudos to the author. 50.132.0.75 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Murderous thug? Do you have any concept of encyclopedia? This is not a newspaper or some other propaganda piece. EVEN IF HE IS UNANIMOUSLY regarded as a "murderous thug" you still have to follow certain minimum standards that belong to an encyclopedia. The whole thing looks like a copypaste of a tabloid piece or a government press conference transcript.

Here is one totally blatant sentence that doesn't belong ANYWHERE in ANY Wikipedia page: "More discreetly, he directed the country's revenues to sponsor terror and other political activities around the world. The United Nations called Libya under Gaddafi a pariah state. In the 1980s Gaddafi's support for terrorist organizations led countries around the world to establish sanctions against Gaddafi." Sponsor terror? Is this even proper English? I don't think an english teacher would consider that utter crap propaganda phrase as a proper English term for what it is meant to convey. Such utter crap doesn't belong anywhere in any encyclopedia. Anyway lots of such blatant sentences are crammed into this "article". It's not even an article, it's just a diatribe. And the shameless Wikipedia (senior) editors who did this or allowed this need to resign or be fired for this garbage. Loginnigol (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gaddafi wiki-page makes Adolf Hitler look like a saint.. Literally; take a look. Compare the two. I never thought I'd see such a biased wiki-page.. Let alone one that looks worse than Hitlers.. I'm not taking sides between anything; I just believe information should be information, fair is fair. We shouldn't exaggerate, stretch the truth, or completely make-up false stories just because the Whitehouse makes a threat or releases some new report. Where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Why are we not allowed to use Libyan sources?--Suffery (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article is extremely biased - I'd guess at least 50% of the article is criticism is some way or form rather than actual facts. Some of the sources are, of course, unreliable and absurd. This article needs clean-up from the ground up at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed inconvenient facts, such as Qaddafi's role in the fight against apartheid, are carefully omitted. I provide some relevant statements by Nelson Mandela in my post below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.82.252 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In power?

Why does the fact that gaddafi is no longer in power keep getting removed? Almost Every single news agency and quite a few countries have all asserted that he is no longer in power. Plus, he no longer has the ability to govern the majority of his country. Doesn't this mean that we should change the info box and lead to indicate that he isn't in power anymore? 06:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.59.112 (talk)

More importantly, why do you not recognize that Wikipedia is not a newspaper? We don't have to run according to the 24-hour news cycle. Gather reliable sources, make neutral point of view edits, and try to see why and discuss why people make reverts or additions. We can take our time and exercise patience and we don't have to add every snippet that the media says, as they say it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

He is listed as being in power because he's still claiming his position. Besides, he is still in power of at least one city. (Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

Checking the article, I see that it is not stated that he is in power. It just says that he is the incumbent holder of his title. Holding a title is not the same thing as having any power usually associated with such a title. (Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

He is actualy still in power of more than one city. He controls the towns of Bani Walid, Sirte and Ghadames and the whole of Fezzan governorate, which is more than a third of Libya in itself. EkoGraf (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The obvious historical comparison is Chiang Kai-shek whose regime lost power over most of China in 1949 but he still retained power over a portion of the pre 1949 country until his death in 1975. The international community switched from recognising one China to the other at various stages over the decades. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's about time that those editing this page accept that the man is no longer "in power". He is no longer recognised as the leader of Libya by the international community or the vaste majority of Libyan's. He has no control over oil reserves and the majority of the countries finances. It makes the article inaccurate. I can "claim my position" as Prime Minister of Great Britain but it doesn't mean I am. Jacobsdad (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

He is in power. There are a lot of contries that still do not recognize the NTC. But the most important thing: he controls a third of Libya. --Ave César Filito (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as Cesar said. He is still in control of the whole Fezan district, which is a third of Libya, as well as three major cities in Tripolitania. Also, the international community you are talking about are only the US, Canada, half of the EU and some Arab countries. That doesn't compromise the whole world, even though the US and the EU think they are the whole world. The whole of South America, 90 percent of Africa, 85 percent of Asia and most of eastern Europe still don't recognise the rebels as the government. The world has 192 countries, of which 81 have recognised the rebels. How about the other 111? EkoGraf (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I've placed 2011 in the infobox section 'in office' as his departure date. Just because Gaddafi continues to style himself as Libyan ruler, doesn't make it so. The guy's been deposed. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fight against apartheid

There is no mention of Qaddafi's role in the fight against apartheid. Here are a few referenced statements by Nelson Mandela on that theme. "This man helped us at a time when we were all alone." 1 "Libya was one of those countries that supported us during our struggle when others were working with the apartheid regime." 2 "It was pure expediency to call on democratic South Africa to turn its back on Libya and Qaddafi, who had assisted us in obtaining democracy at a time when those who now made that call were the friends of the enemies of democracy in South Africa." 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.82.252 (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your last source seems to be a blog; and not a source that would be considered reputable under wiki guidelines. I have no issue with the first source, and don't know the second. 204.65.34.145 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here ere is a more official source for the third quote. As for the second source, here's a fine Wikipedia article about the Philadelphia Enquirer for your convenience.79.37.216.219 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)on october his life ended

Rightwing and Heads of state?

Gaddafi had close ties with two European right-wing heads of state, Slobodan Milošević and Jörg Haider, who were both anti-Islamic politicians.

At first is/was only Milosevic a Head of State, Haider was only the leader of a party. And Milosevic were a Socialist he wasnt a Rigtist. The atrribtue "anti-Islamic" isnt wright because Serbia fight not only against Cosovo-Albanians und Bosnians, Serbia fight in the Yugoslavia wars against Croatia too. Jörg Haider was not specially against muslim emigrants,he was an Populist who mobillilzed and agitated with xenophonic sterotypes and he was absoltully an Oppurtunist.--77.2.25.1 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Adjectives (epithets) risk being WP:WEASEL words unless they are relevant in terms of RS'd, NPOV'd content. The lead in the Milošević article does not describe him either as right-wing or anti-Islamic; maybe Haider should be described as anti-Islamic (my guess is some sources would say this), but it's not in the lead of his article as one of the main facts about him, so unless there is a source that claims that this is important for this article, it's difficult for us to include it here. My edit. Boud (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your Edits were an constructive correction.--95.114.61.167 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity

This 'biography' is a disgrace, in the last few months it has been edited to accommodate an almost Orwellian falsification of history, in compliance with unproven claims made by NATO, the rebels and Western (and Arab) media sources. The article lacks any trace of objectivity. Not only does it fail to take into account conflicting reports of events during the Libyan Civil war, The Lockerbie Bombing or the German 'Disco Bombing', but it makes branded claims like 'Gaddafi proceeded to eliminate any opposition and severely restricted lives of ordinary Libyans', as if it were fact, and blatantly rejects the popular support which several UN investigations concluded Gaddafi enjoyed in the years proceeding the current conflict, not only in Libya, but in much of sub-Saharan Africa (as a result of his recorded, panafricanist ideologies and policies).

The demonization Muammar Gaddafi has been subjected to in this 'biographic' article is an stain to the credibility of Wikipedia, as a reliable source of historical documentation. And so I plead that the article should be revised, as to suit the reality of the current situation and his life. Otherwise the likes of Wikipedia will fall victim to the judgment of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.160.44 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

rather than making generic complaints about the article, which are impossible to address, the best way to seek improvement in a wiki article is: 1) suggest specific changes, backed by reputable/verifiable sources. We are not here to state our opinion, we can only repeat what verifiable/reputable sources say. 2) Assume Good Faith. Coming in making wild accusations and speaking in conspiracy theory-esque terms will not help build consensus for changes you like to see. Angry rhetoric is not persuasive. Reasoned arguments are.204.65.34.167 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, complaints may be hard to address, but certainly a non-NPOV tag would be a good start. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The tag has the word disputed linked to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute. Please click and read. Quote: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

So let's see if there are any concrete issues to work on:

• The WP:LEAD includes 'Gaddafi proceeded to eliminate any opposition and severely restricted lives of ordinary Libyans'. Is this a reasonable summary of that part of the main content? and is that main content supported by WP:RS's?
  • My opinion is yes (Elimination of dissent section) and yes (the refs are in the section, not the lead), except that the word "any" could be considered too strong. Strictly speaking, it's reasonable to say that he eliminated almost any opposition that he could find. Subtle forms of opposition probably occurred. We could replace the present phrase in the lead by something like "proceeded to eliminate political opponents through public executions, televised executions and censorship". Another improvement would be to add repeat refs (<ref name="keyofreference" />) for a few of the main refs used in the main content. These changes may not make the complainer happy, but they would improve this article.
• "... blatantly rejects the popular support which several UN investigations concluded Gaddafi enjoyed in the years proceeding the current conflict, not only in Libya, but in much of sub-Saharan Africa (as a result of his recorded, panafricanist ideologies and policies)" Does the article have any non-RS'd rejections of the claim that Gaddafi had some level of popular support in Libya and sub-Saharan Africa? Can we add claims that Gaddafi had some level of popular support in Libya and sub-Saharan Africa?
  • For the first question, i don't see where the blatant (presumably unsourced) rejections are in the article. These unsourced rejections cannot be worked on if we do not know where they are. The article is big - i may have missed these rejections.
  • For the second question, the answer is obviously yes: please add these claims (credible IMHO) using inlined references - look around for help and ask for help if you don't know how. Find a natural place in the flow of the article where this information should go. If, and it's a big if, other editors delete and refuse to accept the information about Gaddafi's popular support, then come back here to the talk page (probably best a new section) and try to sort it out. If consensus fails, then that will be an WP:NPOV dispute and the tag can be restored. But first try reasoned discussion. i'll quote again: Tags should be added as a last resort.

Since there is no NPOV dispute at the moment, i will remove the tag. Boud (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The leading section is not neutral. It accents only on Gaddafi's human rights abuses and says nothing about his panarabist and panafricanist policies. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that you are right. However, AFAIK, probably nobody is blocking an improvement (for the moment) - it just happens to be a lot of work. My suggestion:

1. add an RS'd section describing how Gaddafi had some level of popular support in Libya and sub-Saharan Africa from panarabist and later panafricanist policies - some could be integrated with existing sections
2. ignore the existing lead and draft a totally new lead that briefly summarises the key points of the sectional structure as it presently exists, including a small number of repeat references so that the reader could, in principle, see that the point is justified even without going into the main body of the article
3. look at the existing lead and integrate the things that are exceptions to the "summarise" guideline (e.g. alternative spellings of name, birthdate normally go in the lead but are not usually needed in the main content) into your draft
4. look at what remains of the existing lead (parts that you have not integrated into your new version nor the article), and if it says anything RS'd that is not present in the main content, then integrate that into the main content so that it is not "lost"
5. look again at WP:LEAD for hints
6. look at the revision history since you started this whole process to see if something significant was added that you missed
7. propose the new lead here on the talk page (or on a subpage, but subpage policy is quite restrictive on en.wikipedia, check a guideline first)
8. replace the old lead after there's rough consensus

A lot of work, but IMHO this is the only obvious way to improve the lead in a way that will remain more or less stable. Boud (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am currently working to bring the Bulgarian version of the article to Featured status, and I will offer a new lede once I am finished with my work there. For now I've managed to incorporate much sourced information on Gaddafi's support for various rebel and extremist organisations around the world, as well as a personal statement of his on his alleged support for terrorist activities. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the revelations of the close relationship between Gaddafi and MI6/CIA since 2001. In addition to the New Yorker link I cited, there has been a bunch of other reporting that could flesh out the paragraph, e.g. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533. 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)68.148.100.225 (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Scott M

September 20th is the End Of Gaddafi

Why is the end date 23 August? It should be Sept 20. On September 16th, the UN recognized the NTC and raised the new flag. On Sept 20, the African Union recognized the NTC. The AU was the last "hold-out" political entity to recognize the NTC. Thus, Gaddhafi's end date should be 9/20/11...When he finally lost all political recognition. Mike450 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Mike450

Gaddafi succeeded by Mustafa Abdul Jalil?

Even though I realize that no official consensus on Wikipedia has been reached with the end date (or if he's still in power) for Gaddafi, if an end date is to be listed it would be inaccurate to depict Mustafa Abdul Jalil as succeeding Gaddafi as "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya". It should be listed as "position abolished" instead.

Could I suggest at the bottom of the article to add/change a political post to "Head of State of Libya" with the succession date simply listed as 2011? It could then be listed with Gaddafi having been succeeded by Mustafa Abdul Jalil. I think this would help compromise both sides of the argument while we are waiting for more news to come in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickiwi2 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Interpol doesn't issue arrest warrants; also, probable biases

Fourth paragraph: "Interpol has also issued an arrest warrant for him for crimes against humanity." Apparently, this was sourced from an NYT article. This is an extremely common mistake that I've seen the NYT, BBC, and CNN make dozens of times. INTERPOL RED NOTICES ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS. For Christ's sake, they even say so right in their FAQ in the "advice for journalists" section. There is a very, very, very big difference between an arrest warrant and an arrest request. A warrant implies legal authority; Interpol is not a police force, it is an intermediary.

Also, a little note on biases: IF this article seems biased against Gaddafi, that is probably because all the information is essentially from the same well, i.e. mostly American and British media sources. The US and the UK are basically waging war against Libya (call it what you will) and it should not come as a surprise to anybody if their media is biased accordingly. (Perhaps all major Libya-related articles should be semi-protected?)

However, correcting simple factual errors should take priority over correcting any perceived want of objectivity. --128.205.217.78 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"executions and mutilations of political opponents"

That phrasing is implying the regime mutilated corpses. Is that the actual intent? Varlaam (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove category

Please, remove invalid Category:Current national leaders. Gaddafi is the former ruler of Libya, see article.--Misbeliever (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Varlaam (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's Awards

Sorry to be a bother, but I have noticed that two awards Gaddafi possesses (or did possess) are mention; the 'Order of the Yugoslav Star' and the 'Order of Good Hope', but he is missing some awards.

If one was to look at a image of Gaddafi in his white military uniform, among the many medals he is wearing, four Libyan ones are known.

They are;

• Order of Courage
• Order of the Jihad
• Order of the Grand Conqueror
• Order of the Republic

I do have images of these awards and images of Gaddafi wearing them, but I do not know how to upload them (I am not a member of Wikipedia).

Again sorry to be a bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.99.213 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rebel force is more important than NATO

"[...]his government was overthrown by a NATO-backed rebel force."

That sentence should be changed to something where the rebel force is mentioned first. It makes it look as if this whole thing is another NATO mission while, in reality, it has been very important that the rebels do get support only from air.

"[...]his government was overthrown by a rebel force of Libyan civilians with support of NATO from the air."

or something like that.

NATO is awesome and all but the rebel force must be mentioned first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.240.226 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From the air, the sea and the wallet, plus a few boots on the ground (no responsability, just bombs, money and advice). Anyways, it's hard to mention NATO's pawns without mentioning NATO first. By the way, the NATO supported tribes are the same who supported the bloody Italian colonialists one century ago. What a coincidence! 79.49.48.144 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

gold dinar

It's quite interesting that the planned introduction of the "gold dinar" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar in March 2011 is not mentioned at all in the Libya nor Gaddafi article.

It feels like by trying to server the bonds with the worthless USD he angered the banks/ones in power that much to become enemy of the state number one.

Feels exactly the same like with Saddam Hussein - painted terrorist nr. 1 / devil's personification after deciding to sell his oil just in exchange to Euros not USD.

Seems like 2 contingency plans that happened in the past - the current one again being focused on Iran because they dare to sell oil in exchange to Euros.

Ebricca (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya (succeeded by?)

I don't think anyone in libya considers the NTC chairman as the brotherly leader, the whole point of the revolution was to get rid of this position, shouldn't we say "position abolished" ? Anybody objects? 156.56.4.195 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Assad Qaddafi 1977.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Assad Qaddafi 1977.jpg, 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) 11:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You said that time would be given to contest on the 19th October, it is now the 22nd October, that file has been deleted already, why? 188.220.186.57 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Khaddafi caught dead

According to Swedish media quoting Libyan TV (broadcast at 13:15 today) quoting the NTC. Khaddafi was caught in Sirte, hurt in both legs. If the information is correct (and not just a false rumour), it needs to go into the article. (Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

Al-Jazeera reports he has been killed. 101.98.130.118 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So we have contradicting information, then. Better sources are needed. The Swedish article has been updated with more information. He's severely hurt but is still breathing and has been taken away by ambulance. (Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

The Swedish media will be updated soon to confirm he is dead, trust me. 101.98.130.118 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reuters is also reporting that he's been killed due to his wounds. 94.195.251.61 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For now, we must simply write "reportedly dead" etc. DBD 12:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fear not, as confirmation flows out, we will find out the real state of Ghaddafi. In other words... PREPARE TO REPEL VANDALS! Akjar13 (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait until it is offically confirmed, one way or another. The NTC does have a track record in being inaccurate with it's statements.--Welshsocialist (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, people. HE. IS. DEAD. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

90.192.31.211 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC) On the right hand side,it says he was killed on the 20th october 2011 which may be true,but in Iraq

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

Please change "7 June 1942" to "7 June 1942 - 20 October 2011"

Mvonl (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• No - no WP:RS says he's dead yet. Just wait. Wikipedia is not a breaking news service. Pedro :  Chat  13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• No - it has not been confirmed that he is dead. He may be dead, but without a WP:RS confirming it, this is a gross violation of the rules that govern BLP. Please remove the death date until we get a source. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• No - Because it hasn't been solid confirmed. --TX55^TALK 13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• USAToday seems to be hedging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• No - same as above - what is the rush to add potentially incorrect information? Hamamelis (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's what I like to call the "Wikipedia pissing contest of current events". You see it almost every week -- somebody just has to be the one to put it in. Steve Jobs' death is a perfect example. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• BBC is pointedly refusing to confirm this, media organizations are wary of a Mark Twain situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC and CNN confirms now that he is dead, this is confirmed by the National Transitional Council [4][5]. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting your source, "The U.S. State Department could not confirm any of the reports about Gadhafi's capture or killing, a spokeswoman said." Not confirmed. Seriously, what is the rush here? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Official confirmation that Gaddafi was killed

Just dropping the official word, Gaddafi is DEAD. They have just announced on ABC NewsRadio, and I've just uploaded it to youtube. It's confirmed that he is dead at 4:35 and 11:15 into this video of about 16 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNSuXxif3BQ

Whitewater111 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Youtube is not a Reliable Source, if the ABC website has this on their, provide us with this link. (I am sadly using a computer with a whitelist so I can't check myself. Akjar13 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If one was to believe everything you saw on Youtube, I guess we'd better get ready to put in the destruction of the Earth on Friday. Not a WP:RS and there are too many conflicting reports to rush to judgement. If he is dead, he's not going anywhere.... besides, Wikipedia is not a news source. There is no hurry here. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• However, Reuters now reporting the NTC have confirmed his death [6] Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The ABC News website is hedging its reporting just like everyone else (including Fox, for example) by saying that the rebel leaders are making this claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The ABC were actually streaming the news from Aljazeera, so here it is straight from the horses mouth. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111020111520869621.html Whitewater111 (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good enough to me! John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera confirms Gaddafi's death

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111020111520869621.html --Abbasjnr (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And Reuters. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Al Jazeera a reliable source? Besides which, the Al Jazeera article isn't "confirming" it, it's again saying "NTC leaders say..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If Al Jazeera is not a "reliable" source, then what is? Abbasjnr (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera may or may not be a reliable source. Lots of newspapers and TV channels report that the NTC reports that Khaddafi is dead. Thus, we can probably be quite certain that the NTC indeed has reported that Khaddafi is dead. But does that mean that Khaddafi really is dead? Only if the NTC is a reliable source. Currently, no other source (apart from the NTC) has reported that he indeed is dead (as far as I can tell), so all we get is quotations of the NTC's statement, which may or may not be wrong in the first place. (Stefan2 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

Bugs hit the nail on the head. Again, what is the rush here? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Reuters piece, like the others, says "Libya's interim rulers said..." No one has "confirmed" anything yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In this type of situation, people tend to report what they have seen elsewhere. The NTC says he has been killed, that's all we know at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And he probably is, but the interim government has gotten their stories wrong on several occasions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

They are a pretty reliable news station. On par with CNN and the BBC. Akjar13 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm just thinking back to when they were parroting Saddam and were so surprised that he wasn't actually winning. These things happen. In this case, what they are "reliably reporting" is the same story everyone else is: that the Libyan interim leadership says he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they're not biased, CNN and BBC are also biased, I guess the only way to confirm his death would be to carpet bomb the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akjar13 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Gaddafi's body is with our unit in a car and we are taking the body to a secret place for security reasons," " per the anti-Gadaffi propagandist. That is there source. Sound identical to the Bin Ladin killing. (aka horse).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And unless some evidence is presented, it will work out the same way: He won't be heard from again, and his supporters will implicitly confirm it by expressing their outrage, while his opponents will move on to their next project. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The link at the top of this topic now includes the image of his dead body. The live stream is showing the full footage from time to time. _dk (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No rush to tag, chances are if he is dead he will be also dead in tomorrow. Wiki is not a news agency we can wait for confirmation.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The pic kinda looks like him. I wonder who did this translation: "Earlier, Abdel Majid, another NTC official, said the toppled leader had been wounded in both legs." Frankly, shooting anyone in both legs would likely "topple" them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's little reason to wait. Lots of people get info from wikipedia.VR _talk 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why be thorough when you can be fast, right? FWIW, there are mixed reports that Hitler may still be alive too.... it's not confirmed, but the reports exist. I even saw pictures on Youtube... maybe we should include it, per all of these great examples of Wiki-journalism. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

At the age of 122, I expect his Charlie Chaplin mustache is a tad gray by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He could simply dye his mustache black!!!Abbasjnr (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As a note, a Western Source has posted an article "confirming" his death - based on the Libyan Prime Minister's confirmation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/20/libya-gadhafi-capture.html Hope this helps at all.

BBC confirms Gaddafi's death

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15389550.

No "ifs" or "buts" or quotation marks around the "killed" - the BBC have confirmed he is now dead, and are showing footage of the dead body. He's dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debonairchap (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Improved lead

Right, this article needs a much better summary of Gadaffi's downfall and 'probable' death. I was on the verge of entering this before the edit warring got the page locked:

In February 2011, following revolutions in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, protests against Gadaffi's rule began. These escalated into an uprising that spread across the country, with the forces opposing Gaddafi establishing a government based in Benghazi named the National Transitional Council(NTC). This led to the 2011 Libyan Civil War, which included a NATO-controlled international military intervention to enforce a UN Security Council resolution calling for a no-fly zone in Libya. The assets of Gaddafi and his family were frozen, and both Interpol and the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on 27 June for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah al-Senussi, concerning crimes against humanity. Gadaffi and his forces lost the Battle of Tripoli in August, and on 16 September 2011 the NTC took Libya's seat at the UN, replacing Gadaffi. Gadaffi retained control over parts of Libya, most notably the city of Sirte, to which it was presumed that he had fled. Although Gadaffi's forces initially held out against the NTC's advances, Sirte fell on 20 October. Gadaffi was captured and wounded during the battle, and has been reported by the NTC on Al Jazeera as having died from his wounds whilst in custody.

If it's good enough, I could put an edit request in. Alternatively, if people want to edit it here then we can insert it into the page when it is unlocked. Pretty Green (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: The category "2011 deaths" is still there. Shouldn't it be removed for now? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Working on it now. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the rollback has resulted in the removal of a couple of useful edits, too. Would you be so nice and restore them? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ditto above, please restore the cleaned up "References" section at this edit. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the useful edits should have been restored. Sorry for the f**k-up. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 15:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it's official: BBC has reported that Libyan Prime Ministar Mahmoud Jibril has confirmed Gaddafi's death: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15387872 Fendrly (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Guys, there's obviously a lot of dispute going on about whether or not he really is dead. Putting aside the issue of who's actually right, this does constitute an edit war between multiple parties, so I've protected the article for 12 hours. Let's give some time for actual, reliable sources to come forward and confirm that he's dead. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service -- Wikipedia won't fail if we wait a day or two to get our information right. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He may well be dead, but at the moment all we have is the usual rolling news speculation. As someone else said, if he is dead, he will still be dead tomorrow.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He'll even still be dead decades from now. After all, Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Moncrief (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to borrow that one from time to time. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Huffington Post is reporting Libya's PM just gave a press conference and said he's dead, for what it's worth. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we suppressing even reports that he is dead now? Is this some kind of joke? Lampman (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a joke? Before you answer, review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNT. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

IT's a joke, because we have evidence of his death, and all of a sudden information is being removed from the article. So please before directing people to essays, refer to WP:V - his death is a verifiable fact. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly appears as a joke; I just wanted to be in on it. Lampman (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the BBC, he is really most sincerely dead (image here, it is most unusual for the BBC to show an explicit image of a dead body).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

While I support reluctance to declare him officially dead, there are photos that look like him, and the Prime Minister has declared him dead. That must surely be good enough to warrant mention that he has been reported dead, with no shortage of references to support that claim. I must agree that I can see no logical reason to suppress adding content about the reports of his death. DOSGuy (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With more and more reliable sources reporting his demise, I think we can move past adding material that states he's "reported dead" and go right into saying he died. There wasn't any real hurry to make that change, though, which was my original point, as well as that of others: if he's dead now, he'll still be dead tomorrow, and it'll be verifiable tomorrow. A half hour ago, he may or may not have been dead, and there were so many conflicting reports that there was no logical way to verify his demise. Take the time to get it right, and you will never have to find the time to do it over. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well said Russavia, You chose the words so well, by the way, the BBC World service has now just officially noted that he is dead. Whitewater111 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We have indisputable information form reputable sources that he is dead. Users removing this information are not helping. Pristino (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is all very simple: the Libyan Prime Minister (and that's about as high as you get) has confirmed Gaddafi's death. There's also plenty of photographic evidence. If you want to remain over-cautious, leave out the d.o.d for now, but there is no reason to leave out the fact that every reliable news source in the world has reported his death. That is an indisputable fact. Lampman (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake at the bottom of the introduction, just above the contents box, someone spelled gaddafi wrong. they spelt it qaddafi (which is what autocorrector tells them) but its wrong. CORRECT IT PLEASE. its irritating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.112.180 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The only official spelling of his name is in Arabic. Gadhafi, Qaddafi, Kadafi, etc, are all reasonable approximations and common Latinizations of his name. DOSGuy (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is saying Gaddafi is dead. What more evidence do some here want? Pristino (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He is dead now

There are various reliable sources saying he is dead so please before editing information kindly provide referances saying he is still alive.Alokprasad84 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! For God's sake remove the protection, or edit the details yourselves, the article says he is INCUMBENT?!... 99.246.174.129 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the hurry? Span (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He is not on ventilator. Dead mean dead just all. Saying dead as dead is not hurry its is fact. Alokprasad84 (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It states in the article Gaddafi was targeted by a French airstrike. I heard on MSNBC that it was actually an American airstrike that targeted him. The Americans tracked him down, fired on his convoy. Many were killed;, he survived and ran to seek shelter, and then was found by the Libyan forces and killed. Also, none of the news stations are reporting it was a French airstrike. If it was France, then ok. But if not, and this was the US, this needs to be changed in the article for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.248.31.169 (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Rukn

The reference to Al Rukn under State-sponsored Terrorism section should point to the article for Black P. Stones. Jeswils (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've created a redirect. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite errors

Just a note to please be aware that with all the edit changes, that if a reference is changed or removed, that there are now "cite errors" present in the article. (see citation #249). --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The death

I appeal for all users to refrain for adding died templates, until the news isn't confirmed independently. Alex ^{discussion ★} 16:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hit the major news networks (Associated Press, for example), and they are stating it as fact. I think that we can go ahead and proceed. Falconus^{p t c} 16:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's now a photo on Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter's web site, [7], which is supposed to show Khaddafi dead. I wouldn't call it reliable, though; he could just be badly hurt, and the image quality isn't great, so it could maybe be manipulated. On the other hand, the text on the image suggests that it's part of a film recording. Is the whole film available somewhere so that it can be checked? (Stefan2 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

That same picture is on RT. There is also the source of the photo. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning the article, improvements, etc.

Hmm I think to make an Wikipedia to best quality standards we should do the following:

1) Removing info about chemical weapons or making reliable sources on it. I am not Gaddafi supporter, and think he should stay in the court and get the rest of life in prison sentence, but there is no reliable info on chemical weapons. If he had something like this - why he doesn't used it in, when he had to lost Trypolis?

2) Number of theories about death - There are valuable, between unless NATO say that they had full motion video from air of this, we all had to count of relations of fighters. Would be nice to collect them, and write using NPOV, isn't it? They showed even his gold pistol - but it's interesting - do he had an body armour, helmet, and automatic rifle? And there are other interesting questions to answer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are at least 2 references for chemical weapons that are already in the article, and they are reliable sources. I'll update the citations. In regards to photo-proof of his death, just check Al Jazeera. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Telegraph article about Hana Gadhafi

I found:

• Freeman, Colin and Robert Mendick. "Emails show British Government knew Hana Gaddafi was still alive." The Telegraph. 24 September 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone undo [8] this. That edit removes much information and some sources and adds in a very negative tone. On the whole it is clear the editor hates Gaddafi and wants the article to show him in a bad light and the western rebel backers as good. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Jeancey (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but he has gone back and deleted the sources again, and removed the fact NATO backed the overthrow. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Grossly incomplete section

The section on his family seems very odd when it doesn't even mention his first wife. Is her name unknown (I'm not interested enough to wade through all the rest of the article looking for it), or why is the specific (?) section grossly incomplete in that regard? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just that not much is known about his first wife, or even the dates of birth of half his children. His first wife is in the infobox, under spouses. They were only married for a year. her name is Fatiha al-Nuri. Jeancey (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx!  Done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref tags

The article is semi-protected, so I can't fix this: there's a warning at the bottom of the page saying that the article contains grouped references but not the special tag what would make them visible. Someone please fix. --142.205.241.254 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling in lead

Usually when the subject of an article is spelled in various ways, the lead sentence or paragraph mentions all of them. For example, "The term labour movement or labor movement is a broad term for the development of a collective organization of working people..." Obviously that's not feasible in the case of Khaddafi, but I think the lead should at least acknowledge the other spellings. As the sentence is complicated enough already, I suggest splitting it into two sentences, something like this:

Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (Arabic: مُعَمَّر القَذَّافِي Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī audio^ⓘ;^[variations] June 1942 – 20 October 2011) was the autocratic ruler of Libya from 1969, when he seized power in a military coup, until 2011 when his government was overthrown in a civil war. He was commonly known as Muammar Gaddafi /ˈmoʊ.əmɑːr ɡəˈdɑːfi/ or Colonel Gaddafi in English, but this name was also spelled in a large number of other ways.

I can't change the article because it's semi-protected; if you like this idea, please do it.

--142.205.241.254 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually theres a whole section on the transliteration of his name and it's linked right after his name as such (variations), so I don't think it needs any changing Jeancey (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  Jeancey, the user 142.205.241.254 is suggesting we link to the Transliteration of his Arabic name section and had that link in his/her proposed wording. I don't have an opinion one way or another other than let's wait a few days or weeks until the current edit-storm related to Gaddafi's death subsides. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

142.205.241.254, while fixing something else in the article I noticed that the lead already links to the Transliteration of his Arabic name section. It's the ^[variations] superscript. For now, I'm fine with that as the article is getting long and so anything that can trim down the word count, particularly in the lead, helps. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Really dead?

He just released a video (7:45pm EST) apparently a lookalike was killed. 24.229.102.138 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Source? Jeancey (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was a lookalike who released a video? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This person just vandalized NTC's template adding swastikas. I'm not sure how reliable they are. Jeancey (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He'll be reliable for the next 60 hours, anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The person does have a point, though. How can we be sure that Gaddafi hasn't simply sacrificed a doppelganger and disappeared abroad? Only a DNA test can rule out that very real possibility. I feel all matter-of-fact declarations of his death, without any hedging, should be considered premature. I mean, I'm not trying to sow FUD or conspiracy "theories". Personally, I'm 99% sure he's really dead, but I also have to acknowledge other possibilities, as unlikely as they may seem. I wouldn't put it past Gaddafi, he was (or is, if it really isn't him) wily and might have learned from Saddam. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course Gaddafi could have sacrificed a doppelganger, and I wouldn't fall over in shock if he did. However, while we can mention any conspiracy theories that have gained enough of a following to make the news, I think that there is a point in time where we should assume that Gaddafi is dead. I think that point in time is now, unless serious debate comes up that he may not be. Falconus^{p t c} 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Note, if there is a real, reliable source that is showing videos made by Gaddafi after his "death", then that would of course start "serious debate". Falconus^{p t c} 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, shut up. Muammar Gaddafi is dead and Osama Bin Laden is dead. Get over it, they're gone. What's up with people wanting to be conspiracy theorists? B-Machine (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya

• enjoys large natural resources, but the high gross domestic product was concentrated on Gaddafi's family and his elites, who amassed vast fortunes.[66] Most of the business enterprises were controlled by Gaddafi and his family.[67] Meanwhile, a large section of the population lives in poverty. One of the worst situations is in the eastern parts of the country.[68][69]

When the rising international oil prices began to raise Gaddafi's revenues in the 1970s, Gaddafi spent much of the revenues on arms purchases and on sponsoring his political projects abroad.[70] Gaddafi's relatives adopted lavish lifestyles, including luxurious homes, Hollywood film investments and private parties with American pop stars.[71][72]

that is really biased. gaddafi did share wealth and embark on a number of infrastructure projects like man made lake and 0% debt all this after years of sanctions .Gaddafi did hardly any arms purchases and "political projects abroad" are known to most of the world as Foreign Aid . Even Leaders of america have lavish lifestlyes and parties with international celebrities ...so ? it doenst cost money to party

• It actually DOES cost money to party... Jeancey (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

not it doenst,this article implies he was a playboy when cleary he was not . and how often did he have private parties ? eh no it doens cost that much . if you be friend someone its free very BIASED article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.186.209 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hedging positivity

Why was this removed "During Gaddafi's period of rule many of Libya's human development indicators improved significantly. By 2010, Libya had the highest GDP per capita,[13] Education Index,[14] and Human Development Index[15] in Africa as well as some of the best health indicators in the continent" I saw it yesterday by the time I got back it GONE.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thats because it's about History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi not this article. It was simply in the wrong place, and I believe it was already included in the history article. Jeancey (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

who made you the judge ? your talking about gaddafi allegedly wasting money of foriegn aid then also talk about his massive social uplift of thousands of people --109.175.186.209 (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think that means something so critical, considering the neg press Western media is giving that it should not be there for some sort of balance. Also it is key to him. He is not know for being a rock star, he is know for his leadership. that is central to the leadership. Esp when his leadership was ended because he was supposed to be such a bad leader. Strange being a bad leader and doing a better job than most world leaders with your countries development. (nothing happens to them). Had i just arrived on planet Earth and read this I would never think this man is a hero in Africa and to many for his contributions to the continent. I just dont get that from reading the lead. Everything seems to be "explained away".--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

From reading this article, you shouldn't get the impression that Gaddafi was a hero in Africa, or that he was a villain. All the facts should be presented neutrally, and you should be able to decide for your own. Of course, in reality, it does not always happen that way unfortunately. If you find facts that are missing, feel free to add them to the appropriate section, properly cited of course. I agree with Halagah, I think that what Gadaffi accomplished should be included in an article about Gadaffi, even if it's also mentioned in other articles. Falconus^{p t c} 13:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

re-added with references. You can kill a man but dont try to kill the truth. Funny how policy is used to censor stuff. "oh that is in another article", @ Jeancey sorry mate it needs to be in the lead.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, concurring instead with Jeancey. This is material that belongs in History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, and certainly shouldn't be in the lede of this article. I'd recommend asking for comments from other editors, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be reached regarding this. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Having information in the article it is most relevant to is not censorship. Alan and Jeancey have got it right. He may not have been a bad leader, he may have done good things (and he did), but his people overthrew him because they wanted change (really guys, change? Homeless people want change.) The information is where it should be, if people are interested in how he was as a leader, they can go to History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, but if they don't want to know, then we won't be burdening them with unneccessary info. Akjar13 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me just not waste time and say see Jimmy Carter, just one example. Where in the lede the merits of their leadership (the most important thing about Gadaffi) get summed up, not put to some obscure location on the edge of the Delta Quadrant. BUt I agree you are voicing your opinion and we will not invade your country just because we dont get along. "the people" as seen on CNN deposed Gadaffi.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please re-add the information. Gaddafi is known for one thing, being the ruler of Libya, ergo, what he did as the ruler of Libya to Libya is very important. Look at the third paragraph from Vladimir Putin, it summs up Putins affect on Russia. This is not the case for some other world leaders because they have had minimal effects on their respective nations, just keeping status quo mostly. Libya under Gaddafi's very long rule has changed significantly and not along the same lines of its neighbours. Please don't quote wikipedian policies in order to excuse the hiding of pertinent information. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why there's already an article on the History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. And you yourself point out that how Putin's leadership affected Russia appears in the third paragraph; the material on how Gaddafi affected Libya was removed from the article lede. If consensus determines the material should appear in THIS article, well and good, but right now, it appears that there's no such consensus. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you never read the Putin article, it was the third paragraph of the 5 paragraph lead... if you claim consensus is needed to do anything, than where is the consensus for the removal of the information? Can anything be removed willy nilly, but we need everyone to agree to put back in perinent information? Who cares if it is stated in more than one article, most facts are stated multiple times because they are important to multiple articles. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here comes another one of those references you don't seem to care for: WP:BRD. And, believe it or not, it's working. One editor was bold and made a change to an article, another reverted it, and now there's discussion on the matter. What's next? Why, consensus, of course. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The bold move was the removal, the revert was putting the sourced relevant information back, consensus is needed to re-take it out again. Now go get another policy and try to subvert its spirit and mangle its meaning. The fact is the information is of high relevance but some editors do not want anything that does not show the positive accomplishments of Gaddafi. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - keep the information: If it is decided that that information belongs in the History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, and not this article (why can't it be in both?), we would also need to remove nearly all of the lead, as well as most of the Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs, and the 2011 Libyan Civil War, because all of it deals with Libya under Gaddafi as well. As I have already indicated, I am very strongly opposed to removing this type of information, unless the integrity of the information itself is in question. Is there a policy that states that information cannot appear in multiple articles? If so, I have never seen it. Falconus^{p t c} 22:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - include info in the lede: I will not let this one slip away into the edit history and I will add it back once a few more "agrees" come in. The reasons for not including it are weak.All I did was put in info that was taken OUT without CONSENSUS. funny how i need all this process to put back what was there for God knows how long.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Errors

It is not possible or logical that "the Libyan Air Force, ... was entirely made of members of the Qadhadhfa tribe, which Gaddafi belongs to". There may have been a large number of Qadhadfa in the air force, but the airforce cannot have been entirely manned by personnel from one small tribe!

The passage from a western travelogue seems jarringly out of place in a biography, and not exactly written in an academic fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.152.214 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How big was the air force, and how big was the tribe? During the rebellion, I believe that all of Gadaffi's air force was destroyed fairly quickly - I want to say that there were only about three aircraft, though I can't cite that. Why couldn't an air force consisting of such a small number of aircraft consist entirely of a fairly small tribe? I quite possibly am missing something; I don't know for sure, but I don't see the impossibility. Falconus^{p t c} 22:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol

Many people of North Africa drink alcohol because they are influenced by Europe, can we find information if Muammar Gaddafi drank alcohol and if he did was he an alcoholic? This would be interesting information I believe. The 9-11 hijackers were shown getting drunk at the casinos in Las Vegas and Saddam Hussain appeared to me as an alcoholic. I know this sounds weird but in Qur'an alcohol is clearly mention and prohobited. Thanks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If drinking (or not) alcohol played a major role in Gaddafi's life, then it would be something to mention. However, the point of the article is not to try to portray him in a negative (or positive) light, but neutrally, so that the readers can decide. Portraying Ghadaffi as an alcoholic without strong sources would not be productive for the article. Falconus^{p t c} 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is to find out more about his personal life, if there is evidence that he abused alcohol. I know this is not a big deal to some but it should be investigated anyway.--Jorge Koli (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to investigate it, and if you find anything significant, feel free to add it to the article with appropriate citations :-). Falconus^{p t c} 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why was his date of birth removed? B-Machine (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Look above. – Connormah (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some one tag this article as disputed

many people here believe this article is not neutral this should be showed at the top of the page {{POV-title}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.186.209 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, see WP:NPOV. There's nothing non-neutral about a person's name as an article title. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not that particular banner, but it is true that the neutrality is disputed. The question, is the dispute great enough to put a banner up? What do y'all think? And I'm not asking whether you agree with the portrayal of Gadaffi, only if you think that it is unbiased? Falconus^{p t c} 22:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations Needed

The line

"People who formed a political party were executed, and talking about politics with foreigners was punishable by up to 3 years in jail."

has no citation. A statement like this should not be within the article without a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.85.182(talk) 18:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the context of the line in question, I find the statement plausible. I haven't checked the citation for the following sentence to see if that reference makes the statement, though, and it might well. For now, I've marked the sentence with a {{CN}} tag, at least until it's been researched. I won't have time to finish that research right now; if someone else can, please do so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked and the citation contained within the following sentence does not make any reference to the claims in the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.85.182 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Second Chance (TV series) predicted his death to the year

In Sept. 1987, Second Chance, (an NBC 1987 - 1988 TV series starring Matthew Perry), predicted that Gaddafi would be killed on July 29, 2011. I know you will not add this to the article, but, what a coincidence isn't it? They were only off by 3 (three) months.204.80.61.110 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

That does seem a little too specific for Wikipedia, but it is interesting. Perhaps if this prediction itself becomes a cultural phenomenon then it might be worthy of its own page which could be linked to from here. John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 17:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

detail on possible birth place

"In a televised interview, Gaddafi's cousin and former bodyguard [Mansour Dao, who was captured with Gaddafi] ... added that their convoy was not escaping from Sirte, as has been reported, but was heading for the village where Gaddafi was born in the nearby Jarif valley. ... 'We left the area [we were staying] towards Jarif, where he comes from.'" see here --77.188.84.250 (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first section is quite clumsy

"Although Gaddafi's forces initially held out against the NTC's advances, Gaddafi was captured alive as Sirte fell to the rebel forces on Thursday the 20 October 2011, later he had been beaten and killed soon after."

A) It's a run-on sentence. B) The day of the week is not relevant for the introductory sentence, and nor is the "the" before the date. (I realize some old-school British writers add that, but it's not common Wikipedia style.) C) The whole run-on part of the sentence is mind-bendingly confusing: "later he had been beaten and killed soon after." Huh? How about just: "....Gaddafi was captured alive as Sirte fell to the rebel forces on 20 October, and he was beaten and killed on the same day." Or something else better than what's there now! Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction - died, or killed?

He was captured alive, and then was executed - after begging for his life. It is not correct to say "he died shortly after". He was killed shortly after. Daily Mail reference

Generally when someone gets killed, they die as well. 125.237.33.194 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but the extrajudicial nature of his death is so significant that it merits a mention when talking about his death. Lakerking04 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

He is dead.

Could someone put this to the article? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-idUSTRE79F1FK20111020 TheShockTilt (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone change the "may be killed on..." at the end of the introductory section to "may have been killed on"? It's necessary to keep the grammar correct until it is fully established whether he is dead or not.

Confirmed

Whoever removed my message on here, you are not really meant to do that.--Welshsocialist (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He is dead. I added a death date on the article TKhaldi (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit too early to say he is dead, but it may seem very likely. A link to the youtube video showing a dead man (resembles him) could confirm his death -> http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2011/10/2011102014201566639.html but then again it comes from al jazeera and al jazeera is not known to be neutral and objective. It was and is "pro-revolution" in the whole Arab area (exclusive to the Saud Regime, which back them up) 178.190.41.25 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is another article http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/20/libyan-fighters-say-they-have-captured-gadhafi/?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1 Wingtipvortex (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) --Justana (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Are you happy now? The monster as you portray him is dead. Obama will appear to say "Justice was done" as he has been doing after US criminal actions.--Justana (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)--Justana (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should alter the info box which claims he died in September... 2.218.79.125 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the introduction includes the date "20 October 2010" - could someone change that to 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.143.245 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jeancey (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

After the death of Muammar Gaddafi http://oilrush-game.com/ sales rised up

After the death of Muammar Gaddafi http://oilrush-game.com/ sales rised up by 3400% 190.51.151.190 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Full name

According to his will just released, his full name is Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi. Mugotea2 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not as the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME, but in the lead would be appropriate.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 23 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change: "He said the United States was bombing al-Qaeda camps and that they had supported and built for him in the past." to: "He said the United States was bombing al-Qaeda camps that they had supported and built for him in the past." because the original implies that something other than the camps may have been supported and built.

Pipcallas (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and changed.  Chzz  ►  06:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Death mystery

Gadaffi was injured, captured, ill treated and died. No dispute. Whether he was shot after he was captured is possible but factually uncertain at this time. He was certainly injured, possibly shot, and was clearly bleeding when he was captured, and could have just bled out. There is potentially financial advantange re the Dead or Alive Reward to anyone claiming 'I shot Gaddafi'. Some caution yet before reaching a final conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.7.237 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 23 October 2011

Please change: "Gaddafi's body was subsequently flown Misrata..." to "Gaddafi's body was subsequently flown to Misrata..." Juliannadiaz (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Jeancey (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Autocrat

The current version of the article states "...his critics described him as an autocrat" (or similar wording). Is there any serious doubt that the man was an autocrat, given that the only sources for the "Brother Leader"'s role as a figurehead were ultimately from Gaddafi himself and his regime? -- Gigacephalus (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

More references and facts please add as I've been blocked

I can't edit this page anymore, but I wasn't finished my edits from last night. Here are some stats for the person who put the citation needed at the end of my one sentence in the lead.

average age expectancy of 77.65 highest in Africa

non significant undernourishment one of a few African nations to be at this highest rank possible.

infant mortality rates lowest for any mainland African nation

Public awareness (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance. These are all facts about Libya, not about Gaddafi. If you are trying to make a causal link between the two, you need to provide a source that says that. These sources do not say "Because of Gaddafi, the life expectancy is X, etc". If your aim was not to atrribute these things to him, I'm not sure what relevancy they have for the article. They may be better aimed at the Libya article.204.65.34.145 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What to you mean "explain the relevance" in the above statement? Gadaffi was head of ideolog and head of state in Libya for 42 years. Do you actually think that life expextancy and infant moratlity statistics are not influenced by government policy??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.97.165 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Until today I don't think anyone knew his date of birth and even the year was an approximation. If anyone could let me know how the June 7, 1942 date came about, I'd greatly appreciate it. Is the date deemed accurate, and if so, by whom? Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I know the BBC uses it, as well as several other sources. No idea where it originally came from though. Jeancey (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• It was added to Wikipedia in 2008 by an IP, probably sheer vandalism. Now of course it is being copied into all the obituaries. Mewulwe (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Many sources dating back into the 1990s use 7 June 1942 and so I restored that. See /Archive 4#Gaddafi's Birthday. We don't need "proof" - just reliable sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect. You have apparently used a Gale website, where this date is included in connection with those sources, but it is part of the modern interface, not the sources dating from 1998 etc. This is easily seen in the fact that it is always the exact same line at the head, "Born: June 07, 1942 in Sirta, Libya" (note strange spelling of Sirta), while the actual text says quite different things, e.g.:

• "Muammar al-Qaddafi (also spelled Muʿammar alQadhdhafi) was born during World War II, probably in the spring of 1942, to a Bedouin family near Sirte in northern Libya." (Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, 2004)
• "Mu'ammar Al Qadhafi was born in 1942 in the region of Sirte, on the Mediterranean coast of Libya." (Current Leaders of Nations, 1998)
• "Qaddafi was born in central Libya, in the desert south of Sirte near Abou-Hadi, probably in the spring of 1942, although some accounts place his birth in 1943." (Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2008)
• "Muammar Al-Gaddafi (also transcribed into other Western languages as Qaddafi, Gheddafi, and Khadafi, among others) was born in 1942, either in spring or in September. His birthplace was near Surt in the desert region of Libya bordering the Mediterranean along the Gulf of Sirte." (Encyclopedia of World Biography, 1998)
• "Qadhdhafi was born in 1943 (other sources say he was born earlier) in a tent to a poor itinerant Bedouin family that belonged to the Qadhafa tribe." (Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, 2004)

Nowhere is the date June 7 in the actual text. The Gale site must have copied it from Wikipedia too. Mewulwe (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I, too was wondering about the 7 June date which everyone seems to be using. Most of the sources I have seen (Current Biography, Americana etc) merely list 1942. Some others list March 1942 and I have seen September 1942 but if it is September then unless his birthday is 1 September (the day he took power) he cannot have been born in 1942 because stories refer to the "27-year-old" Gaddafi. I suspect that the 7 June date has been out there by a mischief maker who is now grinning to see every other newspaper/media outlet using it.--Shylocksboy (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The issue is we cannot judge that the news sources are citing wikipedia as that is WP:OR. We have a reliable source indicating 7 June, so we can use it. You CANNOT say that its unreliable and from wikipedia without actual evidence to that. Jeancey (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Er, of course they are using wikipedia. And what is/are the original source)s)? You say above No idea where it originally came from though." so what is the origin? --Shylocksboy (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The origin of their source cannot be questioned every time. They are reliable so we can use it. I, however, have contacted the BBC to ask where it came from. Until they say that it was from wikipedia we can't change it. If we second guess them, we must then second guess EVERY news agency until we find their source for everything. Jeancey (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes the same reliable BBC that credited Norman Wisdom in their obit with writing White Cliffs of Dover - after they copied it from er wikipedia. The BBC has just started using 7 June after wikipedia used it. None of the major sources Encylopedia Americana, Current Biography, Britannica have that date for him. Surely they are more reliable than something that has just appeared? --Shylocksboy (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jeancey: I don't think so. The way to do this is to list exactly that; some say this, others say that, in a footnote. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I have no issue with that. My issue was people removing the day entirely, even though we have atleast one reliable source that uses it. Jeancey (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. I don't know who added that pointy note about "added by anonymous...blah" into the footnote. Wasn't me. So I tried to sum up everything we have in an extended footnote. I think that does the reader a better service. Even the New York Times in their obituary yesterday said "some sources say June 7". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mewulwe: Read WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:3RR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Cut out the silly patronizing. Fact is, the date was added anonymously into Wikipedia in 2008. Fact is, no one has found an earlier source for it. Tons of sources all just say, at most, June 1942, many not even that with certainty. There is nothing "pointy" about a note noting these facts. Mewulwe (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mewulwe has once again removed the date. I want to respond to his note that I said I had no problem with it. I have no problem with a secondary note indicating that some sources say different birth dates. I DO have a problem with the date being removed entirely. Jeancey (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The date is not removed entirely, it is in the footnote. Mewulwe (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you quit lawyering around? Seriously... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

History of birth date revisions:

16 April 2007: June added by 86.206.35.153

16 July 2007: 19 June added by 81.129.106.98

5 February 2008: 19 june removed by Everyking

12 June 2008: 7th June added by 92.4.118.204

25 September 2009: 7th June removed by 65.96.217.153

25 September 2009 (2 hours later): 7th June restored by 130.20.12.158

Doesn't look like vandalism, just unsourced good faith edits. That doesn't mean it is right or wrong. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The original 7th June addition definitely looks like vandalism. Mewulwe (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The point, Mewulwe, is that you are the ONLY one to describe this as vandalism and you have unilaterally changed it against the policy of wikipedia. We HAVE a source, many in fact, that state 7 june. We have other that say other dates as well. Therefore, in this case, we KEEP the 7 june, and add a note indicating that some sources do in fact say otherwise. For you to say that those sources are using wikipedia is completely WP:OR and should NOT be included in wikipedia. If you continue to revert this, after you have already been warned, you might find yourself blocked. Jeancey (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny, it seemed to me that Shylocksboy above also described this as vandalism. It is certainly an unsourced addition, since no one has yet come up with a source that existed in 2008. And it has been often demonstrated that BBC etc. copy from Wikipedia. Thus only someone who doesn't think would conclude "we have reliable sources for 7 June, so that's what we use". And while I'd personally take any bet that those sources got the date from Wikipedia, it is of course not provable and therefore I never put this claim in the article. I just stated the facts: BBC etc. report this date, which also has been introduced into Wikipedia in 2008 and doesn't appear in earlier sources. This is not saying the BBC copied from Wikipedia; any reader can draw his own conclusions. Mewulwe (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's how I see it. Mewulwe is, I believe, absolutely right that reliable sources differ on Gaddafi's birth, and that it is thus inappropriate to use one specific date of birth from one WP:RS, when other WP:RS differ. Mewulwe may be right about the 7 June date being sourced from Wikipedia itself, or they may not -- this appears to be pure supposition based on Mewulwe's analysis of sources that include Wikipedia itself, and thus WP:OR. Note that this does not make it inappropriate to argue it here on the talk page -- indeed, this is what talk pages exist for -- or undermine their basic argument that because WP:RS differ, we can't privelege one WP:RS over another in the article.

However, putting this WP:OR argument -- even if correct -- into the article itself, even in a footnote, when it is disagreed with by a substantial number of other editors on the talk page, is completely out of order, based on the OR and RS rules. This last point is the topic of the recent edit war. I believe the onus is now on Mewulwe to provide reliable sources that support their preferred text in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies to the satisfaction of other editors, rather than edit-warring over it. Otherwise, I believe Mewulwe simply needs to concede the point at this stage in the process, or this will become a matter for the policy enforcement process to kick in. -- Gigacephalus (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never put my "supposition" into the article. I have put the underlying facts into the article, for anyone to judge. The topic of the edit war is whether the plain facts are included or obscured, namely, that a) proper sources pre-2008 are all vague and don't have any exact birth date (see typical sample above), b) the date June 7 was introduced into Wikipedia in 2008 (see link above), c) now after his death, the same date appears in some "reliable" journalistic sources. That much is hardly OR. The mere possibility that my conclusion from these facts may be right - which you acknowledge - makes these facts relevant to include. It would only be OR to include the conclusion (a positive statement that BBC etc. copied from Wikipedia). Mewulwe (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No. A note like that is pure commentary and doesn't belong anywhere, neither in the footnote nor in the main text, or wherever. You could make a case for not including "7" if you convince most people here. It's already taken out of the prose; so we're talking about the number "7" in the infobox. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the infobox figure, too. The silly thing is that consensus here is agreeing with Mewulwe about not including the "7" on the page due to contradictory evidence from different WP:RS -- the issue now is simply whether the rationale for this belongs in the article. Which it doesn't, per WP:OR, and, even after rewording, WP:SYN. On the other hand, both are allowed here: original research into the evidence and synthesis of sources is exactly what talk pages are for. -- Gigacephalus (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant facts are not "commentary". It is an entirely objective description of the source situation. We're making progress if you agree on removing the 7 from the main text. However, without proper explanation people will keep re-adding it. Mewulwe (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that the World Almanac for 2011 gives his birthdate as "September 1942". For this article, someone needs to find a source that existed prior to the creation of Wikipedia, just to be sure someone isn't copycatting Wikipedia's "June 7" and then someone here is using it as a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was first changed from "1942" to "June 1942" in 2003 - again, by an IP giving no citation.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are pre-Wikipedia sources for June (e.g. [10]), but not for June 7. Mewulwe (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone could find out his Islamic (lunar calendar) birthdate, that might help - if it's known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Height

Muammar Gaddafi Height is 6′ or 183 cm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heightandweight (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Celebritiesheight.com is not going to be considered a reliable source. I don't think. Jeancey (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Muammar Qaddafi was taller than Nicholas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi and shorter than Barack Obama and Tony Blair (check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856HOHH5UJE). I would say he was between 1.73-1.76 m.-Ana Bruta (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

POV section headings

It seems like some of the section headings have an NPOV problem. Now I have no sympathy for Swinedaffi (and chuckled a bit when I saw he begged for his life like a coward before being shot - something I would normally not do, but for him I make an exception, in fact I would even go as far as to say, "Lol, pwnt"), but having such titles as "Alliances with other authoritarian national leaders" and "State-sponsored terrorism" is simply not acceptable. Relations with other leaders would be better with a focus on the authoritarian ones. State-sponsored terrorism is a bit tougher, but from what I have seen we usually don't use the T word (terrorist); just look at Osama bin Laden Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree per authoritarian. However, I think the preponderance of reliable sources (as shown in the article) would indicate Libya engaged in state sponsored terrorism. I know the line between indicating the state sponsored terrorism and out and out calling him a terrorist may be a fine one, but I think there is a difference. I'm not sure the wiki policy re: terrorist applies in this case, but it's a good point to bring up for discussion204.65.34.47 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures or footage

Hi, I was wondering why there isn't any images of the capture or killing of this mad dog. I believe it would be an important addition to the article, most pictures show him flamboyant, we should be able to show all the angles of the life of this terrorist. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to add gratuitous images and video like that. How do they help to improve the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 03:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

How do they hurt, and wikipedia isn't censored, so if it gratuitous to you, thats not a good enough reason to omit.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's a reason to omit it because they are gratuitous, (though similar reasons are given at goatse I believe) but we don't just add stuff for the sake of adding stuff to make Gaddafi look shitty. Here is a good collection of them on the Daily Mail. [11] How do those add to the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 03:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We add them in proper context, according to the guidelines and the sources.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you can add them in then (though I personally think that if you did include such images they would go in his death article, not his main article as they are more relevant there). See what the community thinks. If no one has a problem with it then it's alright. If someone reverts, we can have a discussion. I don't think it's good to add them though for Camilo's reasons (not saying that is what you, Joj, wanted, but it was his reasoning I found objectionable). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 03:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't think adding images of one of the most important events in the world is not important for the article? Don't tell me you supported that pig. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:RECENT, it's important at the moment though it will probably have a lasting impact; secondly there is an article about his death. It's called Death of Muammar Gaddafi. Thirdly, please do not make such a rude remark that could be construed as a personal attack, especially given the fact that no self-respecting Jew would ever show respect for him. It you had looked at the topic directly above this one after you initially posted, you would have seen my views on the man. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

U- Camilo cut the commentary, leave your issues/ If you want a forum I can take you on elsewhere. cuz all you doing is provoking me. So Not here. Not all of us support colonialism of Africa and murder of our heroes. Moving on - I am shocked it is even being discussed. What for? Censorship ? Nothing to do with it. I think the Camilo makes his motives are clear, so NO! What for - to say WHAT? Go and put your blood and guts here [Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy] this is when you realize we might all bleed red but our humanities are not equal. shameful. And to the person that says sensor then go and add some hardcore porn on the sex related articles, depicting everthing under that same banner. So dont talk censor.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is careening toward forum-style conversation. This is not the purpose of the wiki page. Please find a political forum on which to have such discussions. This article does not exist to reflect or push a specific POV (like that which is obvious in the first and last poster preceding my comment here). We are not here to make Gaddafi look good or bad. What we personally think of him is IRRELEVANT. If you find it becoming relevant to how you approach the article, then you are too personally involved to be editing this article. Please pursue your interests in another forum. Adding gratuitous images for the sake of revenge, etc. is not up to wiki standards. If there is an image that becomes notable, or if there is a part of the article for which images would make a clear benefit, then it is acceptable. But regardless, the motivation behind it matters. Your personal animosity, or support, of Gaddafi has no place in this article or in shaping what gets put in or left out.204.65.34.47 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Internal affairs section: ethnic cleansing?

I have no idea whether or not Qadhafi committed ethnic cleansing, but the citation doesn't back it up at all, the link is to a BBC report which only mentions Libya's expulsion of Italians in passing. It should be replaced with something simple like "Gaddafi expelled Italian settlers from Libya in 1970" until someone comes up with a citation that actually describes the alleged ethnic cleansing.

Zuky79 (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This has continued to be a contentious bit for some reason. I will take a look at it and edit it back to what it used to be.204.65.34.47 (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"had remained the country's symbolic leader"

Apparently Wikipedia believes the ridiculous claim by Gaddafi that he held no real power, was only "the symbolic father of the Nation". This article is full of pro-Gaddafi propaganda, and it contains passages deeply insulting to Libyans. It's like allowing Neo-Nazis to write the Hitler article. 79.168.233.173 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

first, reducto ad Hitlerum is a bad strategy when asking for change, in general. Secondly, making general statements about "propaganda" doesn't help improve the article. Suggest specific changes for discussion. Third, Wiki is not censored based on who is or is not offended or troubled. We do not get to decide among ourselves what the right, "true" information is. We reflect reliable sources. This article should not be written from any POV, nor should it be selectively edited to prevent offense. It should not be intended to offend, either, it should be neutral. But just because someone takes offense to something, doesn't mean it should be removed. Lastly, if you want to sway others to your proposals, please assume Good Faith on behalf of the other editors. Rants and generic criticisms rarely motivate anyone to take you seriously.204.65.34.47 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Full Gaddafi name

Full Gaddafi name: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/23/gaddafi-will-sirte-burial-libya-liberation?newsfeed=true You should add it to Wiki. Bielsko (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't there be verification that it is his will first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct spelling is "Qaddafi" not "Gaddafi"

If the spelling of his name in Arabic is "Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī" why on earth do Westerners spell it "Gaddafi"?! - Ana Bruta (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi#Transliteration of his Arabic name should explain. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Most likely just an English pronunciation of the name. Its not uncommon.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The spellings ق and ذ are pronounced q and ḏ in MSA, but in Libyan Arabic, they are pronounced g and d ([ɡædˈdæːfi]). —Stephen (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This was hashed out about six months ago. See here. There's no need to change it at this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a typo in article ?? - "Libyans who could afford " - should be "Libyans who could not afford "

At the time Gaddafi died, some of the worst economic conditions were in the eastern parts of the state.[77][78] The sewage facilities in Banghazi were over 40 years old, and untreated sewage flowed into ground and coast.[12] 97% of urban dwellers have access to "improved sanitation facilities" in Libya, this was 2% points lower than the OECD average, or 21% points above the world average.[82] In the first 15 years of Gaddafi rule, the number of doctors per 1000/citizens increased by seven times, with the number of hospital beds increasing by three times.[83] During Gaddafi's rule, infant mortality rates went from 125 per 1000 live births, about average for Africa at the time, to 15 per 1000, the best rate in Africa.[84] Libyans who could afford it often had to seek medical care in neighboring countries such as Tunisia and Egypt because of lack of decent medical care in Libya.[78][85]

It's correct as it is. If they "could NOT afford" it then they couldn't and wouldn't seek medical care in neighbouring contries. They had no money to pay for that.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Viagra raping troops?

I have not heard anything except one general newsources claiming Gaddafi gave troops viagra to troops for raping. Its ok to demonize the man, but lets use clear cut facts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.93.69 (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That is why it is a claim, not represented as a fact. If a reliable new source is found having the claim, then we put the claim in the article. Jeancey (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm... actualy it is NOT "ok to demonize the man": this is an encyclopedia that has neutral point of view as one of its core values.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

last will and testament

The last will and testament is being posted around the web, perhaps a mention? http://www.onislam.net/english/news/africa/454426-gaddafis-last-will.html - seems noteworthy to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess: He left all his worldly possessions to his dream girl, Condi Rice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a last will and testament to me, as it does not purport to dispose of any property. It appears to be an attempt at last words. 38.104.167.98 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct end date of his rule!?!

Gaddafi hadn't been in power at 20. October. He's not an official leader of Libya from 23.08.2011?!?! Your opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.184.95 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to find a valid source that indicates when the UN recognized the new government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here it is - June 2011. See different reliable sources - tiny.cc/y9uua & ntclibya.com/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=91&SSID=12&ParentID=11&LangID=1&Type=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.184.95 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the UN recognized the NTC on 16 September as per the article on the topic here Jeancey (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Economy citation

In the economy section, there is a portion that describes how Libya changed (beneficially) under Gaddafi. Specifically, an increase in literacy, accessible healthcare, education, etc. The only source cited for these claims is a very pro-Gaddafi article from a Sri Lankan newspaper. Sri Lanka doesn't have the most free press... Can we either find better citation or perhaps revise the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.68.203 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So? UK, USA and other countries from which some of the editors use so-called "verifiable" sources also don't have the most free press. Perunova straža (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no electricity bill in Libya during Gaddafi era??..etc

I want to know the truthfulness of these "FACTS" spread over facebook.....

Libya & QADDAFI ...FACTS THAT CANT BE DENIED

1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

3. Home considered a human right in Libya – Gaddafi vowed that his parents would not get a house until everyone in Libya had a home. Gaddafi’s father has died while him, his wife and his mother are still living in a tent.

4. All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.

6. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick- start their farms – all for free.

7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2, 300/mth accommodation and car allowance.

8. In Libyan, if a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

9. The price of petrol in Libya is $0. 14 per liter.

10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – now frozen globally.

11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.

12. A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

13. A mother who gave birth to a child receive US $5 ,000

14. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $ 0.15

15. 25% of Libyans have a university degree

16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afsalmpm (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

The lack of neutrality in the article is apparent from the very beggining. Basically all that is says is "Gaddafi is a nasty dictator who likes oppressing his people". No word on his contributions to pan-Arabism or pan-Africanism or the fact that Libya developed relatively well compared to most Third World countries. I actually stopped reading it seriously after the sentence "Six days after the U.S.A. captured Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator of Iraq". Is Wikipedia going to be an encyclopedia, or a cheap advertisement tool for certain political views ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than making generic complaints about the article, which are impossible to address, the best way to seek improvement in a wiki article is: 1) suggest specific changes, backed by reputable/verifiable sources. We are not here to state our opinion, we can only repeat what verifiable/reputable sources say. 2) Assume Good Faith. Coming in making wild accusations and speaking in conspiracy theory-esque terms will not help build consensus for changes you like to see. Angry rhetoric is not persuasive. Reasoned arguments are.204.65.34.167 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I should be shocked, but how can I be in the current state of TRUTH. The line 'Gaddafi started several wars'. I came here looking for facts. If he started several wars, could you please say what and quote sources, or would that be following your own guidelines? 188.220.186.57 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is definitely not balanced. Some of the references are personal blogs or sites. Even in first couple of sentences you can find sentences like "he started several wars" without the facts or any reference. This article needs to be disputed for its neutrality. Probably returned to it's previous state or at least corrected with all non-verifiable statements deleted. Maybe locked until the situation in Lybia calms down. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedia, not anyone's propaganda tool (west, east, doesn't matter). This doesn't help Wikipedia's already shaken reputation (by similar incidents). --178.223.26.5 (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't just limit to let a well defined political position emerge from the text. This is a clear attempt of persuasion, an exploitation of the current media coverage on Libya and Gaddafi.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Users like you shouldn't compromise the neutrality and freedom of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medende (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not say he is dead as in fact but as likely or suspected or reported by so and so. There has been no dna test and the rebels have made claims of his death or capture numerous times. while I agree it is likely he is dead it is not definitive. The video allegedly showing his death is grainy, no one who actually knows him has confirmed his death, the man in the video did not confirm he was gaddafi, we do not know if gaddfafi had a body double -like steve bridges for bus- or like saddams body doubles, and the american intelligence suggested that gaddafi was not in sirte but southern areas of libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.8.161 (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in the economy section beginning with "At the time Gaddafi died, some of the worst economic conditions were in the eastern parts of the state." is quite problematic. Just that very first sentence is questionable. What is "some of the worst"? Worst relative to the rest of the country? I think most places have a "worst" part of it. Maybe the author was trying to say: At the time of Gaddafi's death, Libya was in poor economical condition, especially in the some of the eastern parts of the state. There does seem to be problems in the east according to the sourced articles, and perhaps a dedicated paragraph with proper sources is required for this issue. However, the next parts of the paragrah talk about improved sanitation, doctor numbers(although ratio and capability were not mentioned) and much better infant mortality rates. This paragraph seems to be the result of two authors trying to oppose eachother by talking about different things. Finally, the paragaph concludes with "Libyans who could afford it often had to seek medical care in neighboring countries such as Tunisia and Egypt because of lack of decent medical care in Libya.". citation 87 seems to be the intended source of this sentence([80] is not relevant), though it is no where near adequate. The article talks about one person complaining about spending money to get his mother to another country for health care. That one person is quoted complaining about how his mother should be able to get "better treatment" in Libya, and an anesthesiologist is quoted in saying "people hated Libyan doctors and they'd run off to Egypt or Tsunisia for things as simple as the common cold". It is concerning that the source is based on a couple quotes of people durng a civil war, and the imagination of the author who decided that that one confirmed case and an ambiguous quote is enough to suggest "often" and that it was limited to the people who could "afford it"(based on source or just by the author's logic?). The line also implies Libya does not have "decent medicare", which, again, is ambiguous. What is decent? The lines before this sentence seem to suggest Libya has outstanding healthcare relative to its neighbors.

This paragraph should be split into two seperate paragraphs with one talking about the confirmable improved conditions in Libya under Gaddafi's rule, and the next that brings up some of not-so-well managed conditions(with better sourcing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagnesi (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This article does not meet standards of Wikipedia being propaganda that relies in unverifiable sources, personal blogs, POVs and opinions. Lack of sources from Africa, while using almost exclusively sources from North America and Western Europe speaks volumes on just how biased this article is. I'm appalled that Wikipedia editors let this happen. Perunova straža (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because I'm fairly certain that in all the libyan civil war articles, some of our most used sources are from the middle east. I've seen lots of aljazeera(qatar) al arabiya (saudi arabia) Hindutimes (india) Presstv (Iran, but its pretty unrelieable itself) The Strait Times (I think that one is Jordanian...) among others. I think the sources are pretty well balanced myself. Of course theres a skew towards western media on the ENGLISH wikipedia. I can't read any other languages in order to find articles in them. Therefore, I get sources from US, UK, Australian, and canadian sources mostly, simply because of the language barrier. Jeancey (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)