Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4



The New York Times has just published an article by him, and his name is there spelled "Muammar Qaddafi". This is probably relevant information for the part on different spellings, right? Clcrhiggaeeermo (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See "transliteration" below Runningya (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Runningya

Tanzania is misspelled as Tazania in one location

Someone should fix this

 Done by another editor. Wareh (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed to Khaddafi, Qaddafi, but not gaddafi

As can be listened in the pronunciation sound file in this article. It is Khaddafi not Gaddafi. I do not know why the press start saying Gaddafi, It seems that this article was influential in this sense.

Several years ago, when Khaddafi was more active in his international terrorism, all the news called him Khaddafi.

This article should be renamed Muammar al-Khaddafi.

Libyan Youth Movement now using this spelling "Girrdafi"

In Libyan Arabic, the native language of Libyans and him, it is pronounced Gaddafi. That's why it's preferable to pronounce it that way and not in any other way. The audio file in the article has it's pronunciation constructed from literary Arabic pronunciation. Review name section. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish mother

Earlier today, someone mentioned to me that they had heard Gaddafi's mother was Jewish. I've searched on the Internet and have seen this claim on many websites, but so far I have found no verification in a credible source. I even found someone quoted making this claim in an article in the British newspaper The Independent, but the article itself doesn't confirm or refute the claim:

"Now, eating tearing hunks of bread from a loaf, dipping them dipped in sugar, and licking avocado flesh from a knife, Mr Farham explained his confidence. 'This settlement will never be moved. Look how close we are to Israel. There is nothing Arafat can do about it. I know the Arabs better than they know themselves. I should. I come from Libya.' Mr Farham's mop of curls and high cheekbones looked suddenly familiar. 'You know Gaddafi's mother was a Jew? Some people say we are related.'" [1]

Can anyone shed light on the truth or falsity of this claim? Is it just a rumor? marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was told in confidence that he is the son of an Italian officer, by a reliable source. Not sure if he married the mother. The ancestry given in his biography is probably made up. He does not look anything like a full blooded Libyan. --Wool Bridge (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone named Aisha is Jewish? That's a rather Islamic first name if ever I heard one. (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, weren't the Phoenicians, who were Semitic themselves, settlers of Libya a while ago? (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He is indeed of a Jewish mother, who converted to Islam (probably changed her name due to it). He has relatives living in Israel. TFighterPilot (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is widely reported in Israel it seems. The account by people who the Israeli media seem to accept as being close cousins, is that the maternal grandmother was a Jew who was married at first to a Jewish man who mistreated her. She ran away with a Muslim sheikh, converted to Islam. Her daughter became Gaddafi's mother. Given the other account, that his mother converted to Islam at 9 years old, it may not be clear if his mother was from the grandmother's first marriage to the Jewish man or from the second marriage to the sheikh. In the days before the creation of Israel (and the mass emigration of sephardic Jews from Islamic Arab countries to Israel) it was not that unusual for a Sephardic Jewish woman to marry a Muslim man, and in fact, a Jewish (or Christian) woman would not be required to convert to Islam to marry a Muslim man under Islamic law (though a Muslim woman many only marry a Muslim though she may marry a Muslim convert and a woman from another religion not considered a "people of the book" like Jews or Christians would have to convert before Islamic law will recognize the marriage). I have met several older Muslim men who married Sephardic Jewish wives. Apparently, according to the Israeli media, under Jewish halachic law, to be a Jew one must be born to a Jewish mother or convert to Judaism. If born to a Jewish mother, you qualify as a Jew and at least some authorities maintain it does not matter if your mother--born Jewish--aposticizes and joins another religion. If so, Gaddafi would meet the legal Islamic definition of being a Muslim, while also meeting the legal, Jewish, definition of being a Jew. It further appears that under Israel's law of return, if one of your four grandparents is a Jew, you may immigrate to Israel no questions asked. So, Gaddafi may have this escape route: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingmanly (talkcontribs) 10:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not plausible that Khaddafi's mother was jew

Although it is argued here that his mother may converted to islam, if that were the case, it can not be seen that Khaddafi has a minimal interest to claim his jewish ancestry. Although there are many contradictions in this world and many things are insolit. It is ridiculous to think that Khaddafi could even try to look for asylum in Israel. Someone believing that should be in an asylum!

Khaddafi's "revolution" consist in unify arabs with a muslim state, a theocratic state. He is not a socialist, but he says that in his propaganda just to get followers as Hitler did.

Other part of the propaganda of theocratic mulsim governments is the statement that muslims love jews as their brothers because both decend from Abraham, blah, blah, ..., that is not true. Any contemporary theocratic muslim government hate jews, but is tolerant to christians just enough to get their support or neutrality. Khaddafi is not an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It was the Israeli media pundits in the link provided that suggested he could immigrate to Israel, perhaps tongue in cheek. Having said that, Gaddafi wrote an op-ed piece in which he argued for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem. He goes against conventional mid-east antisemitism by 1. acknowledging the discrimination against Jews throughout history and by 2. maintaining (implausibly actually) that the Jews did not subject Palestininians to violence when they took over Palestine (he suggests Palestinians fled because they feared violence that was not actually happening) and that they were not unwelcome there by the Jews: I put to you, 189.140, that Gaddafi was a socialist who used Islam to win supporters in his predominantly Islamic country (turning your argument on its head). His views and practices do not follow the grain of other fundamentalist Muslims, though, they were decidedly more "islamic" than Saddam Hussein's secular, Baathist ideology. A bloodthirsty tyrant, but a bloodthirsty tyrant in the mold of Tito, or Pol Pot and not Ahmadinejad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingmanly (talkcontribs) 12:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, 189.140,what do you think of the story, documented on the wikipedia page for Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi, that his son Saif dated the Jewish-Israeli actress Orly Weinerman, starting from the days he was attending University in London, with talk of marriage? If Gaddafi was in the mold you describe, why was this tolerated. His tyrannical bloodlust is well documented, but his antisemitic credentials are a bit less solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingmanly (talkcontribs) 12:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the claim of a Jewish mother appears in a piece by Revilo P. Oliver titled [ The Terrorist] (originally appearing in Liberty Bell magazine, February 1989). He writes that Hilaire du Berrier makes the claim "in his privately circulated newsletter, February 1986, cited from The Times (London), 18 April 1972". —Morning star (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures with other presidents ?

There are only photographies of Gaddafi with well known tyran (tito, poutine...) why not this picture with french Kouchner and Sarkozy ? And maybe others ? Like : or or others, I dont know, for the rights, what to do ?

(sorry for anymously post but I'm not at home :-D) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Libyan TV has broadcasted footage of him being given some award by Nelson Mandela (I get the impression Gaddafi likes votes of thanks, awards ceremonies and the like). Also the British media has had pictures of him kissing the warmonger/peacemonger Tony Blair. There has also been photos of him meeting the former Tunisian and Egyptian presidents. (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


I find it highly strange that his current and previous wife(s) names are not mentioned. Who are they? Jahibadkaret (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this item currently on the BBC website, Safia Farkash and Fatiha respectively. (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


The sound-clip is not complete, it stops after the second "a"! Anyone who can fix this? (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti South-African apartheid

There should be a reference to this. Kittybrewster 11:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Albert Preziosi

I had no idea this rumour about Albert Preziosi being his father existed until I saw it by chance on Google. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? Whether it's true or not is another thing, but the fact remains that this rumour exists and there are no further information on his parents or family in the article so far. Gryffindor (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's like wanting to modify Obama's bio page to say that some people think he was born in Kenya. The place to discuss this rumor about Gaddafi's origins is Preziosi's page. The standard life story of Gaddafi has to have priority here. At Google Books, if I look into Libya: the struggle for survival by Geoffrey Leslie Simons, chapter 4, page 170, I read: "Gaddafi's parents - Mohammed Abdul Salam bin Hamed bin Mohammed (known as Abu Meniar, 'father of the knife') and Aissha al-Gaddafi - produced two daughters and a son, all born in a tent twenty miles south of the coastal town of Sirte..." Mporter (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Then at least that part needs to be expanded to include the information you gave and also mention that the paternity is not quite clear. Leaving information completely out though isn't helpful. Gryffindor (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That page should not even be in an encyclopedia, let alone in this article. It's some type of rumor and village gossip only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Intro on revolt says, protests across the "Arab world". Arab World is an outdated term/misnomer avoided by scholars of the religion, which makes it seem that Arab societies are homogenous and obscures real linguistic, cultural, religious, and ethnic differences between these nations. "Arab nations" would be better EXCEPT - duh - protests are happening in Iran, too and they are (mostly) Persian not Arab there. Please Change "Arab world" to "Middle East and North Africa" (US government term for the region) or just "Middle East". (I would do it, but I'm not a registered user yet) Runningya (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This page should be updated to take into account the current situation in Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Current article suggest the violence is being directly guided by Gaddafi but no media reports have suggested anythign of the sort. His son has made inflamatory remarks but no comments have come from Gaddafi. Someone with the ability to should fix this.-- (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't a page be created specially for the Libya Revolts? If not a sub-section shall be created. Any more views? SportingLisboaXI (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

here:2011_Libyan_protests --Melaen (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Article definitely not written with NPOV in mind... "desperately clinging to power?" "bomb and kill protesters?" this is heresy! (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's not a NPOV, he'll be out of there in no-time and to be honest he is desperately clinging to power. All of those facts that may not have a NPOV are true. Explain further? SportingLisboaXI (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Current location

I have read he fled the country, other people say he is in Libya, does anybody know where this killer actually is and are there any reliable sources? thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He's in an old car holding an umbrella, last time I checked. While there have been repeated rumors that he fled, they appear to all have been false, and we'll need to wait for really strong confirmation before we can be sure that he's gone. Ucucha 06:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha, until it has been confirmed by a government offical or a reliable source then someone can change his location. Until then his location will still be in Libya. SportingLisboaXI (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


The spellling 'Moammar Kadafi' should be added to the name section. see: ',0,7687302.story'. Skroops (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Show showed about 20 different ways to spell his surname yesterday... (from actual news sources) (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The following text written in the Name section is totally unnecessary and overly exaggerated. Including, the case isn't only exclusive to Libyan Arabic.

In short, the alternative spellings for each part of his name are shown in brackets:

However, not all are possible, as some alternatives are most probably combined with others, or even impossible with other (for example, simplification of geminated [m:] usually implies simplification of [a:]).

The previous text should be removed because it's redundant as the section already explained the pronunciation of the name and explained the problem of the lack of standardization. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 22 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the "The February Uprising of 2011" section, please remove the sentence "Thousands of people are reported to have died in the violence to date."

The source listed,, reports soldiers firing on a crowd of thousands. It does not imply that thousands were killed.

The Wikipedia article "2011 Libyan protests" lists multiple death estimates in its "Casualties" section. All of these estimates are in the hundreds. (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done I concur. Until we have sources reporting multi-thousands of deaths, hundreds is the correct term. Should we get good, solid reports of numbers at or over 1000, we can switch it to something like "over 1000" or "between 500 and 1500" or whatever the different sources say. But "thousands" is, as of right now, not supported by sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is implied because there have been lots of killings in the country, the media hasn't been able to report them though. I mean just because we don't see the bodies it doesn't mean is not true. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
We can't put things on Wikipedia that may or may not be true. Guessing without any justified source isn't accurate. (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


WhisperToMe (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vorazechul, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the following referance description: "[1]"



Minor fix. The description of the source in this part erronously states that it is of russian origin or is written in russian. Both are false. The source is of Bulgarian origin, as can be discerned by further reviewing the source's website, and the link points to a part of the site that is written in English.

Vorazechul (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is this referring to the first and second references in the article or something else? Spitfire19 T/C 16:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done Vorazechul was referring to the citation for the sentence, "Gaddafi holds an honorary degree from Megatrend University in Belgrade..." Wareh (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Gaddafi a bedouin?

the biography starts with "Gaddafi was born in a Bedouin family near Sirt." can anyone confirm he is a bedouin? because bedouins are arabs and if you look at the bedouin page on wikipedia, there's no mention about the existence of bedouins in lybia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done I added the template {{citation needed}} to that particular sentence. Spitfire19 T/C 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi shot possible assassination

It was rumored and unconfirmed that about 20 minutes ago on Twitter, Reuters, CNBC, and other sources that Gaddafi was possibly shot. Sources: [2], [3] Valoem talk 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi is dead.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was chilling on the beach. Really? Come on, unless it's been officially announced it shouldn't be written down in this article. Also I'd like you to show a source to back it up next time please. Many Thanks SportingLisboaXI (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he commits suicide on 3 March 2011. -- (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You heard it there first my friend. I best go and tell inform all the international news teams. SportingLisboaXI (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this worth adding?

As this is a sensitive article I have not added this item but I think it should go in and I am surprised it is not there already. Please comment.

To section: In Power/Military coup d'état, after "proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic" (and reference), ADD

A plan was organised by David Stirling to use mercenaries to restore the monarchy. The mercenaries were to "spring" 150 political prisoners from Tripoli gaol as a catalyst for a general uprising to restore the monarchy. The mercenaries were to slip away quietly as the locals took over. It was called the "Hilton Assignment" as an ironic comment on the comfort level at the gaol. Stirling was warned off at a late stage by the British Secret Intelligence Service, allegedly because the United States Government felt that Gaddafi was sufficiently anti-Marxist to be worth protecting [3] [4].

New subsection: Initial Policies

END OF PROPOSED ADDITION Budhen (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No one has objected, so I'm going ahead. Budhen (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More information about family, specifically Khamis

Just a suggestion... I've been reading the wiki article on Gaddafi following the recent and ongoing turmoil in Libya. I notice that his fifth son 'Khamis' is mentioned as a police officer. This does not seem to be corroborated by the other news articles that I have been reading.

Information from and (which is a really well written article worth a read btw) suggest much more. He heads the Khamis Brigade- which is the strongest military unit in Libya, Gaddafi having kept the actual military relatively weak for fear of a rebellion- The second son also at many times tried to get the necessary finances to build a brigade that could rival Khamis' since the Khamis brigade is said to be too powerful and too close to Gaddafi. I believe information about Khamis Gaddafi would be worth adding especially since a lot of people would be coming to this article with Gaddafi and his family hitting the news everyday. He might turn out to be a big player in upcoming events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unofficial title

Can someone change it back to "Leader and Guide of the Revolution" from this silly long version? (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mayor of Tripoli" would be more accurate... (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't help. (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems the silliness is possibly Gaddafi's. From such sources as this one, the only alteration that seemed necessary was to move the adjective "great" (which I've done). Do we have WP:RS or better reasons not to give this apparently official (if composite) title? Wareh (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Your own source makes it clear that there are shorter titles in use. The usual form of address in person is "Brother Leader" as you can see in any interview with him. "(Brotherly) Leader and Guide of the Revolution" was accepted here for a long time until suddenly it was time to resurrect the old "Madman Gaddafi" image. (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Others are welcome to chime in, but there is a difference between a full and official title (which seems sourced) and forms of address and other abbreviated forms in use (which also need to be sourced, and I'm sure they can be). If you can suggest an edit in specific terms so that we treat both the full official titles and the other usages, with adequate distinctions, then I think someone will be able to respond more easily. But as long as you're suggesting removing sourceable and notable information about Gaddafi's titles (as opposed to adding more), I don't believe that would be appropriate. Wareh (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mental health

This article has some strange things in the lead, like the king of africa thing. How come there isn't a mention there (or elsewhere) about his mental health? I don't remember a single month passing for the last...well, years, where a newspaper was running a story on something he had done or said and questioning his sanity. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

I am not sure we can diagnose the exact medical condition, but am convinced Gadaffi's sanity leaves much to be desired. For instance on Wednesday evening, the Libyan TV repeatedly broadcasted a video in which Gadaffi's very aggressive speech was put to some equally aggressive music. It reminded me of something from the period of the Yugoslav wars. No doubt, the Libyan TV would not broadcast a new video of the Leader of the Revolution without having obtained his approval, especially at such a critical time. I can only assume his son Saif (who hitherto had hoped to lead Libya after his father) was appalled at this video clip, obviously designed to cow and threaten the population, and this might explain why it did not appear the next day.
As for Gaddafi's vanity, his dress sense, lifestyle and general demeanour, he is an eccentric, and as an Englishman and an eccentric myself, I cannot hold that against him. Neither can I judge him on his alleged sexual dealings, having played around a bit myself. I have to admit that my own behaviour has been perceived as eccentric but unlike Muammar, I have never felt the urge to incite the murder of my fellow citizens or of foreigners living in my own country. It is his murderous actions of the last few days - his attempts to carry out a scorched earth policy, his employment of mercenaries, his display of Tunisian passports of alleged rebels to incite pogroms of non-Libyans, his miliatia's use of heavy artillery as a means of "crowd control" etc - all of which constitute crimes against humanity, which will long be remembered, and which are more than sufficient to condemn him. Somehow I doubt he will live long enough to see a psychiatrist.
To summarise the above - yes I agree he is barking. Also I used to laugh at him and his massive ego, but he has ceased to be funny, and I hope that after his demise, the Libyan people will soon be able to rebuild their ancient and beautiful country. (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Read Escape to hell and other stories, for good picture of Gadaffi's mental state, I think that there is enough evidence to diagnose him with at least ADHD or some other personality disorder.-- (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That stuff you see in the newspapers? It's called propaganda. I don't think anyone since Kaiser Wilhelm has been targeted for caricatures to the extent that Gaddafi was from the 1980s onward. Movies, music videos, children's cartoons, stand-up comedians, talk show hosts etc. all took their shot at him. It was a level of coordinated political propaganda that is unlikely to happen without being directed somehow. This is not to to say that he was a great guy, just that the American media showed a certain obsession with him. (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation 8

The story that Gaddafi has studied in the Greek Military Academy circulates Greece for decades. Citation 8 points to one such newspaper article. However, it should be noted that the article itself does not cite any official sources on the matter. Nor has ever the Greek Army said anything about that. Consider also this: According to the "Early life" section, he graduated from Benghazi academy in 1965-66. So when did he make the time to also study abroad and organize a coup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamo2006 (talkcontribs) 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation 9

Citation 9 which links to is a reference to a greek forum that contains no credible information. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Wareh (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


In the "Early Life" section and in the 3rd paragraph: What does "RCC" signify? (Paleocon44 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

 Done Revolutionary Command Council. Wareh (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

I have noticed someone has changed G.a.d.d.a.f.i and its various alternative spellings, to "G.i.r.r.d.a.f.i". Surely there is a wikipedia policy against talk page vandalism? (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this has been a major headache. AFarmer64 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for creating it. Another user inadvertently restored the vandalism, but I think we've got it back more or less to status quo ante now. There is indeed such a policy: see WP:TPO. Wareh (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Add missing source link

My account doesn't have enough edits and so I'm locked out of the article while it's semi-protected, but reference 170 is missing a URL, namely

Jhembach (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Wareh (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempts at nuclear and chemical weapons

number people around the world was indicted for assisting Gaddafi in his chemical weapons programs.

Change was to were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

 Done Wareh (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adopted daughter

The section on personal life is contradictory. At the beginning it states that he has an adopted daughter. Later on it states that it is a fiction that he has an adopted daughter. Which is right? Totorotroll (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I think he must have either a natural or an adopted one, as there is a report he failed in an attempt to fly one to Malta. (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe "Hanna" is the adopted daughter Gaddafi claimed was killed during the bombing of Libya in the 80s. That article (and this one) asserts that this is largely seen as propaganda and that no such person existed. I think it's safe to say that it's a disputed factoid at best. Don't know about the biological daughter implied in this article, or the other adopted child Milad (is that a boy's name?) TastyCakes (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

References from threads above

  1. ^ "Impostor Defends Bulgarian Nurses before Gaddafi". Standart News (in Russian). 3 March 2007. Retrieved 6 April 2007. 
  2. ^ "Impostor Defends Bulgarian Nurses before Gaddafi". Standart News (in Bulgarian). 3 March 2007. Retrieved 6 April 2007. 
  3. ^ Geraghty, Tony (1980), Who Dares Wins, pp 124/5, Fontana Books
  4. ^ Seale, P. and McConville, M. (1973), The Hilton Assignment, London:Temple Smith, New York:Praeger.

Primary Picture for Article (replace)

The image I see now as the main pic has his eyes looking a bit odd. It seems like they are just black, no pupil or whites, just a bit creepy, poor lighting or something. Is there possibly a more human-looking photograph that anyone knows of that could replace this one? -- Avanu (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just the lighting and the fact that his irises are really large, there's relatively little white showing but it shows under higher magnification. Why not a youthful picture? (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Satire page... Join us!!/queen.mam.girrdafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFarmer64 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When does he become the former leader?

Since Gaddafi appears to be in control of just one city (and not even the whole city) in Libya, is it still accurate to refer to him as the leader of Libya? At what point does he become the former leader? As of today, the UK no longer recognises Gaddafi as having diplomatic immunity as head of state of Libya. Are other countries still recognising him as the leader of Libya? When does the line get drawn? (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the situation is still too murky to make a definitive claim and that it's best to leave it as it is now, stating in the intro that at the moment he is thought to have lost control of much of the country. TastyCakes (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
When he is dead, or he loses control of the whole country, or another leader is internationally recognised, whichever comes first. Being in control of the whole country is not a requirement to be the incumbent head of government: see the current internationally recognised president of Somalia, or the allied governments in exile during World War II. Mowsbury (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

He could retake control of the rest of the country. The counteroffensive has already begun. (HantersSpade (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Libya Alhurra satire

Now known as Girrdafi.. Monkey duck or Crazy Monkey by the Libyan Youth Movement

Aby Minyar?

Why do we list his full name as Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi? I couldn't find any such mention in (general) reference works. Only the Oxford Dictionary of Political Biography lists him under Muammar Muhammad Al-Qadhafi. The ABC News article on the variations of his name does give "Mulazim Awwal Mu'ammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi" as one of the alternatives, but it does not state where this name came from. —Ruud 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The LoC does list "Mulāzim Awwal Muʻammar Muḥammad Abū Minyār al-Qadhāfī" inside a 670 field on his authority record. Any knows how I can find where that quote came from? —Ruud 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Geordie.birch, 1 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section of the article regarding different spellings of Qaddafi's name there is a spelling mistake: "[...] the white house choses [...]" should be "[...] the white house chooses [...]".

Geordie.birch (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for your attention to detail.
-- Joren (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede Tagging

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi [information] (Arabic: معمر القذافيMuʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī About this sound audio ; born 7 June 1942, died March 2011), also known as Colonel Gaddafi, was the dictatorial Guide of the Revolution in Libya from a coup in 1969[1] until his death as a result of a bloody revolution, the third change of state in the Arab Revolution of 2011. His regime was associated with numerous acts of state-sponsored terrorism from his accession to power until a rapproachment made with the Great Powers after the turn of the century.

From 1972, when Gaddafi relinquished the title of prime minister, he was the self-styled "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (or more concisely as "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution") in government statements and the official press[2][3]. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders and he is one of the longest serving rulers in history. He was also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Libya, then Tripoli, became an Ottoman province in 1551[4] Gaddafi is reported to have amassed a fortune for himself and his family of 60 billion dollars, including shares in Tamoil and one of Italy's largest banks Unicredit.[5].

In February 2011, after dictatorial regimes had fallen in both of its neighbors, popular and peaceful protests in Libya became a bloody revolution in which Qaddafi supporters including a large contingent of foreign mercenaries maintained a stronghold in the capital Tripoli for days after losing control of the rest of the country and the defection of most of the diplomatic corps and much of the civil government and regular army. [6][7]. Though known to most of the world for his erratic behaviour such as in a 90 minute speech before the United Nations in 2009, Qaddafi ruled less by force of a cult of personality than by a divide and conquer strategy consistently and repeatedly applied at every level, particularly between the traditional tribal groups and within the state apparatus, so that at the time of the final crisis there was essentially no civil society to support the state power when the regional upheaval reached Libya. When this sent the Libyan masses into the street the Colonel ignored this policy and reacted so as to give an already mobilized popular force no choice but to follow the revolution to its conclusion in his death. During the collapse of his regime Qaddafi repeatedly seemed to be out of touch with reality, unaware of the extent of that collapse as evidenced by his referring to diplomats that had already defected or inviting the foreign press to towns in rebel hands. As of March 2011, there is an indeterminate situation in Libya with the state power as in the neighboring countries.

  1. ^ Salak, Kira. "National Geographic article about Libya". National Geographic Adventure. 
  2. ^ Daniel Don Nanjira, African Foreign Policy and Diplomacy: From Antiquity to the 21st Century, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2010, p. 279 n. 2
  3. ^ US Department of State's Background Notes, (November 2005) "Libya – History", United States Department of State. Retrieved on 14 July 2006.
  4. ^ Charles Féraud, “Annales Tripolitaines”, the Arabic version named “Al Hawliyat Al Libiya”, translated to Arabic by Mohammed Abdel Karim El Wafi, Dar el Ferjani, Tripoli, Libya, vol. 3, p.797.
  5. ^
  6. ^ "Gaddafi defiant as state teeters – Africa". Al Jazeera English. 23 February 2011. Retrieved 23 February 2011. 
  7. ^ "Middle East and North Africa unrest". BBC News. 24 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 


Above in anticipation of likely outcome of currently unfolding events. Please keep the markup current with the obverse it doesn't look like he can last for more than a few more days so will stop my edits here. No point on addressing the tagging outside of the endgame revision that will be necessary. (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


This article whether subject to rapid change or not, is in dire need of proof reading. There are errors everywhere. I want to fix it, but I suppose as this is likely target for vandalism, I can understand why its locked, but who ever has access do me a favor and read through it. Cheers 9fires (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


This article whether subject to rapid change or not, is in dire need of proof reading. There are errors everywhere. I want to fix it, but I suppose as this is likely target for vandalism, I can understand why its locked, but who ever has access do me a favor and read through it. Cheers 9fires (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


This article whether subject to rapid change or not, is in dire need of proof reading. There are errors everywhere. I want to fix it, but I suppose as this is likely target for vandalism, I can understand why its locked, but who ever has access do me a favor and read through it. Cheers 9fires (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi or Gadhafi

NPR and Associated Press make compelling argument that it should be Gadhafi, not Gaddafi (which is the spelling used in this article):

Rename the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inadarei (talkcontribs) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

surrender of nuclear program

why is there no mention of his suspension of the nuclear program? is it because it might require putting in something positive about the previous presidency? the omission stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

  • Move request declined. There is no consensus for the move. Discussion indicates that there are variations in the spelling of the name, and this is appropriately covered in the article; discussion also indicates through various Google searches that the current usage of Muammar Gaddafi is the most common. SilkTork *YES! 10:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus for move

Muammar al-GaddafiMoammar Gadhafi — This is the most WP:COMMONNAME for this person. (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Google search results (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. Most certainly not true. In the British media, most definitely Muammar Gaddafi. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Try using Quotation marks when searching in Google. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think you'll find if you type in on Google 'Colonel Gaddafi' it'll come up with more g-hits. Change the page to Colonel Gaddafi. SportingLisboaXI (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's more commonly called Muammar al-Gaddafi. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support anything without al-. I don't much care about the transliteration of Moammar v. Muammar, or the dozen ways to Romanize Gaddafi/Qaddafi/etc., but writing the "al-" in English is less common, in both news writing and historical scholarship. --Delirium (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per CNN. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm fine with Muammar or Moammar; I'd even be fine with "Qaddafi"; but either way I agree the "al-" has to go. Powers T 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moammar Gadhafi but Support Muammar Gaddafi per Time magazine [4]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removing al- and oppose anything else until someone does more thorough research than Googling to determine what the most common names are. —Ruud 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removing "al-"
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moammar Gadhafi. However, would support a move to Muammar Gaddafi as this is the commonname that I see in the media per BBC [5] (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removing al-. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a move towards Muammar Gadhafi - AFAIK the most common English name for the subject. Flamarande (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the Moammer Gadhafi Moammar Gadhafi (mostly American) and Muammer Gaddafi Muammar Gaddafi (mostly British) variations are the most popular. Especially note the correlation between the spelling of the first and the last name. —Ruud 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't buy this correlation, especially since Google is telling me that Muammar Gaddafi gets 17.6 million hits, whereas Muammer Gaddafi gets 79,400 (and Moammer Gadhafi 14,100). See immediately below. I am also puzzled that Ruud Koot is stating this opinion, since Ruud Koot is the one who (rightly IMO) moved the article to Muammar Gaddafi. Wareh (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't get what's so puzzling about this? —Ruud 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current title, Muammar Gaddafi. Google says Muammar Gaddafi beats Muammar Gadhafi by 18.9 million-to-158,000 (in books by 5,450-to-465). The ratios for just the surnames Gadhafi/Gaddafi are also lopsided. In fact I'm wondering if many people typing "Gadhafi" in this survey are doing so carelessly with a focus on the variant spelling of the given names. "Gaddafi" also has the advantage of better reflecting local pronunciation. Wareh (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Correlation between spelling first/last name

I think there is a clear correlation between the spelling of the first and last name and between US and British/international sources:

Spelling Google hits Media
Moammar Gadhafi 2,800,000 CNN, Washington Times, US Today,
Muammar Gadhafi 140,000
Moammar Gaddafi 274,000
Muammar Gaddafi 18,100,000 Time, Guardian (UK), Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, Independent (UK), Reuters
Ruud 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I infer (1) that the -er spelling in your comment above was a typo, (2) that the numerical superiority of Gaddafi > Gadhafi is so great that, with a bit of scratching beneath the surface, we would find more US sources using Gaddafi than Gadhafi (though the point that a couple of prestigious US-based sources use Gadhafi is well taken). Because of issue (1) I may have falsely concluded that you were arguing for another move; do you share my preference to leave the page at Muammar Gaddafi? Wareh (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry, I have mangled my point by skipping over the correlation-issue too easily. For Muammar Gadhafi I get 16.9 million; this at the same time makes Gadhafi not so outnumbered (though I still think it is second-best on linguistic grounds and based on authoritative usages), and also calls into question the strength of the correlation (because Muammar Gadhafi is very common and Moammar Gadhafi a rare oddity). Wareh (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
A sorry, I indeed made a typo in my reply in the section above. Are you sure about getting so many hits for "Muammar Gadhafi"? If you leave out quotation marks Google will include spelling variations in the results. Given the current evidence I would personally favour Muammar Gaddafi, however I moved the article only because there is a consensus to at least remove the "al-" part from the name. —Ruud 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I goofed. I did use quotation marks, and even the + prefix, to indicate specificity about the spelling. It's annoying that the Google now will still "correct" the spelling.[6] The correct figure for +"muammar gadhafi" is a mere 170,000, which makes your point (because it pales next to Moammar Gadhafi's 2.9 million. Still, we both prefer Muammar Gaddafi, which has many advantages: (1) numbers, (2) accordance with local pronunciation, (3) passes your correlation criterion. After so much consideration and investigation, it appears impossible to me that the article should need to move again. Thanks for your patience. Wareh (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

With so many equally qualified permutations of his name, why not just have the article move each month to one of the different spellings listed at Muammar al-Gaddafi: Name? —  AjaxSmack  02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

An impressive use of the math function. (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree but can't take any credit for it. I cut and paste it from the article. —  AjaxSmack  19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest removing that mathematical formula from the article, because it is more than exaggerated and because the pronunciation of his name was already thoroughly explained. I had already removed the formula, but it was restored :( --Mahmudmasri (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

hanna gaddafi - misquote - disinfo

i was unable to edit the page despite the fact that someone had written that hanna didn't exist and that the us government had bombed military bases - when it is clear that his family's residence was bombed, someone please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abz2000123 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source showing Hanna did exist? The claim that she didn't is documented in a source that looks fairly substantial, do you have a better one to the contrary? Also, the family's residence was bombed, but that residence happened to be the Bab al-Azizia military compound, as you can read about here. I agree it should be made clear that the bombings were intended to kill Gaddafi. TastyCakes (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking into it more, it is quite tricky because if it is propaganda, it is only mentioned as such in a couple of sources, whereas a bunch of sources report his "adopted daughter" being killed as fact (although, as the AIM article says, some of the reports are inconsistent with regards to her age etc). Does anyone know more about this? It seems that Wikipedia is not internally consistent. Is one position properly supported and not the other? Or are both possibilities that should be mentioned (that is, everywhere it comes up say that "Gaddafi claimed his adopted daughter was killed, which others regard as propaganda"? TastyCakes (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin Request: Remove Frivolous Material from Talk

I see people posting garbage about parody websites and frivolous comments. Would a kindly admin take a look and maybe archive some of the sections here and clean up the Talk a bit? Much appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


The fact that Mohammed is referred to as a prophet breaches the NPOV rule and the reference should be removed asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By the definition of a prophet on wikipedia it is acceptable. Imagine if we said Priest, saint (where people are seen as saints) or scholar breached NPOV.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox News Spelling

In the article it says that Fox News uses the spelling Moammar Gadhafi, but the spelling they seem to be using now is Muammar al-Qaddafi.

The use has either changed very recently or is mixed - see The EU says that Libya's Moammar Gadhafi no longer controls most of oil and gas fields (February 28, 2011) and Realistic Options for Ousting Muammar al-Qaddafi Look Limited (March 02, 2011). Have they made a conscious decision on this? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The article suggests Gaddafi's Libya has 20% of the population working on surveilance and then compares this with Sadam's Iraq and Kim Jong Il's North Korea. The connection to these states is completely unfounded - the average UK citizen is caught on CCTV 3 times a day, so surely they would be a better comparison for a high survielance society (I believe the connection to these other states considered rogue by contemporary Western powers is politically motivated, this should be avoided by wikipedia, it is enough to state, if it is verifiable, that Gaddafi's Lybia is high survielance without mentioning other states).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Report: Gaddafi agrees to leave power if his safety is guaranteed

Link Macarion (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is Gaddafi leader of? How does he exercise power?

In recent interviews, Gaddafi has pointed out that he cannot step down as leader of Libya since he claims he is neither the president nor the prime minister of Libya; he claims that his status as revolutionary leader is unofficial, honorific; a name, an award, not a position or a role. This article needs amending to briefly explain how Gaddafi fits into the heirarchy of Libyan government, in particular how the revolutionary council that he leads works with (or overrules) the civilian Jamahiriya soviet council-style "elected" government. The most important question that needs answering is: How and through what structure does Gaddafi exercise his power? (convert to past tense as/when/if events unfold!) At the moment the article does not justify its claim that Gaddafi has been the "leader" of Libya for the last couple of decades at all, and I think he clearly was, so we need to explain how. Can someone with more knowledge fill in the gaps, please? Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation audio

The article's audio pronunciation file seems to be cut off. I think either the man speaking has cut off the last 'i' or the typographic pronunciation is wrong. (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Violence around the world

The title itself practically begs the reader to assume violence on his part, when much of the material could be better placed on the Libyan foreign relations article. I took out much of the material that was out of placebecause some of it is speculation (suspicion that he financed FARC, some of it is better-attributed to his regime (Libyan agents in Munich, Libyan agents in West Berlin), and some of it disobeys POV outright (he trained a leader that was later convicted of genocide.--Screwball23 talk 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


The last paragraph gives the impression that Gaddafi is losing in his fight against the rebels. 'After having lost control of much of his country"...this obviously is not the case. Gaddafi has actually regained all the significant cities and towns around Tripoli and west of Tripoli with the exception of Benghazi in the east (Which he never really controlled anyway). This is not original research, every credible newspapaer from the new york times to the washington post has reported Gaddafi's resurgence. (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

it should be reworded to reflect the reality on the ground. (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested split

[A recent proposal has been made to move much of this page to] Libya under Gaddafi

I support this move. I do believe some summary should be made and kept on this page, but how much is difficult to know. For one thing, if the section is trimmed down to a summary, editors will continue to add detailed information onto the page that is more related to Libya than Gaddafi. It is also difficult to separate his life from the country because so much of Libya's international policies and image has been Gaddafi-based. There is also a major difficulty in separating information about Gaddafi from Libyan policy, as some things (supplying terrorists, for instance, have both Libya's action component and the Gaddafi's diplomatic component, where he may have made political statements)--Screwball23 talk 03:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, well, this article generally needs cleanup. It is a good collection of raw material, but it isn't a coherent encyclopedia article. The first thing to do will be to consider how to arrange the table of contents. Seeing that Gaddafi has been in power for most of his life now, it isn't really opportune to keep a "Gaddafi in power" section and stuff anything that happened over the past 42 years in there.

It will be better to divide material topically, keeping a brief "History of Libya under Gaddafi" summary, but distributing material pertaining to Gaddafi personally under other sections, such as "personal wealth", "political ideology and public appearances", "cult of personality", "suppression of critics and opposition", etc. Or in other words, the Libya under Gaddafi article is necessarily going to have significant topical overlap with this one, but the "Libya" article should focus on the history of Libya as a country, and this article should focus on Gaddafi as an individual autocrat. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The autograph

This is not an autograph. it simply reads "تحياتي" (my greetings in Arabic). I would suggest removing it. Rafy talk 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I wasn't aware, my apologies. Connormah (talk) 13:32, 16 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 (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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)


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)

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. (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.</ref> (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></ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 19 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!!-- (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 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 (talkcontribs) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit request from, 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. (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)

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."


"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. [Web 1] [Web 2]

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. [Web 3] [1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielAnand (talkcontribs) 02:28, 22 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)

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 and and 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)

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 (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)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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:

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)

His balls got cut of, then he got them replaced with gold.

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. (talk) 18:07, 24 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 (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)

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[7] 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.-- (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)


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. ( (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))

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:


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

Not done: please see Muammar Gaddafi#Name. — Bility (talk) 15:58, 25 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 (talkcontribs) 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 beginning of the passage, "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." is extremely relevant to Gaddafi. It is clear praise that shows some evidence that Gaddafi's regime is/was not the oppressive tyranny that Western powers currently make it out to be. The comparison to Israel is valid, but since it can appear anti-Semitic I would agree it is best left out. The above section of the passage I quoted should be re-added. Tike012 (talk) 20:24, 29 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse a lack of reputable sources and respect of due weight. if a significant controversy exists, of course it should be discussed. But it needs to be suggested in reputable sources, and treated with due weight. We don't treat opposing sides as equal just because there are two sides.Jbower47 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 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 (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)

No Serbian mercenaries in Libya

That Serbian mercenaries fight for Gaddafi in Libya has so much truth that Israel recruited mercenaries for Gaddafi (look , 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)
I speak exactly that what you mention, namely that the sources about alleged Serbian mercenaries in Libya are not a relevant criteria. This part should be taken out. An unseriously third-class tabloid newspaper we can not use as a source, however, it is opinion-forming if it is, for example, in an article on Wikipedia.--Carski (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I mean no offense, but I'm having trouble understanding some of what you mean because of your English. I looked at the two sources for the Serbian fighters quote. At least one is a Reuters based news site, so should be correct under our RS guidelines. I do not know the other, and would be happy to support its removal. However, other mainstream sources also support the same fact, such as
so while I'd support the removal of one of the sources, this does not mean the claim is invalid, as additional sources still exist.Jbower47 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the only reference to Serbian mercenaries in that Reuters article is in the comments section at the bottom. However this Guardian article says that Colonel Ahmed Omar Bani, a rebel spokesman, made claims about Serbian mercenaries. Although to be honest I don't really see why this level of detail belongs on Gaddafi's page rather than the articles about the uprising. TastyCakes (talk) 17:34, 6 April 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 (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)


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. (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:
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you or do you not agree that the article is biased? It should not be an opinion. It seems obvious to me and many others here that it is, and yet you assert ignorance: "Why? How? Give me proof, evidence, citation! I am powerless to do anything by myself!" How can I give evidence that the article focuses on the negative aspects of Gaddafi's rule and includes very little of the positive? By quoting the article itself? If you agree, as I must assume any rational person would, then it stands to reason that, just like an errant typo, something needs to be done about it. The burden of proof should not have to be on me to provide you with exactly which sections to edit and exactly what to remove and add.

A better question to ask might be why it was allowed to become partial in the first place. Why is there a blank section labeled Economy, for instance? Why was it allowed to be inserted with nothing in it? Was there something in it before? Why was it removed? As moderator, don't you have the power to reinstate it? I am formally requesting you do so, or give evidence for why you think the contents of the Economy section need to remain redacted.

However, in the interest of trying to work within the confines of this unnaturally high burden of proof that you are placing on me and the rest of the many editors here who agree with me, I will attempt to list which parts of this article are biased, and how they should be changed:

  • The first three paragraphs of the article give an extremely incomplete and biased account of his life and rule. It almost immediately launches into the negative aspects of his rule as seen by Western powers without bothering to state anything about how he actually ruled, and what he did for his country.
  • We should change it so that before talking about how evil he was during the 1970s, we talk about what changes were made after he wrested control of the country from the previous King.
  • Gaddafi tried to nationalize completely Libya's oil in 2009, and there's a possible link between this fact and the current invasion. "On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi took a step further and called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country." "These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany's Wintershall, Austria's OMV , Norway's Statoil, Eni and Canada's Petro Canada." [2]
  • Let's add reference to this after the last paragraph in the introduction. (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Requirement of reputable sources is not an excuse, it's fundamental to how Wiki works. If it's not sourced, it should not be added.Jbower47 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 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)


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)

I checked, and none of the references refer to the word "Amazon" in any shape or form. One of the linked articles does not even mention any group of female bodyguards at all. Tike012 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore some neutrality by adding this specific paragraph to the introduction

Insert a paragraph after the first one that reads: "Gaddafi rejected both Soviet Communism and Western capitalism, claiming that he was charting an independent course as a champion of "oppressed peoples" and Third World nations seeking to assert their independence on the international stage. During the 1970s, the Libyan government under Gaddafi nationalized a controlling interest in all oil companies operating in Libya, and then channeled upwards of US$20 billion of those profits into the development of Agriculture, Industry, and a range of economic activities designed to provide income after Libya's petroleum reserves exhausted. Gaddafi succeeded in making major improvements in the general welfare of Libyan citizens, and by the 1980s Libyans enjoyed much improved housing and education, comprehensive social welfare services, and general standards of health that were among the highest in Africa. As of 2009, Libyans enjoy a life-expectancy of 77 years (one year less than Americans). The Gini index, a measure of economic dis-equity, showed a score of 36 for Libyans in the mid-2000s, compared to the substantially more dis-equitable score of 40.8 for Americans. Gaddafi, although successful in spreading wealth back to the Libyan people, also created resentment against him among those dispossessed by his reforms. (History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_al-Gaddafi)

Tike012 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why this post has been completely ignored for the past three days. (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph looks pretty good, except for the last sentence about the Gini index which, as I spell out below, seems to me to be a mistake on the part of the GPI. That's assuming you have sources for some of the hard facts there, particularly the $20 billion dollar thing. TastyCakes (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to have actual sources, you can't just reference another wiki article. That's how Wiki works. You need reputable sources. I think you're on the right track, though it does have a bit of bias poking through. But if you'd like it included, I'd suggest you back it up with citations, or it will probably be reverted immediately.Jbower47 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, overall life expectancy is 74 according to the UN, as shown here. CIA factbook supports 77, however. TastyCakes (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is part of anti-Gaddafi propaganda.

Any man will always have a good and bad part. Like Mandela who is internationally recognised for democracy, however this was done through selling-out his people who still remain under-developed through racial lines. Gaddafi helped many African states including Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa in achiving 'liberation'. He trained and housed many parties including the great PAC and the oldest liberation movement in Africa the ANC. He provideds his people with quality and universal education up to university. He provides free quality health and there is very low levels of unemployment. He liberated his people at the mere age of 27 and is one of Africa's greatest leaders of all times. Infact many would say he is Africa's greatest leader!! There is nothing mentioned about his love for his people and the sacrifices he made. There is nothing about the flauting of the resolution by the NATO. The article is far too propagandaist against Gaddafi and can by no means be regarded as a realible source on Gaddafi. The strange thing is that even his history has changed not taking away from recent developments. Wikipedia do not allow yourself to the mouth piece for the west!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right that there is a Western slant to the article, but that's bound to happen when most of English Wikipedia's contributors are Western and when people from elsewhere usually go much too far the other way.
A few errors in your position, however. Unemployment in Libya is 21%, according to the country article, hardly low. And the billions of dollars he and his family is said to have amassed doesn't really speak to progressive governance. The state isn't listed in the List of countries by income equality, read what you like out of that. Education in Libya is certainly well financed, and successful in comparison with the rest of Africa, but with an 82% literacy rate, hardly world leading.
And as for him supporting "liberation movements", that's absolutely correct, but he also supported dozens of other groups dedicated to violence and promoting instability. In fact he supported any group that was hostile to Western governments, even ones he had no business sticking his nose into, perhaps most notably the IRA. He also apparently said that black Africans were a "lazy race liable to multiply without limit" in his green book.
Nothing is mentioned about his love for his people or his personal sacrifices (?) because they are not documented because they are either internal to his head, and thus impossible to demonstrate, or not particularly prominent in historical fact.
So in short, sure there are some positive things that could be added to his article. But most of what you bring up above strikes me as propaganda themselves. If you want the article to change, you have to point out exactly what is untrue in there now, and you have to demonstrate convincingly that what you want to add is true. TastyCakes (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, I wrote an entire paragraph of text to be included in the introduction section that only quotes facts, does not use propagandist language and is clearly cited, precisely to counter the exact excuse you just mentioned ("If you want the article to change, you have to point out exactly what is untrue in there now, and you have to demonstrate convincingly that what you want to add is true."), along with several other excuses as to why all these pro-Gaddafi edits can't be allowed in. You and every other mod completely ignored it. Can I get an explanation why, or are you going to ignore this too? How long can you keep rehashing the same excuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tike012 (talkcontribs) 08:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

HIs green book clearly states "The Black race will rise again in the world" --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a moderator, I'm an editor just like you and everyone else. I'm sorry your post was ignored. My suggestion is that you make the changes yourself, in accordance with this idea. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Speculation concerning Gaddafi's ethnicity

There has been some speculation among Libyans (particularly rebels) over Gaddafi's ethnicity and religion, with some alleging that his parents were secretly Italian, Jewish and/or Catholic. Here's a potential source: [8]. (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Could someone please change "On Prophet Muhammad's birthday in 1973, ..." to "On Muhammad's birthday in 1973, ...". He is a prophet for some, not all, and this article must respect POV.
For the same reasons it's Jesus not Jesus Christ. (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In Power/United states of Africa section needs work

The references in this section are not RS. They all seem to be opinion blogs, fairly biased, political sites, etc, none of which seem to be either reputable or notable.

Given that the added text and references are stating the contrary of the original text (they were added by user Halaquah), I think we need better sources than this. Please try to find some reputable sources to back up this claim, and please put back the differing opinion that was backed up by a reputable source.

I have not reverted your edits, but will need to unless they are fixed.Jbower47 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been a couple days, any opposition to me reverting this back to the original? The references listed are not RS, and it changes in tone what was originally there appreciably. (jbower47, not signed in) (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No one seems to have concerns/care. I am going ahead and reverting the edit back to what was there originally. Please discuss it here before redoing the change, if you disagree.Jbower47 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the fussy-mess

I believe that it is s bunch of 'locker-bashing' loonies. Lockerbie is their fought of all Libyans since none have apologised for their actions on either side. Quadaffi is only trying to sop Iranian backed radical mullahs anyhow.Sheron B. (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a forum. TastyCakes (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Asqwerty97, 5 April 2011

Asqwerty97 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Economy section (to avoid edit war..)

I recently reverted an edit by user Lars T. in which he removed some sourced context with a reputable source from the Economy Section. After checking the links, they referred directly to the comment which cites them, so I reverted the edit and suggested it be brought to Talk.

User Avanu reverted my revert, once again deleting the content. I posted a message on his/her talk page requesting they restore the content and come discuss it here, to avoid an edit war.

The content is not mine originally, but as I said, it has two sources, and the sources directly state the allegation made (though the wording certainly could be expounded upon.

The wording from the wiki article (which was removed) was: "Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of Libya became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories."

The wording from the source cited here states: "Cyrenaica, Libya’s eastern slice that was once a breadbasket of the ancient world but has since been ruined by the colonel’s eccentric economic theories, is re-establishing its trading links."

I feel the content should be restored until a better wording, more detail, or other opinions are added to complement (not replace) it. Thoughts?Jbower47 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that I already posted a pretty succinct blurb of text earlier that go a long way to show that Libya under Gaddafi was NOT an economic disaster as your preceding quotations seem to suggest. This country has the highest living standards in Africa, high life-expectancy, low economic dis-equality, social welfare progams, etc....[3] (from Health_in_Libya) Request to insert my earlier paragraph into the introduction and/or expand upon it in the Economy section.
The statement doesn't speak to Libya's economy as a whole, only the agricultural prosperity of the east (Cyrenaica). I think the Economist is great, but on this matter the single sentence in the story seems a bit thin to use as a source for such a dramatic claim. It's also unclear on the gap between "ancient world" and "Gadaffi's regime": what did the region look like when Gadaffi took over? TastyCakes (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This "source" is an opinion piece, and simply links what the writer claims is today's status of food production of Cyrenaica with what it was it ancient times directly to Gaddafi's "eccentric economic theories", without actually comparing the status right before Gadaffi took power with now. Hello? If you want to put that sentence into the article, add "Unnamed staff writer for the Economist claims" to it. Lars T. (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Problems are no connection direct between ancient world and 42 years in the past, "impoverished" or "ruined" are inspecific terms, "eccentric" is also, and the details of what constitutes "trading links". Overall it is a very biased and inspecific bit of text and only serves to say "Gaddafi is a really bad guy and just take my word for it" -- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this isn't my text, nor am I supporting its arguments. I am simply bringing it here for discussion instead of the unilateral dismissal it got from two editors who did not discuss it here first. Given that it's sourced content, it should be discussed before any one editor removes it. I have no problem leaving it out, whatsoever, though i would point out it does not read to me as a connection between 2000 years and the current. The two statements are unrelated. One is background (i.e. this has been traditionally a properous region") and the other is a statement of current conditions ("Gadaffi's policies have created economic issues for this region") Like I said, no skin off my nose either way.Jbower47 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that even though it is sourced, it both an extraordinary claim *and* a vague claim. It implies a connection between the conditions of Libya 2000 years in the past with Gaddafi taking power over the last 42 years. A better way to say it (if it is true) would be "Under King Idris, Libya's agriculture was beginning to prosper as it had in ancient times, under Gaddafi, agriculture was left in disarray, due to unequal policies that promoted idling of fields and poor crop rotation." That statement is completely made up and I have no idea whatsoever if it has any basis in fact, but written as such, it clearly establishes a link with the ancient, and provides clear reasons, not just the vague "Gaddafi's economic theories". -- Avanu (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I completely I had written on your talk page in inviting this discussion, I found it vague too. Again, my only concern was in getting consensus for the edit, since it was sourced content. It sounds like there is nominally consensus to leave it out. Fine by me. I've never argued that it should be in on its own merits, I just wanted it to be talked through. I actually agree it's vague and the source, while an RS and properly quoted, makes a claim it doesn't back up well.Jbower47 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi did not attend Hellenic Military Academy (Evelpidon)

That Gaddafi studied in Greece is an unsubstantiated rumor and does not belong in Wikipedia. The referenced article in Ta Nea (footnote 13) does not document Gaddafi's having attended the Evelpidon Military Academy in Athens. Instead, a reader comment asks whether it is true. After a series of circular blog posts citing the rumor of Gaddafi's graduation from Evelpidon, other blog posts (unfortunately without citing their references) have reported a denial by Greek military authorities that Gaddafi attended. See, for example, [4] "Το ΓΕΣ ξεσκόνισε όλα τα αρχεία της Σχολής Ευελπίδων,αλλά το Μουαμάρ δεν τον βρήκε πουθενά. Ωστόσο η φήμη εξακολουθεί να αναπαράγεται.Γι΄ αυτό και ο Α/ΓΕΣ καλει όποιο δημσιογράφο θέλει να πάει στη Σχολή και να ψάξει μόνος του τ΄ αρχεία.

Σημειωτέον ότι και στο Βελιγράδι,όποιο Σέρβο κι αν ρωτήσεις θα σου πει ότι ο Καντάφι έχει αποφοιτησει απο τη Γιουγκοσλαβική -τότε- Στρατιωτική Σχολή. Περιζήτητος ο νεαρός Μουαμάρ. Γιατί τώρα δεν τον θέλει πια κανείς."

"The Army General Staff has pored through the Evelpidon School archives and can't find Moamar anywhere. However the rumor continues to reproduce itself. For that reason the Chief of the Army General Staff invites any journalist who wishes to visit the School and check the archives himself. It should be noted that in Belgrade as well, any Serb you ask will tell you that Gaddafi graduated from the Yugoslav (then) Military School. The young Moamar in great demand. No one wants him now."

Given Andreas Papandreou's official visit to Libya in 1984 (NYT Greece and Libya Sign An Economic Accord,September 26, 1984), allegations that Gaddafi funded his PASOK party in the 1970s (and less plausible allegations that Papandreou abetted Libyan terrorism), if there had been a genuine Gaddafi connection to Greece, it would be well-documented and findable in one of the numerous biographies of Gaddafi.JBradyK (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Family Wealth Section needs work

The Family Wealth section has a first paragraph with several specific claims, none of which are referenced. The rest of the subsection is referenced, but seems just an accumulation of facts in separate lines, and could use editing for flow. It looks like someone was working on this a bit recently, so I thought I'd bring it here instead of messing with their work. But we definitely need sources for the first paragraph, or we need to remove/modify the content.Jbower47 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The claims of his family wealth being $70B is misleading. The funds are held by a company which is regarded as a sovereign wealth fund and is legally owned by the Libyan government. His family does not legally own the assets and there is no evidence (or sources) presented to suggest the funds are being used for personal purposes. (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Country related content moved, no changes to content

User Noclador made some good faith edits, moving several pieces of US/Libya relations content from other sections (Europe) with the intent of having it in a US section. He created a new USA section. However, there was an existing United States section (he/she must just have not seen it). I deleted his new USA section, and moved the content to the existing United States section. One of the items was about a NY Times article Gadaffi wrote. While it was a US paper, the content was about Israel and Palestine, not the US (it just happened to be in a US publication). I moved that content to the Israel section.

So long story short, no content change other than location, and everything should be in its proper place.Jbower47 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Hannah" Gaddafi

The person known in American media as "Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hannah" is identified in this US propaganda screed as infant who really existed at the time of the 1986 bombing and was not Gaddafi's daughter previously, but whom he claimed as his daughter for his own propaganda purposes. The name is uncertain. I suggest that the info box entry be changed to: "Hannah" (1985?-1986, posthumously adopted) (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the original article, but the November 10, 1986 issue of Newsweek mentions that Hana was unhurt and the children shown to journalists were not his.[9][10] Chickie 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If Gaddafi had an actual daughter named Hannah who wasn't hurt in the bombing, then what happened to her? Why hasn't she had any problems with being presumed dead and why hasn't Gaddafi himself corrected anyone when the matter has come up? Newsweek is always happy to serve reassuring propaganda to the American public. So is USA Today, but in this case we have direct eyewitness testimony from the journalist, not something that appeared in an article. (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


A user changed the religion entry in the table from "Sunni Islam" to "Officially Islam though disputed by many scholars". There is no source given. However, I don't know as we have a source listed to say Sunni Islam either. Can anyone provide a source for either, before this gets reverted?Jbower47 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

since there's no comment, I am reverting back to the previous as a default until someone has a source.Jbower47 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The correct identification is "Islam" without any qualifier. Gaddafi has said on a few occasions that he recognizes only one Islam and that the present-day view of the Sunni and Shia traditions as separate religions aligned with nationalities is false. He also recognizes the Nation of Islam, with its unusual theology, as part of the Ummah. This follows a broader theme in Gaddafi's political thought that people do not spontaneously divide against each other over abstract questions, but have to be manipulated into doing so. (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

His name is spelt "Qadaffi" not with a 'G' or 'K'. I have formal proof, from a letter he signed

      • YES, THE NAME ON THE ARTICLE NEED BE CHANGED TO "QADAFFI" (and all press should use this spelling instead from now on); to imply that his name is (mis-spelled) as "Gaddafi" is to imply that his name is a Celtic name (many Celtic names have double consonants after the first vowel); Qadaffi in no way is Celtic! *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterman337 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

the letter qadaffi sent to president obama, at the end of it he signed it 'qadaffi' not gadaffi

this needs to be corrected. see letter proof here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the most compelling argument when the same letter says it was written to President "Baraka Hussein Abu oumama". Gaddafi's name is not spelled with a 'G' or 'Q' or 'K', it is spelled in Arabic letters, and that is why people end up transliterating it so many different ways.-- Avanu (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have found Kadafy, Qadaffi, Gahdafy, Gahdafi, Ghadaffi, Kadhafi, Khadaffi and Kadaffi on Google.Wipsenade (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  As Avanu says, the man's name is most authoritively spelled in Arabic letters. What you all seem to be tripping over is matter of how Arabic letters should be transliterated into Latin letters. If this is an issue with anyone than I strongly suggest looking into the issue of transliteration. (Check the various style manuals.) I would also suggest that there could be (should be) a footnote explaining these different variations. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
O.K.Wipsenade (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
for an english / arabic translation ق ققق can be translated into a Q while غغغ غ can be translated into a guttural gha sound (there is no english equivalent to this letter). This is why the english translation of Qaddafi is spelt with a Q not a G. For though who do not know much about arabic I provided all four forms of each letter, because in arabic each letter is written differently depending on its placement in a word. I'm not going to cite a scholarly journal to prove my case because I don't want to spend the time, however whether you believe me or not, I do speak arabic well and I ensure you numerous arabic scholars and professionals would agree with me in my spelling of Muammar's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence, original research, and nameless sources do not count as reputable sources under wiki policy. The discussion of the spelling of his name has been going on for a long time, please refer to other talk articles. Regardless of the outcome, it needs to be based on reputable references, not personal opinion or experience.Jbower47 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the user is basing it on the things you suggest. You do not have to know much Arabic to know the Qur'an and Qaddafi start with the same letter. I do not think it hurts to accommodate the world view as oppose to a Western view. Wiki policy should not be used to represent "majority incorrect".So we go along with anything CNN, FOX, BBC write because they are "reputable" according to the Western editors here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The holy book of Islam doesn't start with a 'Q' either. That is the point that some of us are trying to make. When you are trying to go between two different writing systems, you have choices on how to transliterate it. It doesn't mean that it is the "Western view". It means that you can transliterate it with 'K' or 'Q' or anything else that ends up *sounding* pretty close to correct. And because of this, none of the transliterations are really wrong or right, they are always approximations of the true word that started in the original writing system. When writing an encyclopedia article, however, it would make little sense to choose a different spelling each time. If we said Kadafy, Qadaffi, Gahdafy, people would wonder if we were still talking about the same man. So we pick 1 word, and yes, everyone knows it is not the 'perfect' word (but neither are any of the other words) and we use that 1 word. Implying that we are holding a minority down, or presenting a racially biased or culturally biased view is simply failing to understand the reasons behind why it has to be done. If we chose a different spelling, we would be right back here in a few weeks or months discussing the same thing (and we have), because none of the spellings are right, because they are all transliterations. -- Avanu (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I is also done as "Gadaffie ". (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand that there is a natural problem with translating arabic letters into latin letters. however the ق in his first name does not sound like a G in any way shape or form. it sounds like a Q or a K. This is why it should be changed to either one, but definably NOT a G. If you want the full context, native Libyans say his name with what sounds like a G, however in modern standard arabic (the standard arabic form used throughout the world) it is pronounced with a Q or K sound. so if your argument is that his name should be spelled the way it is natively said fine, but if you are telling me it should stay a G because of the natural difficulties in translating non alike scripts, then you are merely unaware of how to speak arabic. - 1:15 16 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The explanation, you may have read, is due to discrepancies transliterating Arabic. While true, this is not the whole story. Gaddafi (Google's most frequent spelling) is spelled القذافي in Arabic. The first letter "ق," qoph, is pronounced as a "k" sound and usually transliterated as a "q." Likewise, the second letter of his name, thal, "ذ," is pronounced as a deep "d" or "th" ("the" not "with") and transliterated "dh." Given these standardized spellings, the Libyan leader's name should be spelled "Qadhafi." The reason the most common spelling of Gaddafi begins with a "g" is due to the Libyan dialect, which pronounces qoph like a "g" sound. English translations of Arabic leaders names generally are consistent with their local dialects, rather than standard translation. The best example of this would be late Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser. His first name beginning with a jim "‫ج‬" would be traditionally transliterated Jamal. Instead, the Egyptian pronunciation of his name is the norm for English transliteration.

Zoe Fox, How Do You Spell 'Gaddafi?' Time Magazine

According to Time, you are correct if you strictly use the standard translation of this name, but usually it's done with the local dialect. So while it may be transliterated as Qaddafi (or variants thereof), it is pronounced Gaddafi by Libyans. That is the transliteration that is used. ScottSteiner 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

pope john paulus II on kaddafi

we must include what jan paweł II said on kaffafi wealth and rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Web}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ Black, Ian. "WikiLeaks cables: A guide to Gaddafi's 'famously fractious' family". Retrieved 21 March 2011. 
  2. ^ Karpova, Lisa. "Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil". Retrieved 29 March 2011. 
  3. ^ "Country Profile: Libya, 2005" (PDF). Library of Congress. Retrieved 11 April 2011. 
  4. ^