Talk:Muammar Gaddafi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Theodore! (talk · contribs) 02:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I'm excited for this review; it's an interesting subject, and I hope to complete my comments by Friday. In case you have any concerns or questions about any particular comments, please tell me so; also, don't hesitate to correct me if I make a mistaken assumption about something. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is much appreciated Theodore! Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Two observations about the article

• I understand that you've put a lot of work into this article; however, given the prominence of its subject, it inevitably attracts a ton of editing. This has produced a few general issues. Grammatical and structural inconsistencies seem to be a huge example of this; a major problem I've noticed is inaccurate pronoun usage. Also, I may use the word "you" throughout my review; I'm not blaming you for some of these issues, and understand the faults of high-prominence articles.
• I am more worried about the general tone of the article. Neutrality is key, and the usage of terms like "imperalist" can undermine it. I have noted usage of such terms as much as possible in the following review; in some cases, they are appropriate given their context and in others they are not. For example, the following sentence strikes me as unnecessarily opinionated; with this much detail, a quote is probably necessary to justify retaining it: "[[Gaddafi viewed]...the 1948 creation of Israel as an oppressive indignity forced on the Arab world by Western colonialists." In contrast, using the term "imperialist" in the context of Gaddafi's Third Universal Theory is a bit different, given that it's not overemphasized with the terms found in the prior example. Again, I understand that some of this is presumably a remnant of earlier editing.

Content review

General note: The advice offered by Khazar on the article talk page is excellent. Trimming excess details from the article would help in reducing the length, which is a bit excessive itself.

Yes, I agree with Khazar's comments, and have already undertaken quite a lot of editing down since they posted it, particularly in the first half of the article. I agree that more can however be done in the latter part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life: Childhood

• I noticed that the family's economic status isn't really mentioned here (the occupations are, but little else); his father is said to be impoverished in the lead. Could you expand on this if possible?
  • Fixed with "meager subsistence". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• I would advise against using terms like "unimportant" when describing complex social entities like tribes.
  • Agreed, but nevertheless I was trying to explain that in the scheme of Libya's societal structure, the Qadhadfa wielded little economic or political influence at the time. Replaced with "un-influential". 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning "Nomadic bedouin, they were illiterate..." should be checked for grammar. Breaking it down would help, as well.
  • I have divided the sentence into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have nothing wrong with the sentence describing "European colonialists" and their actions in Libya, but would be happier with an alternative term.
  • I would personally vote to keep the term "colonialists" here, as I think it an apt descriptor. I certainly don't think it POV. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning "At World War II's end in 1945" needs one or more sources; they would be particularly useful for the part describing British and French desires to split the country between themselves. I don't dispute this, but sources are necessary for these types of facts.
  • Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Isn't the term "pro-Western" a bit anachronistic for the end of WWII? I don't really mind if you leave it in; indeed, I may well be wrong on this one.
  • Hmm... good point. I used "pro-Western" here to indicate that they favoured the Western powers over the Soviet bloc, but if there is a more accurate term then I would be happy to use it here. The Idris regime certainly wasn't a staunch ally with the West, but they chose to do most of their trade (particularly in oil) with Western Europe and the US, and permitted the US and British to use Libyan territory for their military bases; this arrangement was certainly more pragmatic than ideological. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life: Education and political activism

• By "local Islamic teacher," do you mean education of a religious nature? I would presume most Libyan teachers at the time were Islamic.
  • Good point. Gaddafi's education was of a religious nature, learning Qur'anic verses and such. I've changed the text accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Can you cite the statement that he passed through six grades in four years?
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The sentences regarding Gaddafi's admiration of Nasser and Nasser's political beliefs need to be sourced. Even though the latter are relatively obvious, content which effectively makes a claim (even if a blatantly true claim) should be cited.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life: Military training

• Source needed for the second sentence, and the same goes for the second-to-last sentences. Although it probably seems as if I'm demanding a source after every sentence (which is not a GA requirement) a lot of these statements make claims that could prompt the question, "what is this substantiated by?"
  • In all of these instances, the statements in question are indeed sourced, but the sources can be found at the end of the following sentence; I am duplicating these sources at the end of both sentences in order to avoid the confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Republic: Coup d'etat

• I noticed that the singular "King Idris's government" is referred to as "they"; check for similar issues throughout. Other than that, this section is excellent.
  • Ah, good point! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Republic: Consolidating leadership

• Where does the term "Free Unionist Officers" come from? Did they change their name to incorporate the "Unionist" term, and does this have something to do with the UAR?
  • I have no idea – that "Unionist" shouldn't be in there... Thanks for pointing it out! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The last sentence fits in a bit unnaturally with the others; first, you talk about Gaddafi dominating the council, and all of a sudden some of them are trying to constrain him. Is there any more info on who they were, and by what means they tried to constrain him?
  • Unfortunately, the whole scenario with the RCC is still shrouded in mystery; they were, after all, a very secretive bunch. I'm afraid I have no idea how they tried to constrain him at this point, I am just going by what the few English-language sources say. I've nevertheless edited and moved the paragraph around a bit, which hopefully flows a lot better for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• There are no problems with the second paragraph.

Subsection: Economic and social reform

• In the second paragraph, the sentence about social welfare projects definitely needs a source.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• I do not entirely understand what is meant by Gaddafi's "underdog status." Is this meant in relation to traditional social mores (the tribal structure)?
  • Yes; he was from an underprivileged background, being a poor Bedouin from a tribe with little power. I've tried to clarify this inb the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Subsection: Foreign policy

• What types of experts did Egypt send over?
  • I'm not sure; I would assume technical experts in management, governing and such ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• This section contains one of my neutrality examples, the one about an "oppressive indignity."
  • What I was trying to reflect here is that Gaddafi personally thought that Israel was an oppressive indignity (I disagree with him), but I can see how this might be misconstrued. I have replaced it with "viewing the 1948 creation of Israel as a Western colonial occupation forced on the Arab world". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Popular Revolution: subsection "Third Universal Theory and the Green Book"

• Just as a side note, I would imagine it's appropriate to leave the word "imperialist" intact in this context.
• "pro-Gaddafist" is a bit redundant.
  • Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Popular Revolution: subsection "Foreign relations"

• Would it be best to concentrate the Sadat info in one place? There's a bunch of it in the "Foreign policy" subsection of "Libyan Arab Republic," too. If not, I'm not overly concerned with it.
  • What I was trying to do here was impose some sort of chronological order, but I am open to suggestions as to how this might be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not sure about the term "liberation struggle" to define the West Saharan independence movement. It might be fairly accurate, but it's the kind of terminology I expressed a concern about above.
  • Agreed; replaced with the less ideologically charged "independence struggle". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamahiriya: Revolutionary committees and furthering socialism

• I don't have anything wrong with the third paragraph's content; however, a few phrases (1978 saw the Libyan government push toward socialism and the like) are a bit redundant.
• What pressures led to Hafez al-Assad's withdrawal from unification plans? It's not too important, but adds better context; the situation seems reminiscent of the Tunisian deal with Bourguiba, except that Gaddafi remained allies with the Syrians.
  • Unfortunately I don't know; I would have included information on the issue if I had come across it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamahiriya: "International Pariah"

• I agree that a characterization of the Jamahiriya as a Soviet puppet is inaccurate, but can you extrapolate on this? He did have very close ties to the Russians.
  • I based this statement on what I read in various sources; Reagan was misguided in thinking that Gaddafi basically took his orders from the Kremlin. In reality, the Soviet government were very wary of Gaddafi because they recognised him as a loose cannon who could not be controlled nor reasoned with much of the time. However, they were willing to trade with Libya and sell them military hardware because they recognised Gaddafi's utility to them in being a general nuisance to NATO and also rather liked the idea of an oil-rich state that was not beholden to the US. I personally feel that this paragraph is fairly clear on the issue, but am happy to discuss it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Double-check for minor grammatical and punctuation errors here; I'll fix the ones I saw, but there might be other small ones.
• The "names of the month" thing seems an odd way to end the section; what did he change them to? Did Libya use the Islamic or Gregorian calendar prior to this, and did it stick with the model previously used?
  • I wholeheartedly agree that it seems like an odd thing to have at the end of this section, as it thematically does not relate to that which was being discussed before it. Initially I had placed it elsewhere, but ultimately I decided on placing it where it currently resides because, chronologically speaking, that it where it belongs. But again, I am open to discussion about moving it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I still think it's an odd way to end the section. But it's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so don't worry about it. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamahiriya: "Revolution Within a Revolution"

• Is the word "erroneously" accurate when describing his claims about political prisoners? Would "falsely" be better?
  • Sounds good to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• I am confused by the phrase "The Revolutionary Committees experienced a resurgence..." Did Gaddafi give them more authority? It seems doubtful that they received this renewal of importance on their own.
  • I'm afraid to say I don't know, but I suspect Gaddafi was behind it. Vandewalle simply says that they experienced a resurgence to fight the Islamists. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If that's the case, no need to worry about it. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Did his popular militia become the Libyan army, and was it an element of this force that launched the failed coup referenced toward the end of this section?
  • Although the sources weren't too clear on this, I would suspect that it was another example of Gaddafi making a proclamation of radical reform but which didn't really get going on the ground. The elements who launched the failed coup were from the traditional army, who were being increasingly marginalized by Gaddafi, so I've made that a little clearer in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamahiriya: Pan-Africanism, reconciliation and privatization

• A phrase in this section calls Gaddafi one of the AU's founding "figureheads". Not sure how that got in there.
  • Replaced with "founders"; Gaddafi was an important figure in the creation of the AU, which perhaps partly explains why retains a popular legacy across much of the continent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Good. The word figurehead insinuates de jure power, e.g. "The Prime Minister of Israel holds most political power, so the President is a figurehead." —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Is British or American English standard in this article? I just noticed the word "utilised". If it is British English, it should be standardized throughout. If American, the same applies.
  • I don't know; considering North Africa is on Europe's doorstep, I think that British English might be more appropriate, but it's not something I feel strongly about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would like to see the article standardized at some point, but it's not something you should have to worry about doing. I won't worry about this for GA. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• I find it odd that he was disturbed by the idea of a "black Europe" but was interested in pan-African alliances. This is just my personal opinion, but is there any way to explore this disparity within the context of the article? If not, it's completely fine as it stands.
  • At this time, Gaddafi was proud of his African identity, and in this context he didn't use "black Europe" in order to be derogatory to black people. However, he believed strongly in retaining traditional cultural identities, and was friendly with some European right-wingers, like Silvio Berlusconi, who were not terribly favourable toward the idea of increased African immigration to Europe. So what he was trying to convey here was that Europeans should be concerned that their distinct cultural identity would be lost were the "indigenous" white European population to be displaced by African immigrants. At the same time, he was also keen that the EU start giving Libya a lot of financial handouts, and so was pandering to what he thought many European policy makers wanted him to say; he was playing on their fears of exponential immigration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've changed the wording to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't mean to seem burdensome, but could you include more of what you've said above, if you can source it? I'm no longer concerned about the length of biographical content; Gaddafi was a man of many nuances, so length is probably best in terms of quality. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I think that's a fair request, but I'm not sure how I would go about sourcing that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Libyan civil war: Origins

• Would it be possible somehow to provide more context for the uprising in the section above? In particular, what led to the high unemployment, especially with foreign investment in the country? Speaking of the section above, could the slave trade thing be placed somewhere else? It kind of comes out of the blue.
  • I'm not aware of any reliable sources that provide that greater context; it probably exists somewhere, but I'm not aware of it if that is the case. Just off the top of my head, I don't think that foreign investment always leads to greater employment; many of these western corporations brought their own trained staff from western countries to Libya, rather than hiring from the native population, which might partly explain the issue. Also, the privatisation of large chunks of the economy led to drastic cut-backs to the (very large) public sector, which undoubtedly was a major cause of unemployment. I also scrapped the slave trade bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Libyan civil war: NATO intervention

• I would suggest changes to the structure and tone of the last paragraph. It insinuates that Gaddafi retained popular support even after Tripoli fell; in fact, the Scott Taylor article used as a source (talking about the 3,000 tribes supporting him) was written before the capital was taken.
  • I've started making a few changes, but would appreciate a bit more guidance here, if that's okay ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course. Basically, I would prefer if the Scott Taylor stuff is mentioned before explaining that Tripoli fell in the 20th. The rebels' capture of the capital was a boost to the NTC, not to Gaddafi, so I don't think the Taylor article is relevant as a source for subsequent events. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Someone else added the Taylor stuff, rather than myself, and I must admit that I would rather see some corroborating sources on this issue. I mean, how would one even go about collecting approval ratings in the midst of a civil war ? Nevertheless, I've moved it and edited it down a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal and public life: Ideology

• It seems contradictory that Gaddafi supported women's entrance into male-dominated fields, yet generally wanted them to remain in traditional roles.
  • I agree, but Gaddafi was a very contradictory individual. In several instances he seemed to hold conflicting and mutually exclusive opinions on the same subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with this; explicitly labeling views as contradictory smacks of non-NPOV, so don't worry about this concern. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal and public life: Personal life

• I think "family-oriented" is the correct term, not "family-orientated". See the first paragraph, third line.
  • Thanks for pointing that one out! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Check for spelling consistency: "Azizia" instead of "Aziziya". The same applies to jamahiriya and jamahiriyah; there is an issue with this somewhere else in the article. I can deal with some of these smaller things.
  • Part of the problem when dealing with subjects where the primary language isn't Latin based! But thanks for pointing that one out too! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand. This is an unwieldy article to work with, and I hope I'm not overwhelming you with these kinds of concerns. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal and public life: Public image

• I would suggest sources for the first two sentences, unless they're covered by Blundy and Lycett (the third sentence's source).
  • Yes, they are all from the Blundy and Lycett reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • OK. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Speaking of this, I've noticed that a lot of important info in the article is attributed to Blundy and Lycett. This isn't an obstacle for GA, but there is a rather heavy reliance on older material. If any new biographies of similar quality have surfaced, they might provide even more than what Blundy and Lycett had at their disposal.
  • Unfortunately, with Gaddafi it's a case of a lot of the older material being a lot better in quality than some of the newer publications. In fact a lot of the newer stuff, like Kawczynski's biography, largely consists of rehashed information gleaned from those older biographies. Now that Gaddafi's dead and Libya is a representative democracy, I hope that historians will be able to work more freely over there and produce some fantastic biographical and historical studies of Gaddafi and his regime. If and when that's the case, then I shall be sure to make ammendments to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That's interesting; it's a bit unusual, but I trust your judgment on this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Honors and awards

• This section takes up a lot of space, and includes a lot of minor awards (e.g. the Collar of the Order of the White Lion, etc.). Couldn't a separate article be created for this? The major ones could still be listed here.
  • I've moved this entire section to List of awards and honours bestowed upon Muammar Gaddafi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Excellent. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Again, referring to the British vs American English thing: should it be "honours" or "honors"?

Legacy

• I understand that most Wikipedia bios have an obligatory "legacy" section, but is this one really necessary? Most of the info could be included elsewhere in the article; actually, some of it should be (e.g. reactions to his death, the changes to Libyan government following the revolution). The human rights record information should also be described in detail earlier in the article.
  • Hmm... I personally think that the "Legacy" section is important. Admittedly it's less important than political leaders who had movements that continued to thrive after their deaths (i.e. Mao, Chavez, etc), but I still would rather see it left. I'm open to being convinced otherwise however! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Old notice

• Sorry for the lack of progress on the review today; I will have some free time tomorrow during which I can get it completed. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries; there is no rush on my behalf. It's just great that you are offering such a useful review. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Question about NPOV, or lack thereof, in the article. I'm not sure the general level of length/detail and feeling of reverence for Ghaddafi is appropriate, especially in light of his unsuccessful threats to hunt down rebels "street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe", and subsequent killing.

For example, the issue of the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland where 270 people died is not mentioned in the lede -- the BBC obituary mentions it in the second paragraph -- but the "1986 U.S. bombing of Libya and United Nations-imposed economic sanctions" are, and we are given this fine distinction about his rule in the second sentence of the article:
"Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011 ..."

Likewise, there is a mention of how a "... particularly hostile relationship developed with the United States and United Kingdom", but nothing about the funding of the IRA, or the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher that might have provided an explanation of why the UK was less than friendly to the Colonel. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC) -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I am reviewing the article for GA and am going to address the lead last - a bit of an odd placement, but I wanted to get the content review done first. The lead is far more problematic than the rest of the article; however, the article is exceptionally long, so the content review is a bit larger. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Counter-comment

As the primary contributor to this page (whose contributions are under criticism), I take issue with the assertion that the prose used here exhibits a "feeling of reverence" for Gaddafi, and I contend that there is no evidence to support such an accusation. I also see no reason why Gaddafi's comments during the civil war and subsequent death somehow mean that there is less need for the "general level of length/detail" in this article; does an individual's death mean that what they achieved in life somehow becomes less significant ? If so, the entire discipline of history would be sorely negated. Furthermore, with all due respect to my fellow Wikipedia editor, I think that BoogaLouie's moralistic tone ("especially in light of his unsuccessful threats...") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as this one; it's fine if they don't like Gaddafi (I don't either), but this is not the place to express moral and/or ethical judgement of his actions, and to edit the page according to those opinions. This is the place to explain his historical significance, without ethical judgement.

Regarding BoogaLouie's more specific points, I must also express grave misgivings. It is a significant fact of Gaddafi's life that under his regime, a particularly hostile relationship developed with the U.S. and U.K, something that had significant repercussions for Libya's standing in the world. This occurred for a wide variety of different reasons, and not just those which BoogaLouie states here. The murder of Yvonne Fletcher (as appalling as I personally might find it), is really not very significant in the grand scheme of Gaddafi's life and regime, and would certainly not warrant inclusion in the introduction. We also have no need to explicitly state that Gaddafi's Libya funded the IRA here, because we already state that his administration "fund[ed] revolutionary militants across the world." Arguing that these things should be included in the introduction is pushing a very Anglocentric slant on the article, which is not in any way appropriate for Wikipedia.

Let's be clear on this: I am not a Gaddafist, nor am I favourable to Gaddafi. However, I am trying to pursue the path of neutrality on this issue and ensure that this article paints a fair, NPOV picture of this historically significant figure. Much western media (i.e. the BBC) has sought to almost exclusively demonise Gaddafi, emphasising his support for foreign revolutionaries/terrorists and his regime's human rights abuses while ignoring any social and/or economic achievements that his supporters praise him for. This is not surprising; after all, Gaddafi was a vociferous enemy of the West for most of his regime, and many of his actions are at complete odds with common western moral values. However, this largely negative image of Gaddafi does not accord with the more balanced picture that you will see in much Latin American, Sub-Saharan African, and Asian media, as well as in academic and specialist works of Libyan studies. For this reason I take issue with BoogaLouie's position, which appears to be arguing that in order to be more NPOV, this article should look more like western media obituaries of Gaddafi; I think that doing so actually makes this article less NPOV! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is neutral

I'm going to say that this article is actually one of the best articles on Wikipedia, neutrality wise.... Considering the fact on how his rule ended, Midnightblueowl has written a good article. I don't feel there is any reverence for Gaddafi in this text, there are facts. An example of an article which is not neutral is the Hafez al-Assad page (which is factual inaccurate, and the whole article is written in a pro-Assad tone), this, in contrast, is well written and when it comes to the accusation that the author revers Gaddafi those are , well, false. --TIAYN (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV analysis

I've decided to address this, as NPOV is an aspect of a good article review. To be clear, I do not see any non-neutral content in the article. While I would suggest that information on exactly why Libyan relations with the US and UK deteriorated be included in the lead, not including the IRA and Yvonne Fletcher items makes sense. As Midnightblueowl pointed out, these are really not essential to a biography of the man. They might well be crucial to History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi — an article needing much more work than the one in question — but are less important here, despite their historical significance. I have asked BoogaLouie to provide concrete examples of missing NPOV or a tone suggesting reverence of Gaddafi; I am highly skeptical that any can be found, and am inclined to disregard these concerns in proceeding with the review. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

From a Libyan perspective, the killing of Yvonne Fletcher and the financing of the IRA were fairly minor events; the only articles where (in my opinion) they deserve a mention in the lead would be in Murder of Yvonne Fletcher (obviously), and Libya-United Kingdom relations. Placing such information in the lede anywhere else would really be pushing a very Anglocentric (and by extension western-centric) approach to the subject of Libyan history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I am in no way pushing for that stuff to be included in the lead here, as it's really not biographical material anyway. I do think that Lockerbie is important enough to be included, though. What is your opinion regarding that? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly not be averse to the mention of information on the Lockerbie Bombing in the lead, as it did have significant repercussions for Libya. However, I think that we would have to be very careful about the language that we use. Although Gaddafi's Libya accepted official culpability for the bombing in order to end UN sanctions, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and many segments of Libya's government continued to assert that they were not responsible, and similarly al-Megrahi went to his grave professing his innocence. International organisations and figures like Nelson Mandela were very sceptical that Megrahi had had a fair trial, and even British Conservative biographer of Gaddafi, Daniel Kawczynski, expressed great scepticism over the verdict. Ignoring the fringe conspiracy theories that claim it was a western false flag operation, many reputable figures express doubt over Libya's guilt, suspecting a Syrian or Iranian origin for the attack. As such, I'm more than happy to see the lede state that the UK and US held Libya responsible for the bombing, but I don't think that we can state outright that Libya – or Gaddafi – were actually responsible for it, as if it were on un-disputed objective fact. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with the "held responsible" qualifier, as long as the bombing is included. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the information to the introduction, with the qualifier "alleged". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Theodore! asked me to offer
any specific examples of "reverent tone" or lack of neutrality within the article. It's hard for me to understand exactly what you're talking about unless I have concrete examples.
I guess I would have to say it's more the context, than the words that give the article, what IMHO a "reverent tone"
For example "... he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011 ...", is a factual statement (I'm pretty sure), but -- I would argue -- not of lede-level importance (and the lede is very long). Murder of Yvonne Fletcher -- where a police constable keeping protestors apart at the Libyan embassy was killed by automatic gunfire coming from the embassy -- i.e. by a embassy employee -- followed by Libyan radio reports that the embassy was stormed and that those in the building fired back in self-defence against "a most horrible terrorist action" -- all this is highly unusual in international relations. It caused a "siege" of the embassy by British police, was given huge billing in the British press, caused a rupture of diplomatic relations between the two countries, and the retaliatory holding of six British nationals as political hostages in Libya by "a Revolutionary Committee" for nine months. (In 1999, the government of Muammar Gaddafi accepted responsibility for her death and agreed to pay compensation to her family)

It might very well merit some mention in the article. (see below) Say: "events such as the 1984 killing of British police constable Yvonne Fletcher by gunfire coming from the Libyan embassy contributed to deterioration of British-Libyian relations," or shorter.

The IRA funding IMHO should also be mentioned. It may be true that "From a Libyan perspective, the killing of Yvonne Fletcher and the financing of the IRA were fairly minor events", but this is an encyclopedia with an international perspective not a Libyan one.

Doing a little research I found a line from Jane's Intelligence Review saying by 1996 "it is believed that the bulk of the material presently in IRA arsenals was shipped from Libya in the mid-1980s ..." Boyne, Sean. "uncovering the Irish Republican Army". 1996 August 1. Frontline PBS.org, reprinted from Jane's Intelligence Review. Retrieved 2013 August 19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help).

From Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign_1969–97#Libyan_arms:

In the mid-1980s, the Provisional IRA received large quantities of modern weaponry, including heavy weaponry such as heavy machine guns, over 1,000 rifles, several hundred handguns, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, surface-to-air missiles and the plastic explosive Semtex from the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi. There were four successful shipments between 1985 and 1986, three of these trips were carried out by the trawler Casamara and a fourth by the oil-rig replenisher Villa. All said, they brought in 110 tons of weaponry. A fifth arms cargo on board the coaster Eksund was confiscated by the French Navy in 1987. Reportedly, Gaddafi donated enough weapons to arm the equivalent of two infantry battalions.

What did the I.R.A. do with its material? They came very close to killing PM Thatcher and her cabinet in the 1984 Brighton hotel bombing. They did well over £1 billion in damage in the 1992 Baltic_Exchange bombing, 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, and 1996 Manchester bombing, to name just the biggest bombings I know of.

In short I think it deserves more mention than the remark that Gaddafi "fund[ed] revolutionary militants across the world." (see below) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your first point is that the sentence "... he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011 ..." is not worthy of being in the opening paragraph of the introduction. If we were to extend that logic to other articles devoted to political leaders, then on the Barack Obama page we should be content to state that "he ruled America" rather than that he was "... President of the United States". The sentence which you find objectionable states – clearly and simply – what Gaddafi's official position was, and the full name of the nation-state in which that position existed. I cannot personally see how such vitally important information could be anything but lead paragraph material! If you are arguing that we should be treating Gaddafi's Wikipedia page differently than that of other world leaders (for whatever reason), then that would be a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But who gave Gadaffi those titles? Who says he's/he was head of Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya rather than the Libyan Republic? Gadaffi does/did. So for outsiders, a simple "he ruled" for the first second sentence should suffice. As for Obama, the US has a 200-year-old constitution. There are a lot more people and institutions involved in US titles.

Your second point appears to be arguing that we should include information on Yvonne Fletcher's murder and Libya's funding of the IRA in the introduction of this article. I have critiqued this idea elsewhere in this thread, and shown it to be rooted in Anglocentrism. You then comment that such events "might very well merit some mention in the article". This perplexes me, because if you read the article you will see that information on both events is indeed included here, at the appropriate chronological juncture. I believe strongly that information on these events should be in the article; my objection is to them being included in the introductory paragraphs, as if they were major occurances in Gaddafi's life and the history of modern Libya, which they quite simply aren't. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please excuse my sloppiness. "might very well merit some mention in the article" The article mentions both. So that leaves the wording.

Diplomatic relations also broke down with the U.K., after Libyan diplomats were accused of shooting dead Yvonne Fletcher, a British policewoman stationed outside their London embassy, in April 1984

Was there more than just accusation? The official inquest into Fletcher's death concluded she had been killed by shots from a Sterling submachine gun fired from the first floor of the Libyan embassy. (quoting wiki article on the murder) In 1999, Libya admitted "general responsibility" for her killing, and agreed to pay compensation to her family. The authorities in Tripoli also agreed to cooperate with detectives from the anti-terrorist branch investigating the case. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/27/newsid_2502000/2502565.stm

The article also says
Meanwhile, Libya stepped up its support for anti-western militants such as the Provisional IRA.
Not just "fund[ed] revolutionary militants across the world", as I erroneously stated.
I suggest that the sentence needs something more to say about what the support amounted to, and what its consequences were. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Midnightblueowl completely in regard to the title. His title, as extravagant as it was, was his legal title, and it needs to be included in the lead for accuracy's sake. In addition, I understand why the Yvonne Fletcher and IRA stuff might not be considered lead-worthy material. I still feel that it's important in a detailed discussion of his foreign policy, or in an article on his regime, but this is a biographical piece, and it's hard to justify its inclusion in the lead. I am open to hearing BoogaLouie's comments on this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The lede is quote long (almost as long as the lede for Mao Zedong and about as long as VI Lenin's, rather more significant historical leaders) and talks about Gaddafi's titles twice

• In the first paragraph of the lede:

Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brother Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan civil war. and

• in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:

Becoming Chairman of the governing Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), he dissolved the monarchy and proclaimed the Republic. Ruling by decree, he implemented measures to remove what he viewed as foreign imperialist influence from Libya, and strengthened ties to Arab nationalist governments. Intent on pushing Libya toward "Islamic socialism", he introduced sharia as the basis for the legal system and nationalized the oil industry, using the increased revenues to bolster the military, implement social programs and fund revolutionary militants across the world. In 1973 he initiated a "Popular Revolution" with the formation of General People's Committees (GPCs), a system of direct democracy, but retained personal control over major decisions. He outlined his Third International Theory that year, publishing these ideas in The Green Book.

In 1977, he dissolved the Republic and created the Jamahiriya, a "state of the masses" part-governed by GPCs. Officially adopting a symbolic role in governance, he retained power as military commander-in-chief and head of the Revolutionary Committees responsible for policing and suppressing opponents.

If you shorten the second sentence: Taking power in a 1969 coup d'etat, he ruled Libya until 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan civil war.

You still have all the detail in the second and third paragraph --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I strongly disagree with this suggestion. Gaddafi might not have had the global significance of Mao or Lenin, but he was still a very important part of 20th century history, and in particular of modern Arab history, thereby warranting this level of detail in the introduction. I have already tried to cut down the introduction to its bare bones, leaving nothing superfluous; what is left, I deem absolutely essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does the civil war and his death matter?

I also see no reason why Gaddafi's comments during the civil war and subsequent death somehow mean that there is less need for the "general level of length/detail" in this article; does an individual's death mean that what they achieved in life somehow becomes less significant?

Maybe this is kind of obvious, but if you bill yourself as a revolutionary leader and founder of a system of direct democracy, but then respond to a civilian uprising for greater freedom, not with offers of dialog but with threats to hunt down rebels "street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe",
and then (admittedly with the help of foreign airpower) are defeated and killed by those you promised to hunt down street by street etc. …
well then your claim to fame is greatly diminished, it would seem to me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right; indeed, I don't really disagree with you. But we are not judges of reputation. We are contributors with a goal of creating accurate content. A person who ruled a country for forty years inevitably did quite a bit with said country; it is important that this information be described somewhere. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't there have to be some judgement by editors in a wikipedia article? i.e. the more important the figure or issue the longer the article? Sure we have to leave judgement to posterity, but according to my calculations the text source for this article 140 kb compared to 147 kb for Gamal Abdel Nasser's article. i.e. the article is huge. Surely no one would argue Gaddafi has had anything like the impact of Nasser. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaddafi's "claim to fame" was certainly not diminished by his overthrow and death. These events gained global media coverage and scrutiny, with public outpourings of grief in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and public celebration in many parts of the Arab world. In death, he remained as famous, if not more famous, than in life. I disagree with your assertion that your argument here is "kind of obvious"; with due respect, I think it is illogical. Although you have not expressed it clearly, I believe that what you are trying to convey is that Gaddafi's Third International Theory is of less relevance now, because in later life he both negated many of his claims to being a great advocate of democracy with his violent actions, and because his Jamahariyah system was overthrown. I agree that Third International Theory is less relevant to the world today than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. But this article is about a historical figure, and is therefore about discussing the past. For this reason a discussion of the establishment of the Jamahariyah and his ideological ideas are incredibly important things to have in the introduction. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I have read through BoogaLouie's concerns. I don't mean to ignore them, but I do feel that the length of the article is appropriate given the variety of issues involving or instigated by Gaddafi. I agree with Midnightblueowl that the jamahiriya content is important to the lead; even though he created the titles, they were just as "official" in Libya as similar ones elsewhere (President, Shah, etc.). Regarding neutrality, I am fairly unconcerned. Nothing in the article leads me to believe there is pro-Gaddafi bias to the piece; it is not an obituary, and reflects an appropriately neutral stance. I am inclined to pass the article once I have read through all of Midnightblueowl's responses to my comments (I have replied to the more recent ones), and will post a checklist when I am finished. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot comprehend the argument that since Gaddafi didn't have the same influence on the world as Nasser and Lenin did, he doesn't deserve a long article... While there is rule on lengths of an article, there is not rules on how long articles should be based on importance.. Secondly, most articles on famous individuals "cheat" there way through. To take one example, Early life of Joseph Stalin.... --TIAYN (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this "cheat" there way through, but you may be right that wikipedia rules do not encouraging varying the length of an article by importance. Which I think is too bad but I'll abide by the rules. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Article passed

I've passed the article. I'm satisfied with the nominator's revisions, and the article meets the GA criteria - compliance with MoS, proper sourcing, proper image use and copyright status, etc. I am comfortable with article weight and length, and do not feel that there is a NPOV problem. On the contrary, the length of the article and the details included within probably add a great deal of neutrality to the article, as the nominator and others have pointed out. I apologize for the excessive amount of time it took to complete this review, and understand that it was most likely a frustrating experience for the nominator. Again, my apologies to him, and my thanks for his work in responding and addressing the concerns I listed above. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

adding to personal life section

Made some changes and additions here. Got rid of the statement "Gaddafi was a womaniser ...." replacing it with "Other sources describe Gaddafi as "extraordinarily vain", and a womaniser. ..." ("vain" comes from the text Described by Blundy and Lycett as "extraordinarily vain",) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted information

A fairly large amount (-1,860 bytes) of uncomplimentary information about Gaddafi (including accusations of rape) was deleted here under the edit summary "moving sentences to human rights abuse section." But they were deleted, not moved anywhere. And there is no human rights abuse section in the article.

If someone thinks the text violates some wikipedia policy then we can hash that out. Saying information was moved when it was deleted is a falsehood. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, I was editing the article. I had saved several incremental edits. At around 6 am on 3 Dec, or maybe 2 Dec, I was unable to make any edits to Wikipedia article namespace. I saved the entire section to my sandbox. I will replace and repair now. Please see my reply to your note in my talk page, in this section for further details. I apologize for causing concern! I am a Jewish woman, and am not trying to conceal the allegations regarding rape. I am sorry. I have no objections to most of the content. I just wanted to make it more current, as you can see from the edit log on Dec 2, 2013. Some sections were written as though Gaddafi were still alive. Also, there were chronological errors, as the Colonel's biography was written in 1987, thus could not be used as a source for events that occurred 10 to 20 years later. --FeralOink (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but it certainly looked a little ... suspicious. -BoogaLouie (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I promise that I will never, EVER mess with things that I don't have an adequate understanding of! OMG, as we say on Reddit. I have been totally immersed in the Gaddafi-verse for the past three days. I only visited the page because of a StackOverflow regex question and answer about the multiple spellings of his name. The historical, religious, cultural and geopolitical milieau of Libya, the continent of Africa and the Middle East are VERY complicated for the not-well-informed! BoogaLouie, you have been extraordinarily patient, kind and even-tempered. The most rational, fair minded Wikipedians that I have encountered are Norwegian and German, particularly German chemists and electrical engineers. Until now. You have been as fair to me as they are. And so has everyone else who edits this page. Thank you! If you ever need any assistance with financial markets or securitization edits, please feel free to summon me. I love doing due diligence too. They know that already, on the "paid Wikipedia editing tribunal" page :o)

I am chatty. I'll get to the point. I didn't add a human rights abuse section, as I realized that I was in over my head. This page takes forever to load every time I try to make an edit. Makes me wonder if I have been Drupal hell-banned, even though MediaWiki doesn't use Drupal! The only item of substance that I removed was the forced cocaine portion, as I couldn't find a source anywhere that referenced it. However, I replaced it with the more authoritative ICC prosecutor's statement about the use of rape of women as warfare by the Gaddafi-ists. The article from the Times of India is a sensationalized rehash of the ones from the UK, so I removed one of the ref's to it, but left another, as a compromise. I hope that is okay? One last observation: Eventually, the citation style to those two British biographers who wrote their book in 1987 is likely to cause a problem. I just wanted to mention that, although it isn't an issue at the moment. It would be a nightmare to change or convert (shudder). Again, thank you. Rest assured, I learned my lesson this time! (I don't know everything!!!) --FeralOink (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ah fugetaboutit. I'm really not that patient, kind or even-tempered. Thank you for working on whatever StackOverflow regex is, and the details you attend to that help make wikipedia more readable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)