![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
WHy is this article so pro-Gadhafi? At least include some reasons for his controversial image and something about his CIA files (see: VEIL by Bob Woodward). Also write somethigna bout his hating political opponents and things of the similar.--Unsigned edit by 69.208.158.244 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to use four tildes to sign your name on the discussion forum. I think the last section of this article does seem NPOV, any suggestions for possible revision? ( SeanMcG 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
I haven't scoured the Gaddafi info completely, but I'm not seeing any reference to his change of heart (vis-a-vis the world community and his militant opposition to the West) being influenced by the attentions of his son. My understanding was that Mr. G. was well on his way to rejoining the world community long before George W. even got into the White House, prompted to apologize for the Lockerbee crash, and prompted to gain raprochement with Europe by a son who wanted his country to be respected again. George W. and his silly adventures, post 9/11, were incidental to Gaddafi's change of heart, far from the cause. I'm sorry, I can't cite chapter and verse now, but this is what was being written long before we got into Iraq.
WHy does this article praise gadafi? why doesnt it tell of the people he killed trying to get and stay where he is? he is a ruddy bastard.
Agreed, please visit www.stopgaddafi.org <- another link this site has taken down a few times.
Hmmm, is there any truth to the rumor that G's infant son was killed in an air raid?
That is bogus as well, and it was alleged that it was his adopted daughter. The word in Libya is that he made up the story to gain some kind of sympathy.
---
Because the name is properly written in Arabic there are a number of alternatives using the Roman alphabet. The BBC prefers Gaddafi, ABC News prefers Ghadafi.
A search on Google shows, 25,400 hits for Gaddafi, 9020 for Ghadafi and 7,740 for Qadhafi. I think that Qadhafi should be moved. The following site http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/ortho1.html lists distribution found on Google at some point in the past, but I think he must have got the first two entries reversed.
Don't forget Khadaffi, Kadaffi, etc.
Not forgoteen, see above website.
Could we at least decide on one spelling for the article? Danny
In reviewing this Wikipedia article, I have noticed that it is almost an exact match to a copyrighted bio of MQ posted on the ABC news site. Did ABC get it from here, or vice versa? Does this issue need to be addressed? Please view the text in question at Gadhafi Bio by ABC -- polaris999
He (or a son of him) is a heavy investor in Italy, including a top soccer team which I don't remember ( Parma?). He even managed to get the final match of the Italian championship played at Tripoli. Please research this. -- Error
I did the initial creation of this article way back when, and unfortunately my memory is somewhat vague - I seem to recall copying significant chunks of it from a US government page, which would make it public domain. But unfortunately I was an idiot and I didn't explicitly mention the source in the summary field, and I can't seem to find it now, so I can't trust that memory. Since this potential problem appears to be primarily my fault, how about I take an hour or two when I get home tonight to completely rewrite the article, preserving all the information but putting it into a brand new form? That should distill out any copyright that may be present on the current text. I don't have time to do it right now, but if there's new information you want to insert just make a note here and I'll integrate it all when I do my rewrite. Bryan
We should move this to "Moammar El-Gadhafi", since that's apperently his perfered spelling; see [1]. - Efghij 05:40, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Let's just keep it where it is forever. If someone tries to move the article, there will be a large amount of defective redirects. WhisperToMe 00:01, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
His website uses "Muammar Gadafi". -- Jia ng
Hmm, and all along I though he was a bad guy. This article has certainly disabused me of that notion. Kent Wang 19:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Muammar al-Qaddafi, which is what the whole article uses. An admin will have to do this. -- Cantus 00:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OMG that was quick! Thanks Hephaestos! -- Cantus 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dear lord. VV, if you're going to get into a massive revert war, you ought to have some written justification of it beyond "reverting misinfo". Why are 172's additions misinformation? I've protected on 172's version. john 05:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's substantial evidence that Mossad placed a transmitter in Libya to convince the US that the Libyans were responsible for the German bombing, resulting in the US raids. This should be reflected in the article.
I think this article needs some reference to his extravagant, colourful lifestyle and appearance. His wardrobe comes to mind, his blue clad female bodyguards, the bedouin tent he had set up in Brussels, etc. He is also said to write poetry. The guy may be a dictator but he's an interesting, multi faceted person nonetheless.
>>The only color I'd like to see is the gray matter of his brains splattered against a wall.
For several years, the Libyan government has held a handful of Bulgarian nurses under the charge that they deliberately spread the AIDS virus amongst patients at a children's hospital in Benghazi. Last May, a Libyan court convicted them to death by firing squad on the basis of evidence that was derived through torture-induced confessions. A new trial is in progress, but the case could last for years. It is speculated that Libya is doing this to force Bulgaria to give them money or to have Sofia excuse Tripoli's debts.
Anyway, the nurses are innocent. An AIDS expert looked into this case and linked the outbreak to the poor sanitation in the hospitals that facilitated dangerous transfusions. Based on information regarding incubation period, the expert also noted that the children were infected BEFORE the nurses arrived.
Why is there no discussion on this?? posted by 129.170.246.74
That is also a very poor title for an article, and it should be renamed. Adam 03:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have always wondered if the english translation of Qaddafi's rank is an accurate one. We always hear of "Colonel Qaddafi" but is he really a Colonel? Upon taking over the country, did he promote himself to General? Of assume some other title that the western world simply translates as his former Army rank. I took a close look at this uniform in a recent picture and I can't tell if hes wearing a Libyan Colonel insignia or sme modification of it. And, if he is still a Colonel, is he commander-in-chief of the armed forces? That would make him a higher rank than a General, actually. I also see that Qaddafi wears various ribbons and medals, I wonder what these are for? As a dictator, he could have given himself every award of the Libyan military much like you see some South American dictators with every imaginable military badge and decoration. In any event, this would be interesting to address in the article. What does everyone think? - Husnock 09:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*In 1986, responding to a Minnesota schoolgirl's letter in English, he used the spelling Moammar El-Gadhafi. According to his personal website, he prefers the spelling Muammar Gadafi, although the domain name gives yet another version, al-Gathafi.
Can someone point me to where I can find a copy of this letter? It seems to be addressed to a second grader at the Maxfield Magnet School. Printed source, Website, anything. Right now, it's a urban myth he even wrote it, perpetuated by a lot of
internet sites. If there is not a printed source or at least a copy of this letter's contents, I think my removal of this myth is warranted.--
Muchosucko 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
Does al-Qaddafi remind you guys of Dr. Frank N. Furter of the The Rocky Horror Picture Show and the The Rocky Horror Show? -- fpo 01:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
why is he so bad? What did he do? im doing an assignment and i cant get any info on what he did wrong...
pls help
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.248.75 ( talk • contribs) .
He killed a lot of people, apparently mostly political dissenters; established some strict offical public codes of morals; and supported terrorism: he is believed to have ordered an early 1980's bombing at a night club (popular among American soldiers) in Berlin that killed Germans and Americans, and he has been implicated other terrorist activities mentioned in this article. Also, he curried favor with the Soviet Union (another not-so-nice goverment - but don't look to Wiki to find out why, the historical info isn't in that section either).
He did a lot more than just that. There is also no freedom of expression or opinion in the country. He floods the country with his bogus propaganda. You only know of the pan-am flight bombing, but he also destroyed a libyan aircraft going frmo benghazi to tripoli killing 157 people in 1992, and then claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people. Also in 1996, the Abu Salim Prison massacre took place, where approximately 1700 political prisoners were killed. In the 1970's University students who opposed military draft were arrested, and many were hanged in public.
Quote:"...claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people."
You should also ask yourself how do you know if the claim is true or false? I admit I am skeptical of the (Gaddafi) claim, but how can you claim he 'killed those people' You don't know that. You weren't there. How many "bogus explainations" have been readily accepted by the American public regarding everything from watergate to the so-called "terrorist attack" on Sept. 11, 2001? Can we say "Snowjob" ?
If Gaddafi "floods the country with his bogus propaganda" what makes you think that you are immune to "bogus propaganda" in your country?
I must ask myself "Why is the United States so hated?" It's not such a mystery to me anymore.
WAKE UP. SEE THE LIGHT.
From an American born citizen. I would rather be here than anywhere else but that doesn't mean I love my Government. I hate no one. I do not hate Gaddafi, I do not hate America or my Government. I just see them for what they are. 71.193.253.74 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
User 71.193.253.74, so if you see them for what they are, what are they? Are you implying the information in this entry to be the truth?
In regards to the question "Why is the United States so hated?", considering the governments and individuals in those countries may have past grievances with the United States, I'd say the United States has a lot of enemies. It just seems their escalation of violence towards individuals is radicalizing larges numbers of youth, and other states are simply taking advantage of the radicalized movement OR a majority of their citizens agree anyway. So if there are a group of people who are controlling the entire economy, it is those with wealth and power, especially in free market systems who are steering the direction of the nation. Their spending determines which businesses progress, as well as the people making these investment decisions. The United States just seems to have this specialization in military hardware, since their culture pretty much openly embraces weapons and arms to begin with. So they sell the stuff or give it away to people they feel are their allies, even if this is supported by only a slim majority. Really I think the only way to get a better understanding is to simply live there. --afxgrin (Generic Internet ID 1)
As Maximusveritas correctly points out today in the Gaddafi article–in reverting an inappropriate edit–Saddam's overthrow by coalition forces in 2003 cannot be described as a coup. Phase1 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw several instances of the word "poopy" in the article, so I deleted them. 128.211.249.179 00:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Without any textual amendment to the Gaddafi article, the following new website was added today as an external link by anon.IP 24.86.60.230: [3]. I removed it because not only is it still under construction and largely unfinished, but also because what there is of the website – apart from a rather confused Libyan History section and a reference to Amnesty International – is basically an uncited tirade against Gaddafi. I suggest re-checking this anti-Gaddafi website periodically to see if it merits a mention in the article and inclusion as an external link. Phase4 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've started a new section "Internal dissent" and included the anti-Gaddafi website together with other opposition websites in that section. "External links" also updated. Phase4 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate seeing the name of his killed daughter, and clarification of which two sons were injured in the same operation Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Names of Gadhafi´s injured kids from April 1986 bombing are:
Seif al Arab (severe injuries)
Khamees (severe injuries) Both were hospitalized for some weeks (I have pics)
Both Seif al Islam and Saadi sustained injuries on their hands. Wife sustained back injuries.
If there is no section added to this article in the next few days, I WILL do so. It is absolutely without a doubt a mockery of this article not to include Quaddafi's style. It is what truly sets him apart from the other dictators. A read of this article does not accurately characterize Muammar to the degree necessary to actually see how he is percieved publicly. I think it is inexcusable of wikipedia not to include this, and is a deliberate act of bias from the intelligencia who wish to only talk about policy and law, and not about style. Sorry for the rant, but truly, it is like excerpting the fact that Hitler created Nazism, or that Eichmann designed the gas chambers- the truly unique points of the people. Thank you very much, FactoidFreak 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)FactoidFreak
"Amazonian guard" was linked to bodyguard when the word bodyguard itself could be found only a few words earlier. As the Amazonian guard refers to a distinct group of people with special characteristics it makes sense that a link from Amazonian guard, like a link from Swiss Guard, should go to its own page (preferably one with pictures of this unique group) rather than the generic "bodyguard" page. Es330td 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
에피소드의 기술이 삭제되고 있다.이것은 매스컴에 발표된 올바른 기사이다.왜 삭제하는지 노트에 이유를 적었으면 좋겠다~~~
Phase4 has deleted description, without describing a reason. He should now be blocked "sine die" 220.210.7.136 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
64.110.37.244 has introduced 16 edits into the Gaddafi article in the past 36 hours. I've had to revert them because in the main they are not up to the Wikipedia standard. Numerous assertions are made without sources being cited. Names are frequently misspelled (eg Patris Lumobaba is presumably meant to be Patrice Lumumba) but, again, there is no source for the actual assertion made. Phase4 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Both Encarta and Encyclopædia Britannica use the spelling "Qaddafi" and the same option is listed first at dictionary.com. Why is this article under "Gaddafi" and why was it moved there without any attempt to motivate it properly? I still would like to see some normal, non-sarcastic explanation about the choice of spelling.
Peter Isotalo 10:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on this rather massive rewrite? At first glance (I didn't actually read all of it, admittedly), it seems to me that pretty much the entire article was replaced with an inferior, unwikified text that vaguely smells of having been copied from another source (legally or illegally). I've reverted it for now. -- Schnee ( cheeks clone) 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I put in templates showing al-Gaddafi as having been Head of State and Prime Minister. For the Head of State part, I have two justifications. First, logic: al-Gaddafi headed the Revolution in 1969 and before "relinquishing" power to various front-men in succeeding years, he was the sole head of Libya for a decade. In terms of a concrete citation, we have the March 2, 1979 New York Times, under the headline Libyan Leader Quits a Post But Seems to Stay on Top: "Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya since 1969, has resigned his post as secretary general of the Libyan People's Congress". The phrase "leader of Libya since 1969", in political science terms, is "head of state". Anyone removing the template should show that he was not head of state in that period, and who was.
For the Prime Minister part, I have a citation from a scholarly work (Libya: a country study, Harold D. Nelson (ed.), American Univeristy, 1979, Washington, D.C.): "Qadhaafi became prime minister in January 1970...In July 1972 [Major Abdal Salaam] Jalloud assumed the position of prime minister."
My confidence in this matter is strengthened because templates on the Polish and German Wikipedias show the same thing–I didn't just come up with this out of nowhere. So if you remove the templates, please provide adequate justification. Biruitorul 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in reverting 69.193.232.137's changes? [5] [6] [7] (Also see our "discussion") The edits look POV to me, but I'd be interested in seeing if others agree. I've left their latest edit in just in case it's just me. [8] Thanks. Chovain 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love some input from other editors on this one - anyone? Chovain 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok - given that no-one seems to be taking an interest in this dispute and the talk page has been dormant for 2 months prior, I'm going to try and organise a
third opinion.
Chovain
07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To assist, I'll try and describe the situation:
Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the existing wording is fair, as IRA was widely viewed by the international community as a terrorist organisation in the 1980s. They were officially listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries. This is discussed in detail on Provisional Irish Republican Army#Categorisation (and see [14]). They were recently uncontroversially referred to as a terrorist organisation by the President of the UN General Assembly. [15] Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the current version, so will not go ahead with the third opinion. Chovain 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please check the reference on the statement regarding the guards? There are some crediblitiy and intergrity issues to look at as the reference to the bbc picture website does not mention much at all. 124.82.24.97 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone able to find refs for the "TV trivia" (I've moved into its own "Trivia" section for now). It seems out of place in this article to me. Does anyone out there actually feel these bits are notable? I have a feer that if we listed every refernce to Gaddafi in pop culture, we'd end up with more trivia than article. Chovain 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Great - it's coming out then. For reference, WP:TRIVIA, while only a guideline, suggests that trivia should be both interesting and important to be included. These trivia are neither, IMO. Chovain 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove Gaddafi's alleged quote about Lincoln, unless it is supported by some type of documentation. 216.199.161.66 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Might want to mention Escape to Hell and anything else Qaddafi has written, somewhere in the article Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen this mentioned before. Both Dirk Vandewalle (in all his books, unless I've missed something) and the 2006 and 2007 editions of "The Middle East And North Africa" specifically state that the Free Officers went to the military academy cos that was the only way they could get an education. I've seen several other authors espouse this point, but only in one place (here) have I seen this mentioned. I think it should be deleted if noone can come up with a trustworthy quote (I'll leave it there as all I have is lack of evidence that's true!)
PS: As for spelling, it's regional. Qadhafi would be the 'most precise' translitteration of the written arabic form of the Colonel's name (although the second a should have a line over it, as it's long) - if one agrees that Classical Arabic is also correct Arabic, and that all the modern regional variants are inferior and wrong. I'm quite sure Qadhafis mum will have called him 'Gadaafi' (long a). 88.212.93.179 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
When coming to power in 1969, Qadhdhafi flung out thousands of Europeans in hours and
seized property worth millions with no compensation. He required those visiting Libya to have passports in Arabic, not Berber or Tubu, which have been spoken in Libya for longer than Arabic. Of course, the borders of Libya are new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 ( talk) 11:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Recently, malber has added the "Living people" category to the Gaddafi article three times, and I removed it twice.
I can see the logic of having such a category for doubtful cases but my reasoning for its removal in regard to Gaddafi is that he appears in the "1942 births" category and, because there is no year of death category, it is superfluous – if not downright fatuous – to categorize him as living.
Other editors' comments would be appreciated. Phase1 13:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a specially requested category by Jimbo Wales in order to vet and verify the biographies of living people. It was recently protected from a CfD unilaterally by him. Because Qaddafi is such a controversial historical figure of the 20th century and is still living, IMO it is important for this article to be a part of that process. -- malber 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Is "Qaddafi" really pronounced with a [g] as in "good" or "gas"?. I was always under the impression that it was a [q] (a voiceless uvular plosive). That's not even the same place of articulation as [g].
Peter Isotalo 22:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The points you make have a more general application than to the specific Gaddafi article. I'll pursue our discussion on your talk page. Phase1 13:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit there's a lot of sense in what you say. I'll try "moving" the article to the Gaddafi spelling, and sit back and wait for an explosion of complaints. If the complaints fail to materialise, I'll wag my tail! Phase4 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making, nor the apparent anger with which you're making it! Phase4 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well actually the spelling "Gaddafi" is the exact pronunciation as far as the libyan dialect goes. That's how we say it. The proper way would be to replace the G with an emphatic 'Q' and replace the 'dd' with a sound like 'th' as in 'the'. however, Gaddafi is still accurate and far more common in the great J-riya. 24.86.60.230 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
WHy is this article so pro-Gadhafi? At least include some reasons for his controversial image and something about his CIA files (see: VEIL by Bob Woodward). Also write somethigna bout his hating political opponents and things of the similar.--Unsigned edit by 69.208.158.244 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to use four tildes to sign your name on the discussion forum. I think the last section of this article does seem NPOV, any suggestions for possible revision? ( SeanMcG 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
I haven't scoured the Gaddafi info completely, but I'm not seeing any reference to his change of heart (vis-a-vis the world community and his militant opposition to the West) being influenced by the attentions of his son. My understanding was that Mr. G. was well on his way to rejoining the world community long before George W. even got into the White House, prompted to apologize for the Lockerbee crash, and prompted to gain raprochement with Europe by a son who wanted his country to be respected again. George W. and his silly adventures, post 9/11, were incidental to Gaddafi's change of heart, far from the cause. I'm sorry, I can't cite chapter and verse now, but this is what was being written long before we got into Iraq.
WHy does this article praise gadafi? why doesnt it tell of the people he killed trying to get and stay where he is? he is a ruddy bastard.
Agreed, please visit www.stopgaddafi.org <- another link this site has taken down a few times.
Hmmm, is there any truth to the rumor that G's infant son was killed in an air raid?
That is bogus as well, and it was alleged that it was his adopted daughter. The word in Libya is that he made up the story to gain some kind of sympathy.
---
Because the name is properly written in Arabic there are a number of alternatives using the Roman alphabet. The BBC prefers Gaddafi, ABC News prefers Ghadafi.
A search on Google shows, 25,400 hits for Gaddafi, 9020 for Ghadafi and 7,740 for Qadhafi. I think that Qadhafi should be moved. The following site http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/ortho1.html lists distribution found on Google at some point in the past, but I think he must have got the first two entries reversed.
Don't forget Khadaffi, Kadaffi, etc.
Not forgoteen, see above website.
Could we at least decide on one spelling for the article? Danny
In reviewing this Wikipedia article, I have noticed that it is almost an exact match to a copyrighted bio of MQ posted on the ABC news site. Did ABC get it from here, or vice versa? Does this issue need to be addressed? Please view the text in question at Gadhafi Bio by ABC -- polaris999
He (or a son of him) is a heavy investor in Italy, including a top soccer team which I don't remember ( Parma?). He even managed to get the final match of the Italian championship played at Tripoli. Please research this. -- Error
I did the initial creation of this article way back when, and unfortunately my memory is somewhat vague - I seem to recall copying significant chunks of it from a US government page, which would make it public domain. But unfortunately I was an idiot and I didn't explicitly mention the source in the summary field, and I can't seem to find it now, so I can't trust that memory. Since this potential problem appears to be primarily my fault, how about I take an hour or two when I get home tonight to completely rewrite the article, preserving all the information but putting it into a brand new form? That should distill out any copyright that may be present on the current text. I don't have time to do it right now, but if there's new information you want to insert just make a note here and I'll integrate it all when I do my rewrite. Bryan
We should move this to "Moammar El-Gadhafi", since that's apperently his perfered spelling; see [1]. - Efghij 05:40, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Let's just keep it where it is forever. If someone tries to move the article, there will be a large amount of defective redirects. WhisperToMe 00:01, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
His website uses "Muammar Gadafi". -- Jia ng
Hmm, and all along I though he was a bad guy. This article has certainly disabused me of that notion. Kent Wang 19:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Muammar al-Qaddafi, which is what the whole article uses. An admin will have to do this. -- Cantus 00:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OMG that was quick! Thanks Hephaestos! -- Cantus 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dear lord. VV, if you're going to get into a massive revert war, you ought to have some written justification of it beyond "reverting misinfo". Why are 172's additions misinformation? I've protected on 172's version. john 05:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's substantial evidence that Mossad placed a transmitter in Libya to convince the US that the Libyans were responsible for the German bombing, resulting in the US raids. This should be reflected in the article.
I think this article needs some reference to his extravagant, colourful lifestyle and appearance. His wardrobe comes to mind, his blue clad female bodyguards, the bedouin tent he had set up in Brussels, etc. He is also said to write poetry. The guy may be a dictator but he's an interesting, multi faceted person nonetheless.
>>The only color I'd like to see is the gray matter of his brains splattered against a wall.
For several years, the Libyan government has held a handful of Bulgarian nurses under the charge that they deliberately spread the AIDS virus amongst patients at a children's hospital in Benghazi. Last May, a Libyan court convicted them to death by firing squad on the basis of evidence that was derived through torture-induced confessions. A new trial is in progress, but the case could last for years. It is speculated that Libya is doing this to force Bulgaria to give them money or to have Sofia excuse Tripoli's debts.
Anyway, the nurses are innocent. An AIDS expert looked into this case and linked the outbreak to the poor sanitation in the hospitals that facilitated dangerous transfusions. Based on information regarding incubation period, the expert also noted that the children were infected BEFORE the nurses arrived.
Why is there no discussion on this?? posted by 129.170.246.74
That is also a very poor title for an article, and it should be renamed. Adam 03:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have always wondered if the english translation of Qaddafi's rank is an accurate one. We always hear of "Colonel Qaddafi" but is he really a Colonel? Upon taking over the country, did he promote himself to General? Of assume some other title that the western world simply translates as his former Army rank. I took a close look at this uniform in a recent picture and I can't tell if hes wearing a Libyan Colonel insignia or sme modification of it. And, if he is still a Colonel, is he commander-in-chief of the armed forces? That would make him a higher rank than a General, actually. I also see that Qaddafi wears various ribbons and medals, I wonder what these are for? As a dictator, he could have given himself every award of the Libyan military much like you see some South American dictators with every imaginable military badge and decoration. In any event, this would be interesting to address in the article. What does everyone think? - Husnock 09:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*In 1986, responding to a Minnesota schoolgirl's letter in English, he used the spelling Moammar El-Gadhafi. According to his personal website, he prefers the spelling Muammar Gadafi, although the domain name gives yet another version, al-Gathafi.
Can someone point me to where I can find a copy of this letter? It seems to be addressed to a second grader at the Maxfield Magnet School. Printed source, Website, anything. Right now, it's a urban myth he even wrote it, perpetuated by a lot of
internet sites. If there is not a printed source or at least a copy of this letter's contents, I think my removal of this myth is warranted.--
Muchosucko 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
Does al-Qaddafi remind you guys of Dr. Frank N. Furter of the The Rocky Horror Picture Show and the The Rocky Horror Show? -- fpo 01:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
why is he so bad? What did he do? im doing an assignment and i cant get any info on what he did wrong...
pls help
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.248.75 ( talk • contribs) .
He killed a lot of people, apparently mostly political dissenters; established some strict offical public codes of morals; and supported terrorism: he is believed to have ordered an early 1980's bombing at a night club (popular among American soldiers) in Berlin that killed Germans and Americans, and he has been implicated other terrorist activities mentioned in this article. Also, he curried favor with the Soviet Union (another not-so-nice goverment - but don't look to Wiki to find out why, the historical info isn't in that section either).
He did a lot more than just that. There is also no freedom of expression or opinion in the country. He floods the country with his bogus propaganda. You only know of the pan-am flight bombing, but he also destroyed a libyan aircraft going frmo benghazi to tripoli killing 157 people in 1992, and then claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people. Also in 1996, the Abu Salim Prison massacre took place, where approximately 1700 political prisoners were killed. In the 1970's University students who opposed military draft were arrested, and many were hanged in public.
Quote:"...claimed that it was due to the UN sanctions that he was unable to purchase the necessary equipment to maintain their airplanes. Which by the way is a bogus explanation, he killed those people."
You should also ask yourself how do you know if the claim is true or false? I admit I am skeptical of the (Gaddafi) claim, but how can you claim he 'killed those people' You don't know that. You weren't there. How many "bogus explainations" have been readily accepted by the American public regarding everything from watergate to the so-called "terrorist attack" on Sept. 11, 2001? Can we say "Snowjob" ?
If Gaddafi "floods the country with his bogus propaganda" what makes you think that you are immune to "bogus propaganda" in your country?
I must ask myself "Why is the United States so hated?" It's not such a mystery to me anymore.
WAKE UP. SEE THE LIGHT.
From an American born citizen. I would rather be here than anywhere else but that doesn't mean I love my Government. I hate no one. I do not hate Gaddafi, I do not hate America or my Government. I just see them for what they are. 71.193.253.74 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
User 71.193.253.74, so if you see them for what they are, what are they? Are you implying the information in this entry to be the truth?
In regards to the question "Why is the United States so hated?", considering the governments and individuals in those countries may have past grievances with the United States, I'd say the United States has a lot of enemies. It just seems their escalation of violence towards individuals is radicalizing larges numbers of youth, and other states are simply taking advantage of the radicalized movement OR a majority of their citizens agree anyway. So if there are a group of people who are controlling the entire economy, it is those with wealth and power, especially in free market systems who are steering the direction of the nation. Their spending determines which businesses progress, as well as the people making these investment decisions. The United States just seems to have this specialization in military hardware, since their culture pretty much openly embraces weapons and arms to begin with. So they sell the stuff or give it away to people they feel are their allies, even if this is supported by only a slim majority. Really I think the only way to get a better understanding is to simply live there. --afxgrin (Generic Internet ID 1)
As Maximusveritas correctly points out today in the Gaddafi article–in reverting an inappropriate edit–Saddam's overthrow by coalition forces in 2003 cannot be described as a coup. Phase1 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw several instances of the word "poopy" in the article, so I deleted them. 128.211.249.179 00:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Without any textual amendment to the Gaddafi article, the following new website was added today as an external link by anon.IP 24.86.60.230: [3]. I removed it because not only is it still under construction and largely unfinished, but also because what there is of the website – apart from a rather confused Libyan History section and a reference to Amnesty International – is basically an uncited tirade against Gaddafi. I suggest re-checking this anti-Gaddafi website periodically to see if it merits a mention in the article and inclusion as an external link. Phase4 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've started a new section "Internal dissent" and included the anti-Gaddafi website together with other opposition websites in that section. "External links" also updated. Phase4 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate seeing the name of his killed daughter, and clarification of which two sons were injured in the same operation Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Names of Gadhafi´s injured kids from April 1986 bombing are:
Seif al Arab (severe injuries)
Khamees (severe injuries) Both were hospitalized for some weeks (I have pics)
Both Seif al Islam and Saadi sustained injuries on their hands. Wife sustained back injuries.
If there is no section added to this article in the next few days, I WILL do so. It is absolutely without a doubt a mockery of this article not to include Quaddafi's style. It is what truly sets him apart from the other dictators. A read of this article does not accurately characterize Muammar to the degree necessary to actually see how he is percieved publicly. I think it is inexcusable of wikipedia not to include this, and is a deliberate act of bias from the intelligencia who wish to only talk about policy and law, and not about style. Sorry for the rant, but truly, it is like excerpting the fact that Hitler created Nazism, or that Eichmann designed the gas chambers- the truly unique points of the people. Thank you very much, FactoidFreak 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)FactoidFreak
"Amazonian guard" was linked to bodyguard when the word bodyguard itself could be found only a few words earlier. As the Amazonian guard refers to a distinct group of people with special characteristics it makes sense that a link from Amazonian guard, like a link from Swiss Guard, should go to its own page (preferably one with pictures of this unique group) rather than the generic "bodyguard" page. Es330td 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
에피소드의 기술이 삭제되고 있다.이것은 매스컴에 발표된 올바른 기사이다.왜 삭제하는지 노트에 이유를 적었으면 좋겠다~~~
Phase4 has deleted description, without describing a reason. He should now be blocked "sine die" 220.210.7.136 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
64.110.37.244 has introduced 16 edits into the Gaddafi article in the past 36 hours. I've had to revert them because in the main they are not up to the Wikipedia standard. Numerous assertions are made without sources being cited. Names are frequently misspelled (eg Patris Lumobaba is presumably meant to be Patrice Lumumba) but, again, there is no source for the actual assertion made. Phase4 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Both Encarta and Encyclopædia Britannica use the spelling "Qaddafi" and the same option is listed first at dictionary.com. Why is this article under "Gaddafi" and why was it moved there without any attempt to motivate it properly? I still would like to see some normal, non-sarcastic explanation about the choice of spelling.
Peter Isotalo 10:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on this rather massive rewrite? At first glance (I didn't actually read all of it, admittedly), it seems to me that pretty much the entire article was replaced with an inferior, unwikified text that vaguely smells of having been copied from another source (legally or illegally). I've reverted it for now. -- Schnee ( cheeks clone) 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I put in templates showing al-Gaddafi as having been Head of State and Prime Minister. For the Head of State part, I have two justifications. First, logic: al-Gaddafi headed the Revolution in 1969 and before "relinquishing" power to various front-men in succeeding years, he was the sole head of Libya for a decade. In terms of a concrete citation, we have the March 2, 1979 New York Times, under the headline Libyan Leader Quits a Post But Seems to Stay on Top: "Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya since 1969, has resigned his post as secretary general of the Libyan People's Congress". The phrase "leader of Libya since 1969", in political science terms, is "head of state". Anyone removing the template should show that he was not head of state in that period, and who was.
For the Prime Minister part, I have a citation from a scholarly work (Libya: a country study, Harold D. Nelson (ed.), American Univeristy, 1979, Washington, D.C.): "Qadhaafi became prime minister in January 1970...In July 1972 [Major Abdal Salaam] Jalloud assumed the position of prime minister."
My confidence in this matter is strengthened because templates on the Polish and German Wikipedias show the same thing–I didn't just come up with this out of nowhere. So if you remove the templates, please provide adequate justification. Biruitorul 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in reverting 69.193.232.137's changes? [5] [6] [7] (Also see our "discussion") The edits look POV to me, but I'd be interested in seeing if others agree. I've left their latest edit in just in case it's just me. [8] Thanks. Chovain 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love some input from other editors on this one - anyone? Chovain 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok - given that no-one seems to be taking an interest in this dispute and the talk page has been dormant for 2 months prior, I'm going to try and organise a
third opinion.
Chovain
07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To assist, I'll try and describe the situation:
Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the existing wording is fair, as IRA was widely viewed by the international community as a terrorist organisation in the 1980s. They were officially listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries. This is discussed in detail on Provisional Irish Republican Army#Categorisation (and see [14]). They were recently uncontroversially referred to as a terrorist organisation by the President of the UN General Assembly. [15] Chovain 07:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the current version, so will not go ahead with the third opinion. Chovain 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please check the reference on the statement regarding the guards? There are some crediblitiy and intergrity issues to look at as the reference to the bbc picture website does not mention much at all. 124.82.24.97 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone able to find refs for the "TV trivia" (I've moved into its own "Trivia" section for now). It seems out of place in this article to me. Does anyone out there actually feel these bits are notable? I have a feer that if we listed every refernce to Gaddafi in pop culture, we'd end up with more trivia than article. Chovain 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Great - it's coming out then. For reference, WP:TRIVIA, while only a guideline, suggests that trivia should be both interesting and important to be included. These trivia are neither, IMO. Chovain 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I intend to remove Gaddafi's alleged quote about Lincoln, unless it is supported by some type of documentation. 216.199.161.66 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Might want to mention Escape to Hell and anything else Qaddafi has written, somewhere in the article Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen this mentioned before. Both Dirk Vandewalle (in all his books, unless I've missed something) and the 2006 and 2007 editions of "The Middle East And North Africa" specifically state that the Free Officers went to the military academy cos that was the only way they could get an education. I've seen several other authors espouse this point, but only in one place (here) have I seen this mentioned. I think it should be deleted if noone can come up with a trustworthy quote (I'll leave it there as all I have is lack of evidence that's true!)
PS: As for spelling, it's regional. Qadhafi would be the 'most precise' translitteration of the written arabic form of the Colonel's name (although the second a should have a line over it, as it's long) - if one agrees that Classical Arabic is also correct Arabic, and that all the modern regional variants are inferior and wrong. I'm quite sure Qadhafis mum will have called him 'Gadaafi' (long a). 88.212.93.179 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
When coming to power in 1969, Qadhdhafi flung out thousands of Europeans in hours and
seized property worth millions with no compensation. He required those visiting Libya to have passports in Arabic, not Berber or Tubu, which have been spoken in Libya for longer than Arabic. Of course, the borders of Libya are new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 ( talk) 11:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Recently, malber has added the "Living people" category to the Gaddafi article three times, and I removed it twice.
I can see the logic of having such a category for doubtful cases but my reasoning for its removal in regard to Gaddafi is that he appears in the "1942 births" category and, because there is no year of death category, it is superfluous – if not downright fatuous – to categorize him as living.
Other editors' comments would be appreciated. Phase1 13:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a specially requested category by Jimbo Wales in order to vet and verify the biographies of living people. It was recently protected from a CfD unilaterally by him. Because Qaddafi is such a controversial historical figure of the 20th century and is still living, IMO it is important for this article to be a part of that process. -- malber 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Is "Qaddafi" really pronounced with a [g] as in "good" or "gas"?. I was always under the impression that it was a [q] (a voiceless uvular plosive). That's not even the same place of articulation as [g].
Peter Isotalo 22:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The points you make have a more general application than to the specific Gaddafi article. I'll pursue our discussion on your talk page. Phase1 13:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit there's a lot of sense in what you say. I'll try "moving" the article to the Gaddafi spelling, and sit back and wait for an explosion of complaints. If the complaints fail to materialise, I'll wag my tail! Phase4 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making, nor the apparent anger with which you're making it! Phase4 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well actually the spelling "Gaddafi" is the exact pronunciation as far as the libyan dialect goes. That's how we say it. The proper way would be to replace the G with an emphatic 'Q' and replace the 'dd' with a sound like 'th' as in 'the'. however, Gaddafi is still accurate and far more common in the great J-riya. 24.86.60.230 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)