Talk:Moussa Koussa

Correct spelling of name?

OK, so this is an anglicanised version of an Arabic name, but is it with or without the "o" ie: Kussa or Koussa? Sources seem to spell it both ways, we are directing all to non-o version. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In Arabic his name is pronounced moosse-a koossa - long vowels for both parts of his name. Transliterating it as Mussa Kussa might lead people to think it is pronounced with short vowels as in fuss. The BBC uses Moussa Koussa. I think for clarity, this article's name should be changed to Moussa Koussa. Unless, of course, we can find evidence that he himself uses Mussa Kussa when he writes his name in English. 81.129.133.234 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the article title to Moussa Koussa, per the BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, Reuters etc, i.e. basically everyone apart from us ... Ericoides (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, there cannot be a the correct spelling. Each Latin-letters spelling is according to different systematic conventions for giving Latin script versions of Arabic spelling. The Arabic language has more distinct consonants, and local accent pronunciations for the particular instances of them, than you can shake a stick at; and the mapping of the written vowels to the typically desired five-vowel /aeiou/ system (much less their spelling) also merits a bit of stick-shaking-at too. The article "Romanization of Arabic" is a peek at the tip of a big spikey iceberg and Muammar_Gaddafi#Name is a broader look.
It is Known Problem (a/k/a "ugh!") that there is no single, good, agreed-upon system for Romanization of Arabic- each system quickly hits a dealbreaker somewhere. (Although, of course, I wish that the lives of everyone in the Middle East were comfortable enough that spelling would be their most pressing problem!)
Anyway, in cases of "what's THE way to spell a name", I consider the person's own preference to be authoritative (withing sanity). So: I've known Hassans, but one (from Morocco, Hassen). Each as they like, I say. (And the problem of Said, Sayed, Saeed, Sayeed...!)
But in the case of "Mister ['musakosa]" (as the current Libyan gov spokesman Mussa Ibrahim clearly pronounces it), I doubt I can get the guy on the phone to ask what he likes. And notice that Gaddafi himself isn't consistent on Romanizing his name.
(Moreover, in some cases where I've asked people about spelling their name as (example) just "Gomez" vs "Gómez", I've gotten a response like "maybe I would want the accent, but I could never use it, because it always gets back to me as "Gmez", or "G¶mez" [ mojibake ] and anyway the rest of the Wikipedia article on me is a laughable mess, so, uh, have fun.")
I suggest: whatever the article is currently called, leave it, or whatever-- but someone should note, early in the article, that there are other spellings acceptable and in use, and maybe which are most common and "winning". And by "someone should note", I mean someone who has been noting the spelling variances (whereas I have given up even noticing and probably should now take a nap from all this ONOMASTICATION.-- Sean M. Burke (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the French transliteration ("ou" per "u" like "oui"), the english one is Mussa Kussa or better Musa Kusa. So I agree to change the page name --Nicola Romani (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Resignation on 30 March 2011

This is clearly confirmed information by multiple sources. In this case, we cannot expect an official communiqué or anything from him or his govt. No more revert please.134.155.36.48 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia not a news service, so we only record (not report) what the sources say. If you want to report news, go to WikiNews. At the moment the only things the WP:RS are saying is that: (1) he is in the UK, (2) that he no longers wishes to represent Libya, not that he has resigned. You should also note that the source you inserted from the BBC Nws website was the general Libyan news coverage, not the source which is in thepresent foot of the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry, what is your point? Of course we record (=report) what our sources say. So the anon said he has sources confirming the defection. Whywould we not include this in the article? After all, the vast majority of our coverage of the Libyan conflict is based on journalistic sources. Look at timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising. Not sure how well this goes with the idea "to report news, go to WikiNews". --dab (𒁳) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the timeline of the article. At the time of this debate we had no foreign office statement, and this Anon's edit/s were at best unsupported by the source quoted at the time, and at worst WP:CRYSTAL. This issue is now closed with the FCO statement, which occured 2hrs later than the Anon's edits. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

defection

quoth Yaris678:"Defection implies working for the other side".

Not in my, or the OED's, understanding of English. OED: "defect v.: 2. To fall away from (a person, party, or cause); to become a rebel or deserter; spec. to desert to a Communist country from a non-Communist country, or vice versa." (emphasis mine). You defect only if you leave (desert) the cause. Joining an opposite cause is optional. I maintain my use of the term was entirely correct. See also here--dab (𒁳) 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. That's good. We agree that he isn't necessarily working for the other side and may have just stopped working for Gaddafi. This being the case, I think that it is better to avoid the word defection. Although the word need not mean joining the other side, that is what it often means.

The lead for the Wikipedia article on defection has three sentences. Two imply joining the other side and the third effectively says that it might just mean leaving one side.

I'm not saying that you were wrong to use the word defection. I am just saying that resignation would be a more helpful word in this case.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

no, "resignation" just doesn't cut it. This is why I made the change. He did not simply 'resign'. A politician resigning means he simply says he doesn't want the job any more and steps down. MK had to flee to Tunisia, pretending he needed medical treatment or something, he stole away from his country and is seeking asylum in Britain, where he may be persecuted for terrorism and war crimes, rather than staying on his job. This isn't 'resigning', and saying MK "resigned" is an almost comical understatement. --dab (𒁳) 06:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that saying he resigned is an understatement. Saying that he defected (as the word is usually understood) is conjecture. Verifiable understatement is better than conjecture. It isn't like we have no space to expand on what happened in this case. Yaris678 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Hoots Mon, there's a Loussa Moussa Koussa aboot this Houssa!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.230.176 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

US scraps sanctions on Koussa

Pls include.

US Treasury Lifting Sanctions Against Libya's Former Foreign Minister: http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Lifting-Sanctions-Against-Libyas-Former-Foreign-Minister.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.36.48 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathaba?

This cited BBC article says "In the 1980s Mr Koussa was a leading member of the Libyan Bureau for External Security (the Mathaba) which has been linked to the Lockerbie bombing.", which is basically how we report it in this article. However, if you look at our coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia:

• Mathaba is a redirect to an article about a news agency set up by Gaddafi.
• Mukhabarat el-Jamahiriya is given as the Libyan intelligence agency that is accused Lockerbie bombing.

So what is it? Is it that Mathaba was officially a news agency but was involved in a lot more besides? Has the BBC got the wrong end of the stick somewhere? Yaris678 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Moussa Koussa unraveled Al Qaeda in the 1990s...

I have a book on the "Afghan Arabs" that says Osama bin Laden had just 50 followers when he was forced to leave Sudan in 2005. The article conflates other radical groups with al Qaeda, which I flagged as dubious.

The assertion is unreferenced. I suspect it is unreferenceable, because it is not true. Maybe MK claims he did this. Fine, attribute the claim to him. This is not supposed to be a hagiography. MK's claims should not be repeated as if they were facts. Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)