Talk:Muammar Gaddafi

Move/name section?

Watching the news in one single day I've seen three romanized rendering of "this guy's" name, and Wikipedia added a 4th (Gaddafi)

I know it's very English centric, but this is an English wiki. Why not include a section on spelling? And potentially consider moving the page to Moammar El-Gadhafi or just changing to "Gadhafi" as that seems to be how his people are want to spell his name according to this[1] probably not authoritative source.

Anyway, I'm surprised there is no mention of spelling even on the talk page. It seems to suggest the article was written largely by a single individual. Redirects are also not present.--72.173.5.119 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling is also discussed below in the section Gaddafi or Qaddafi? — O'Dea (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The spelling of his name is also already discussed in the article itself: Muammar_Gaddafi#Name. Podex (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page broken

I had to move the talk section above to the top of the page, because the bottom of the page is (today at least) not functional!!--72.173.5.119 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

confidence

Friends at Wikipedia: I looked up Gaddafi of Libya to find unbiased information about Coronel Gaddafi and the government he has created there, and I found that the events and situations in the article were described in such loaded and judgemental vocabulary that 1. it was impossible to know in most instances what actually had happened in the events recounted, and 2. I had no confidence at all in what the article was saying. I am an educated and thoughtful person, I have worked as a reporter and editor in both radio and print media in my life so I have a pretty good sense of the use of unbiased and neutral as versus biased and slanted language. Here I just wanted to find out the bare facts about Gaddafi and his policies to judge for myself since I sense a distortion about Gaddafi in the media at present(2011). Your article was just recently changed (3/2011), and it seeems that the same distortion I sense in the media at large has inflitrated this content and that the recent changes actually re"framed" the information into an anti Gadaffi- Gadaffi-is-a-monster terms to the extent that I have no confidence even in the facts recounted there. This is exasperating and disconcerting as I have always sought Wikipedia for at least the basics on the topic in neutral, unbiased terms. I am also very annoyed, because I am still uninformed about Gaddafi and his programs and have to look elsewhere to get the basics I was looking to Wikipedia for. Ljkreporting (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Linda Krausen. CA, USA

Without question it is most likely biased, due to language differences, media bias, political differences, and a host of other reasons. The solution to fixing it is something I can't answer for you. If there are particular parts that seem inaccurate to you, it might help to mention those here. But, as with any leader in his position, Gaddafi is bound to be demonized by some and deified by others. Getting a truly accurate and unbiased picture might be close to impossible. -- Avanu (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to be specific if you want things to change on an article like this. The problem is it is an extremely active article at the moment, lots of people are contributing and not everything that is making it in meets Wikipedia guidelines. TastyCakes (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why the External links section is so important for a controversial subject currently in the news. Unfortunately we've had some partisans 'scrubbing' that section to minimize various views. We can only write so much in one article (and in a relatively short time), so additional sources are important. Flatterworld (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

minor edit request

Came here from the main page, and noticed a spelling/grammar error in the public image section "In September 2008, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice became the first Secretary of State to visited Libya since 1953 and said about the visit; "It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make strategic changes in direction, the United States is prepared to respond."" Needs to be changed to visit. Thanks 96.29.135.80 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good call. --John (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Faisal Zagallai error

Faisal Zagallai was not studying at the University of Colorado in Boulder, as the article states, but was studying at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. Here is one article as a source, but there are many others: http://www.westword.com/2011-03-03/news/moammar-gadhafi-colorado-history/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.108.18 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Stutter" in Audio File

Anybody else experiencing this? On playing Ar-Muammar_al-Qaddafi.ogg, any time I replay the pronunciation I hear "MuamMuammar al-Qaddafi". IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Name with vowels and gemination marks

I Think that under "Name", the arabic name should appear with all vowel and gemination marks: مُعَمَّر ٱلْقَذَّافِيّ. Maybe it'll be good to do the same in the begining of the article.--גמדקנאי (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Better coverage of pre-rule life

The coverage of Gaddafi's life before he came to power is very poor. It would be nice if there was clearer discussion of what Gaddafi actually did, as opposed to discussion of what socio-political status of rising officers in the Libyan army. Also it would be nice if someone were able to present a diffinitive discussion of where in Brittain, if anywhere, Gaddafi studied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked up a couple of things: He overthrew the United Kingdom of Libya and established the Libyan Arab Republic. He supported the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the use of oil prices for Arab self-defense. He nationalized Libyan banks and the oil industry and required businesses in Libya be owned by Lybyans.<ref>pp. 112-113, ''Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Volume 16.'' 1983. ISBN 0-8343-0051-6</ref>In February of 2011, demonstrators waving the flag of the United Kingdom of Libya seized the city of Benghazi and got support from England, France and then the United States, because President Gadhafi responded using the military rather than the police.<ref>A-1,4,&5, ''The Wall Street Journal.'' March 19, 2011. News Corporation.</ref> I hope that helps.69.3.114.87 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just found out some more: On 19 March 2011 UK, the US and France fired on people in vehicles in Libya. The Cruise missiles were from the US.<ref>BBC. 19 March 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972</ref>69.3.114.87 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, found a brief summary of it all in The New York Times. Basically, it says: In the U.S. his name is still spelled Muammar el-Qaddafi and the U.K. and U.S. governments have opposed him for years for being a socalist and too tough and have accused him of terrorist attacks, and the the U.K. and U.S. killed innocent Libyans in response to the accusations, which were denied by Qaddafi. Also, since Reagan the U.S. has been training troops to overthrow him for being.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/24/world/middleeast/20110224_qaddafi_timeline.html?ref=middleeast</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.114.87 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.143.105.148, 20 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "the countries various secret services" to "the countries' various secret services", or "the various countries' secret services (this seems more accurate)" In either case, possessive plural calls for "s, apostrophe" done. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Apparently this has been done by another editor. Veriss (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Abu Minyar" is part of his name

{{editsemiprotected}} His name includes "Abu Minyar" between the Muammar and Muhammad parts, as evident by some sources. Can someone re-add them please? --

 Done by User:Le Anh-Huy. — Bility (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite your sources please... —Ruud 16:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Images of Gaddafi with other people

This is a delicate topic from an obvious reason: Any person who is presented on an image alongside Gaddafi and on friendly terms with him, is likely to suffer in terms of his or her reputation.

Example: At the time I'm writing this message, Gaddafi is shown alongside presidents of Serbia and Russia. These two people have never had special relations with him. (To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed they did.)

Possible lines of action I can suggest:

a) To present no images of Gaddafi with other people

b) To present images of people who have played important, massive roles in his life. For example, family members and close colleagues.

c) to present images of Gaddafi with people of moderate significance for him, who are also dead for quite some time. For example, Nasser and Tito, whom he admired and somewhat emulated.

d) present images of meetings between Gaddafi and other people that were not a matter of personal choice. For example, General Secretaries of the UN have to deal with anyone, they can't boycott a statesman.

e) images (of this type) that help illustrate the multifaceted, controversial aspect of politics/life, AND the persons' reputations are fairly unlikely to suffer. For example, Nelson Mandela met Gaddafi numerous times, and defended his choice as morally valid.

Thanks for your attention

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernesto Gabriele (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Firmly Disagree. It is not up to editors to remove photos simply because a leader is not in favor currently. Despite media attacks on Gaddafi now, you must remember that he was allowed to speak at the UN, met Barack Obama personally, and had negotiations/meetings with many leaders throughout his career. Wikipedia is not a place to further marginalize a person, especially when the entire basis for removal is subjective "what would people think of this photo?".--Screwball23 talk 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Disagree. This man had a four-decade long track record. Those persons are adults, national figures and freely chose to pose for pictures with him. The fact that the pictures are floating around and available is their problem and we have no business attempting to help clean up after those other leaders made their political choices. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I do not believe that we have the right to censor Wikipedia. NickGrayLOL (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. An encyclopaedia does not launder the past, it describes it. — O'Dea (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. As long as the choice of photos is not in and of itself obvious POV pushing (like changing the lead photo to one of him and Obama, to push an anti-Obama message, or something similar)then the pics should stand. The best test of this is probably whether the pics are relevant for the place in which they appear. Jbower47 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.3.114.87, 21 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} That he was Chairperson of the African Union from 2 February 2009 – 31 January 2010 might be worth putting into the lead section, maybe as a high point of his career. That his bloodless coup d'état was against a king could also be included. 69.3.114.87 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Partially. Veriss (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)I added this phrase to the lead "on 1 September 1969 overthrew King Idris of Libya and established the Libyan Arab Republic". I did not think that his one-year term for a rotating position of a regional organization was notable enough for inclusion in the lead. The lead has other issues and including that bit won't help fix it. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Non relevant information

"Some human rights activists paid little attention to Gaddafi. Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the scandal-plagued Middle East and North African (MENA) division of the Human Rights Watch (HRW), even praised Gaddafi's son as “forces of reform” and “the real impetus for transformation” because the son had established a charitable foundation, which she compared to HRW, and two quasi-private newspapers. HRW spends the bulk of its energy to target the region’s only democracy, Israel. NGO Monitor counted that "Since 1991 it has issued six substantive reports on Libya (versus more than 40 on Israel, for example). HRW’s website lists 42 pages of documents and reports on Israel and only 12 pages for Libya. In fact, many of HRW’s ‘major’ reports on Libya are actually directed towards the EU, US and Italy."[22] When Libya's prominent dissident, Fathi Eljahmi, died in prison in 2009, HRW did not call for investigation in the death and avoided criticism of human rights in Libya.[23"

This should be on the Human Rights Watch page, not the Gaddafi page. The sentence about Israel is written in a way that shows obvious bias. The sources [22] and [23] are from opinion pieces, not reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticus Dogsbody (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Agreed, it is a Human Rights Watch centric issue. I removed it from this article. Veriss (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The king of the kings and the massacre of the rebels

Why on his photo you label Gaddafi as king of the kings? You also have no sufficient information about the massacre of the rebels in Libya on February and March 2011. 688dim (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Agree: This title, in it's current placement, is pure vandalism. While there may be some argument as to whether or not this title belongs in his info box or not, as per his relationship to the United States of Africa, this is a debate I intend to stay fully neutral in.

What is certainly not acceptable is him having this title above his name in his info box, as there is no precedent for it. Here is a list of living royals:

• Harald V of Norway
• Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
• Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
• Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
• Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein

As you can see, their regal titles, and indeed, even their kingship, are not placed above their name. Nothing is. While we could argue over the legitimacy of this title for years to come, that is the antithesis wikipedian neutrality. However, what I think I have clearly demonstrated is that placing this title as it is currently, something that was not even deemed appropriate for Jesus or Muhammad, is peacocking. The only thing that belongs above his image in the English article is the common romanization of his name, above it's native arabic, as seen in Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa's article, linked above.

However, if you can format his reign as king of kings to meet the standards that are clearly laid out by the above article, and make a strong enough argument for why including this in his info box is the best way to neutrally present it on Wikipedia, feel free to do so. If you truly feel that adding "colonel" in quotes in some part of his name is appropriate, and have no vested interest in placing it there, there is some precedent for this and it should be discussed further elsewhere. This is an entirely different debate that does not belong in this segment of the talk section. In addition, the manual of style clearly states that proper names should be those most familiar to English readers. NickGrayLOL (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality violation, need to revisit

Statement about "pro-democracy events in Tunisia, Egypt and other parts of the Arab world" obviously violates neutrality principle of Wiki! How can anyone be completely sure, that these events were not staged and directed by some external forces and were indeed inspired by sincere dream of democracy?

Anyway, precise reason of these events is a subject to careful research, and until we will have many authoritative and independent investigations from Arabic sources we cannot talk about any dictatorship, human rights violations, e t.c.

Of course, all western people prefer to see these social disturbances as a fight for freedom and democracy, but this point of view is obviously tendentious. So, at least this violates principle of neutrality, and I request to revisit this article, and mention different points of view.

If we will always violate basic principles of Wiki, we will end up having Wiki as a just another offical newsletter or TV-like stub. Do we really want it to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olddaos (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reputable sources that back up your claims. You will note that the items you object to are referenced to reputable sources. Occam's Razor generally comes into play when we talk about motivation. If the referenced sources say "these were spontaneous outpourings from the community, and they were based on a call for democratic reforms", then to say we can't report that because there is an unsourced conspiracy theory to the contrary is not in line with wiki guidances and policies. The article gives due weight to the viewpoints presented, uses reputable sources, and does not make unreferenced assertions or analysis. This is not a POV violation just because it doesn't agree with a conspiracy theory. There are conspiracy theories for everything...that doesn't mean that Wiki can't have any content that someone, somewhere, under some conditions, may not agree with. Please suggest specific changes with sources to back them up.Jbower47 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Occam's Razor generally comes into play when we talk about motivation." — This applies to the United States' motivation for moving against Libya as much as it does to Libya's own motives. To dismiss a fair rationale as "conspiracy theory" just because it doesn't fall in line with popular (read: American) understanding is premature, to say the very least. I agree that not all statements should be banned just because an obscure argument against it exists; however, if one does exist then the responsible action to take would be to include that controversy in the article. Especially when it comes to a sensitive and widely-viewed topic such as this one, the audience deserves to get both, or all, sides to the story so that they can come to their own informed conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.4.14 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi or Qaddafi?

I have always seen his name written Qaddafi. Is there any consensus on spelling? Searching a bit, Qaddafi is the spelling used by nytimes.com and cbsnews.com. abcnews.go.com and cnn.com use Gadhafi. Is there a prefered spelling? Cheeers, — sligocki (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no universal agreement on how to render his name from Arabic so a few of the more common spellings are: Gaddafi, Gadaffi, Gadafy, Qaddafi, and Kadafi. The Irish Times recently discussed the spelling of Gaddafi in English and linked to an ABC News list of 112 different variations of the spelling derived from sources such as the Library of Congress in the United States, the New York times, Associated Press, and the Xinhua news agency. — O'Dea (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal life and family

Possible change from current:

"After the United States bombed several Libyan military airbases and barracks, media reports stated that Gaddafi's youngest daughter, Hanna, had been killed.[citation needed] His adopted son, Milad Abuztaia al-Gaddafi is also his nephew. Milad is credited with saving Gaddafi's life during the April 1986 bombing of the Gaddafi compound."

to:

"Gaddafi had two adopted children, Hanna and Milad Abuztaia al Gaddafi.

Hanna (age 2) was killed when U.S. bombed the residence of Muammar al-Gaddafi during Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986.

Milad Abuztaia al Gaddafi, still living, is an adopted nephew. He is credited with saving the dictator’s life during the bombing that claimed his sisters life in 1986.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielAnand (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo in section 'In Power, United Kingdom'

space needed between killed and a in 'Libyan diplomats shot at 11 people and killeda British policewoman'

In section 'In Power, Other' space needed between 'the' and 'Communist Party of the Philippines' Same section, space needed between 'President' and 'Anwar Sadat'

Why is the press calling him Kadafi, Quadafi or Gadhafi? He suddenly got new nicknames —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.96.73 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased/Non existent Source

"At 27, Gaddafi, with a taste for safari suits and sunglasses, sought to become the new "Che Guevara of the age"." 1) The source does not exist. 2) It is an article based on a person's opinion, not facts. You cannot quote a person and claim it as a fact. Apple (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree: It's very easy to throw opinion in the direction of a subject as incendiary as Libya, care absolutely has to be taken that this page is not used to soapbox. Neutrality has to be maintained, the facts will speak for themselves. NickGrayLOL (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article simply can't pass for being NPOV. It's brimming with Gaddafi being politically repressive, Gaddafi committing human rights abuses, and basically portraying him in the most negative way possible to a liberal, western reader. Sure, he's not a saint and I don't personally agree with his regime, but his Wikipedia page should still be nuetral, which at the moment it really isn't. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Are there particular instances you would suggest changing? It's helpful to give examples. A blanket concern doesn't help us improve the article. Also, you will likely need to provide references from reputable sources to back up your points. So far, to me, the article looks pretty neutral, or at the least, well referenced. If you want to expand the viewpoint, find some reputable sources that contain notable information and suggest it for consideration. However, keep in mind, wiki does not suggest that all viewpoints are handled equally. If 95% of people like hamburgers, and 5% don't , for instance, treating the two as completely equal viewpoints is giving undue weight to the 5%.Jbower47 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not criticising the use of references, merely the way in which the article has been put together. There is a tiny bit on his early life and the revolution that brought him to power, and then straight in comes these sections on political repression, assasinations abroad, nuclear arms, etc etc. These shouldn't be covered up, but at the same time the whole manner in which this page is structured makes it something of a polemic. Compare this page for instance with the Hugo Chavez article, which, to my eyes at least, if far more balanced, and yet still carries the NPOV tag. (86.179.196.21 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Then be bold! Suggest some changes, even if they're large scale structural ones. As you can expect, contentious issues really need to rely on consensus, but that doesn't mean you can't bring up the issue. I think being more specific about what you'd like to see, rather than what you don't like about what is already there, will probably work best. Make some suggestions for what you think would be more balanced!Jbower47 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that what we need is to use published biographies of Gaddafi to reconstruct this page, and flesh it out much better. I don't have access to these, but perhaps another editor does? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

dubious fact in 2011 Uprising Section

The source for "According to other sources "It is a myth that the Africans fighting to defend the Jamahiriya and Muammar Qaddafi are mercenaries being paid a few dollars."[172] is extremely dubious and opinionated. Should be removed asap. 82.22.105.253 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

why is it so negative

A older version of this article like january 16 has much nicer pictures. its very clear that this page is being edited to condemn gathafi to hell. This is really notnice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.193.209 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, with one caveat: This article should neither be whitewashed by those supporting him, nor used as a soapbox to condemn him. Wikipedia is neutral and this article should be edited to be neutral as well. I would encourage people to leave their personal feelings aside, and ensure that the article adheres to the manual of style. Both sides of the spectrum can assist by removing weasel words, ensuring that the article is not editorialized, and removing both peacock terms and contentious labels as both reduce the quality and neutrality of the article. If you want to help ensure that this article is of quality, be you a Westerner or Arab, for or against him, this is where you can start. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

i tell why is it so negative it's becouse they want to have fun with all their fancy weapons and slaughter the undefended population of Libya. like they did with Saddam Hussein.--Sweetcorn (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweetcorn, this talk page is for discussion of the article, not POV pushing or personal discussion of your feelings about the issue. Please refrain from these sort of comments.Jbower47 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture description

"Gaddafi at the 12th African Union summit in Addis Ababa. (2009)" This descr. is from previous photo. Protected article, i cant change.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.32.122 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo correction

Please correct "who married to Gaddafi's wife's sister" to "who is married to Gaddafi's wife's sister". Nadyro (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dwinser, 25 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change his name currently listed as "Muammar Gaddafi" to "Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi" because the U.S. State Department lists his name as such at this location: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5425.htm

Thanks

Dwinser (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please see Muammar Gaddafi#Name. — Bility (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No Serbian mercenaries in Libya

That Serbian mercenaries fight for Gaddafi in Libya has so much truth that Israel recruited mercenaries for Gaddafi (look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbvz2mTUDWA&feature=player_embedded , but also untrue and only islamistic propaganda) or that air planes with an David star bombs the insurgents. I ask for correction, because this is a libel and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. In addition, the source for this information is bad rag, it shouldn't have place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia discredited itself with them. --Carski (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you would like an edit, please specify what you would like edited, and provide a reputable source (a youtube video is not a reputable source). Propaganda from either side of the conflict are not credible sources, and wiki is not here to push one POV or the other.Jbower47 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

featured article

for all the editing this article has received in the past weeks i propose to nominate this article a featured article in wikipedi.en. who is with me ?--Sweetcorn (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: There are still some pretty hot disputes in progress, I'd wait until it's cooled down. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah i know was just being a bit sardonic.--Sweetcorn (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is too negative

Wikipedia should not be used as political instrument. Please return original more neutral page about this outstanding and brave man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.122.248 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Such light-hearted jesting and speech should not be made about Libya the turmoil of the population could have already been stopped if United States, Sarkozy (or rather Napoleon whoever he thimks he is) and Cameroon would have not intervened in other persons' business. If i were a citizen of Libya i would rather choose to be ruled by Gaddafi and not by that one with the bruise in its forehead hiding like a coward in Bengazi. The Gaddafi word that reapeted so many times in this article gives me headache. This article is repetitive. This phrase is repeated two times ". . . The Italian population in Libya almost disappeared after Gaddafi ordered their expulsion in 1970. . ." here and here. Whoever contributed in writing this article and making such a fuss about Gaddafi either the conflict is won ar lost by him i hope will be cursed for is all life. The "No fly zone" is now called "No fly zone plus" (parlevù francè?) giving the french a justification to keep trying out their new nuclear powered aircraft carrier on the undefended Libya population (we all heard in the news the dozens of dead persons coused by the United States bombing in Tripoli). Just a few more days and the order would have been restored in the city of Bengazi but french, english and united states intervened (or rather got in the way) with the "No fly zone" and all this noise i keep hearing in the TV news about Libya and a state which the majority of its population consists of desert sand, is continuing. TV news keeps saying Libya is eastern and doesn't belong to the western civilization but Tripoli is of the same latitude of Rome and Berlin. Are all the citizen of Berlin and Rome chinese or japanese and belong to the easterly culture and civilization ? Go and find something to do come on. By God I just so wish all the Tunisia and Libya refugees would camp at Buckingham Palace, the White House in Washington and at the residence of Sarkozy then go to their toilets and say "Now this is the price for your 'No fly zone plus'".--Sweetcorn (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we need to collectively back the trolley up on this. Wikipedia is not intended as 1) propaganda for either those who think of him as a sweet man, or those who think of him as a villian, or 2) a talk forum to discuss our personal opinions. OP, please suggest specific changes, and preferably cite references to back them up if you're disputing sources, etc. If you'd like to see a change this is the most constructive way to go about it.Jbower47 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Museveni, Yoweri. "Uganda's President on the Gadhafi he knows." CNN. March 28, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerous calls to restore the neutrality of this article are met with demands for proof and no changes

It has become obvious that this page was once a more neutral landscape, and somewhere along the way was been edited to become the biased (against Gaddafi) article it is today.

Despite any and all calls to revert the page back to a more neutral position, the moderators refuse to do so for various reasons, including because:

• The counter-argument is a conspiracy theory and not credible
• The bias is due to language differences and other things
• The moderator requires (more) citation before he can post it
• The moderator requires more specifics before he can post it

If you can't already tell, these answers amount to nothing more than excuses, not legitimate explanations. They barely address the question, let alone touch on the answer.

Note that all these arguments do not explain why we can't revert back to an older version of the article. They only explain why the new (current) content cannot be changed (without addressing how the changes that led to the current state were even approved). I feel this is a double standard. Even lacking proof, even lacking anything except the Wiki article and this Talk page regarding it, the average passerby can still deduce that the article is biased.

Why so much resistance against making it more neutral?

As a first start, since someone requested more specifics: How about filling in the Economy section (which is one of the major sections of the article, and completely blank)?? Someone else suggested including the fact that Gaddafi nationalized the banks and oil industry. Let's do this. 68.100.4.14 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• In order to prove that the article needs to be "made neutral" you need to demonstrate why it is not neutral at the moment. It means showing us why it is not neutral.
• However in the case of Muammar_Gaddafi#Economy, if you want to fill it in, just look up news articles and scholarly articles find find stuff dealing with Gadhafi and the economy. You could even mine this for data:
  • Museveni, Yoweri. "Uganda's President on the Gadhafi he knows." CNN. March 28, 2011.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Urgent Edit Needed

The article is locked, but the opening lines refer to him as "the evil leader of Libya." Not proper for an encyclopedia. Please, Admin, fix. J1.grammar natz (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I removed it. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bodyguards

The text reads: Gaddafi's choice of bodyguards has been the subject of much media attention. His 40-member bodyguard contingent, known as the Amazonian Guard, is entirely female. All women who qualify for duty supposedly must be virgins, and are hand-picked by Gaddafi himself. They are trained in the use of firearms and martial arts at a special academy before entering service.

I've moved it here, and am challenging for a citation. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)