Talk:Killing of Muammar Gaddafi/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Protect
Can this article please be semi-protected it is being constantly vandalized.
- Please see WP:RPP in the future. Will do now. Buggie111 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks --196.15.209.253 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Venezuela
Although I'm sure this article will be restructured greatly, I thought this might need mentioning... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15387872 The relevant phrase: Not all world leaders are giving today's events the thumbs-up. According to AFP news agency, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told reporters: "We shall remember Gaddafi our whole lives as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr. They assassinated him. It is another outrage." I thought this might need putting in, as it is remarkably different from most of the other views on there... Even if it is... well... odd. LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Done - I added it to Death of Muammar Gaddafi#South America. Chávez and Gaddafi were friends, so it would be right to add it to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Luke (Talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed Conflicting Info in Lede
I removed the phrase "by rebels" so now instead of saying he was killed by rebels it just says he was killed. I understand that he was probably killed by rebels but further down in the article there is the suggestion that he was killed in crossfire, which raises the possibility of death by friendly fire. I think we need to not make a definitive statement that he was "killed by rebels" until it emerges that that is what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Will change. Buggie111 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
NATO
I removed:
*
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO commanders recommended that the Libya air campaign should now be brought to an end. The formal decision will be made by this inter-governmental military alliance, when it is taken by the North Atlantic Council, representing Nato member states.
as it is both uncited and does not link the recommendation to the death of Gaddafi. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
Didn't nailing Qadafi come from acting on a tip?
Someone keeps removing the following:
On the morning of 20 October, the rebels acted on a tip posted to a pro-NTC fan-page of Facebook, forwarded by a student from Manhattan, KS eight days earlier, from an Algerian informant[1]. After realizing that the rebels were about to discover his location based on this tip, Gaddafi made a last-ditch attempt to escape as the town...
The tip was posted to an NTC-run fanpage on October 12th. They nailed Qadafi eight days later. Therefore, would it not be plausible that finding Qadafi was from the information taken from this tip? (Why/why not?)
Thank you, --98.190.13.3 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was widely speculated that Gaddafi was in Sirte - even I who rarely watch the news knew that. It was also widely known that he had underground bunkers in Tripoli. I don't think a tip that he was "underground in Sirte" would have really been of much value, especially with no provenance. Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
Name: Gaddafi/Qaddafi
Currently the page is mostly referring to him as Gaddafi, but occasionally as Qaddafi. It'd look rather better if it was all one or the other. Does Wikipedia have a stance/convention on what name to use for him? -- Draxar (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- All the articles are titled with Gaddafi, such as Libya under Gaddafi and the Mummar Gaddafi. I suggest we follow the article title's lead and name him Gaddafi, and change accordingly if the article is retitled. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Popular Culture
There should be a section within the article for the prediction of his death on Second Chance. --What was this guy eating? (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- No there shouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- lol... that is kinda interesting, maybe justifies a sentence somewhere, but certainly doesn't justify a section. I agree with HiLo. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look I get what you 2 are saying but nobody knew that he would die this year when the Arab Spring began. Their prediction was for July and now it's October so this is a event nobody thought that would happen as it was a joke on the show. I think adding this into the article would probably be a good source. After all with his regime lasting decades we didn't know how long he will remain in power of Libya until we saw it now. Overall I stand by my opinion and it should be added within in the article.
- lol... that is kinda interesting, maybe justifies a sentence somewhere, but certainly doesn't justify a section. I agree with HiLo. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
--What was this guy eating? (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi seemed fine on this video
A new footage of Gaddafe has been released and he was certainly captured in good condition. Something happened later. See here. --Lecen (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Good condition" is a bit of a stretch, especially considering the amount of internal injuries that shrapnel from an airstrike can inflict. But I agree, my feeling is that he was probably either killed or allowed to bleed out before he reached Misrata hospital. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Didn't they find him in a drainage ditch after his convoy was attacked? I think that was the last story I read about the situation today. Chase (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Body temporarily displayed
There have been some reports of his corpse being displayed in a freezer while lying down on a mattress. The subsequent treatment of the corpse should probably be included in the article and is somewhat significant like the treatment of Mussolini body after he was assassinated. 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuMaNuMa (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Notes
What's the point of this article having a separate "notes" section in the current format? I can't see any difference between them. The only way that I can remember seeing two different types of notes is if one has citations to sources and the other has side comments, such as I've done at St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Egypt, Ohio). Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, no real point; I'll change it.--~TPW 15:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
America vs. International
America is part of the International community, and the corresponding reaction from President Obama should be grouped together with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.158.10 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. 204.65.34.129 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Sound right to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.240.238 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed categories
I've removed several categories due to the fact that the cause of death is still undetermined. At least wait until the autopsy is done. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"Assassination" NOT an "execution" ("execution" is a legal term, and Gaddafi got NO due process)
Per the IP address's changing of the term in the "Implications" section, from "assassination" to "execution", I changed it back, because it was NOT an "execution", but an "assassination". Let's stop the POV. And slants and biased propaganda. "Execution" is a legal term, and like it or not, Gaddafi got NO due process, and was arguably murdered....it was an assassination NOT an "execution. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, it's ASSASSINATION, not just a "death" in general from something like heart disease. The point is that it's the fact that he was KILLED (not just simply that he "died" in general) that has "implications". Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have reverted. The word we will use is "killing" or "death." These are neutral and accurate terms used in the mass media (N.Y. Times, The Guardian.
- "Assassination" is not a term used in the mass media and does not fit this situation. An assassination is a murder that takes place "suddenly or secretively...premeditatedly and treacherously." Plainly - Gaddafi's death was none of these. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, you might have a point (with the exact definition of "assassination", and also sources). But "death" is WAY TOO GENERAL, and does not make the actual point. That he was KILLED...not just that he "died" in general. In other words, not just that he simply died of old age or cancer or something. But that he was actually taken out. And that is kind of important, in the "Implications" point and section. So I'm changing it from assassination to "killing". Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Death" is how the articles on single subjects are usually titled, even when it's found that it's not a death by natural causes. For example, Michael Jackson's death was determined to be a homicide, but we didn't rename it Killing of Michael ackson. Only when the death is a suicide or murder is it titled as such. For example, it's called Death of Osama bin Laden, even though he was taken out by American troops, which is similar to the point you're making about how the term is too general and implies old age/cancer. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let's get real here. Bin Laden was murdered too. He was unarmed and gave no resistance (despite what liars and spinners for Obama say). He was murdered or assassinated.
- As for Gaddafi, it's EVEN MORE obvious...because we have video footage that CLEARLY (without a smidgen of a doubt) shows he was without a doubt MURDERED. He was bloody and beaten and dragged, begging for his life, and saying "please don't kill me." He got NO due process whatsoever, and was just murdered by rebel thugs. Period. That's NOT even a POV statement, but just an obvious point of fact. Whether we "like" that fact or not.
- My arabic friend told me that Gaddafis exact words were "what you're going to do is haram" (ie forbidden by the sharia law).
- Gaddafi was murdered, and anyone who denies that is in la la land, or just so biased against or hates Gaddafi so much, or doesn't mind that kind of thing, that the person can't see or think straight, or be honest about it. Whether Gaddafi "deserved" it or not is not the question. The point is that the thing that makes it more of an "implication" is NOT simply that he "died" or his "death", but that he was TAKEN OUT...that he was "killed". And even "Neutrality" said that sources have said "killing of Gaddafi" also, not just "the death". So the compromise is now "killing" in that section. I'm not talking about the name of the article, but simply wording in a section. Again though, when you say that Bin Laden was not murdered, and especially that Gaddafi was not "murdered", it makes me wonder where your neutrality and honesty are.
- If you want to dispute Bin Laden's case, that's one thing (though Michael Moore is honest enough to admit he was murdered), but to dispute the OBVIOUS murder of Gaddafi is quite another. The video doesn't lie. He was running away, then captured, then beaten and shot, as he was begging for his life. That's murder. Period. With no arrest or due process or trial. A lynching. He may have deserved it, but that makes it no less a murder. A murderer was murdered, that's all. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're reading too deeply into my comment. I didn't comment on any aspect whether Bin Laden or Gaddafi were murdered or not, merely what the general policy on Wikipedia seems to be for titling "death" articles, which somewhat missed your point, which was specifically about the wording in one specific section, not about the title of the article overall, for which I apologize. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Death" is how the articles on single subjects are usually titled, even when it's found that it's not a death by natural causes. For example, Michael Jackson's death was determined to be a homicide, but we didn't rename it Killing of Michael ackson. Only when the death is a suicide or murder is it titled as such. For example, it's called Death of Osama bin Laden, even though he was taken out by American troops, which is similar to the point you're making about how the term is too general and implies old age/cancer. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, you might have a point (with the exact definition of "assassination", and also sources). But "death" is WAY TOO GENERAL, and does not make the actual point. That he was KILLED...not just that he "died" in general. In other words, not just that he simply died of old age or cancer or something. But that he was actually taken out. And that is kind of important, in the "Implications" point and section. So I'm changing it from assassination to "killing". Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi was once asked his thoughts about the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He responded that it was not an assassination but an execution. I say follow the Leader's lead. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- So you agree think Answar Sadat was justly executed? What kind of evil monster are you? The death penalty is an atrocity, and primitive thinkers like you and Gaddafi should be ignored.65.0.96.48 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just passing on Gaddafi's response to a similar question. Why don't you post an angry talk page comment about it? 24.22.217.162 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Execution is not only a legal term. There is the concept of a summary execution.65.0.96.48 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. That was the meaning I was going for initially. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Summary executions are illegal on their face and sick. But even this barbaric lunacy does not qualify for that word either. Those were rebel maniac thugs, with no legal authority to simply murder anyone, either from Geneva Conventions or even within the country. It was an assassination, not even an "execution". It was murder. And it doesn't matter what Gaddafi said some time ago about "Sadat" obvious assassination and murder. Gaddafi's words are not the issue, the facts are the issue. Gaddafi was alive, unarmed, and begging for his life, and was shot in the head anyway, by some rebel schmuck. Murder should not be winked at because of political nonsense. Or because it's against someone we don't like. Obama is arguably a murderer himself. Cloaked in political or "war" protection cop-outs. It's whatever. Again though, this was not even a "summary execution" (which is savage in itself), because those thugs had no legal authority or actual warrant. Especially when Gaddafi just a couple of years ago was shaking hands with Obama, and McCain, and also how Gaddafi was never arrested in 23 years for whatever they THINK he did over Lockerbee, because why wasn't Gaddafi ever arrested in the steps of the UN? Or by Obama years ago? Because nothing was ever proven or could be proven. If so, take him to trial. Oh, but you can't, cuz he was MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD BY BARBARIC PSYCHOS. If Gaddafi was a murderer, then a murderer was murdered, with no due process or sanity. Not cool. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, this is getting out of hand. This is not a forum for discussing out personal views, debating, etc. It is not up for us to decide what to call it based on what we think is right.justified, etc. If you can't handle that, you don't belong editing Wikipedia. The only things that matter are the preponderance of reliable sources and existing wiki policy and precedent. You don't have to like Wiki policy, but this is not the place to voice your displeasure on it. "Death of.." is the correct format. Death is a general term, yes. But that's the point. It's a uniform term that covers many potential situations. That's WHY it's the correct form to use for these situations. It's what we've used for other articles like this. Whether your personal POV thinks it's not senstaionalist enough is irrelevant. That's not how we make decisions here.204.65.34.129 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're erecting a straw-man, because you're not understanding me or even arguing against me. I said it's fine that the word "death" is in the NAME of the article. If you read through what I was saying, you'd see that I was referring to the word "killing" being used more precisely IN A CERTAIN SECTION of the article. And that was already settled a while ago. I agree, the article should be named "Death of Muammar Gaddafi". That was never my argument, on this specific section. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, well said. Vilĉjo (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- And thus we should use "death" for the title of this article, as we do for virtually all articles about the events surrounding and directly related to the point at which a famous person ceased to live. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the straw-man. Because I'm not arguing against that, as far as the title of the article. I was referring to the wording in a specific SECTION of the article, which was already settled a while ago now. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- And thus we should use "death" for the title of this article, as we do for virtually all articles about the events surrounding and directly related to the point at which a famous person ceased to live. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, this is getting out of hand. This is not a forum for discussing out personal views, debating, etc. It is not up for us to decide what to call it based on what we think is right.justified, etc. If you can't handle that, you don't belong editing Wikipedia. The only things that matter are the preponderance of reliable sources and existing wiki policy and precedent. You don't have to like Wiki policy, but this is not the place to voice your displeasure on it. "Death of.." is the correct format. Death is a general term, yes. But that's the point. It's a uniform term that covers many potential situations. That's WHY it's the correct form to use for these situations. It's what we've used for other articles like this. Whether your personal POV thinks it's not senstaionalist enough is irrelevant. That's not how we make decisions here.204.65.34.129 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The BBC news used 'summary execution' so that is one argument in favour of the term.
Can 'lynching' be ruled out as a term?
There seems to be an 'absence of a generic term' to describe deaths by 'deaths by deliberate violence of notable people' which are neither execution (Saddam Hussain, Imre Nagy etc) nor assassination. (It would be possible for a notable person to be murdered - the person carrying out the act is not aware that they are killing #a specific person of note# - a Polish ex-PM a while back, by robbers.) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Chronological order of cellphone videos
Is there anywhere we can link to that presents a much clearer chronology of his death? I have seen several cell phone videos depicting various c. 30 second moments of his pre and and post death experience, but none seem to clearly indicate their correct chronological sequence. If we could get a posting of them in order they were taken it would make it much, much clearer what exactly happened to him. Thanks! --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the ref to the "coord" template, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15390980 for a timeline. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Chile's position
I'm not an english user, but this link has the Chile official potition in the matter. Rakela (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Who really cares? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- To put that somewhat more tactfully, what's notable about it, thus justifying its inclusion? If you see the above section, I'm really asking the same question of every predictable response. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The page isn't displaying, or else I'd add it. Personally, I think it's very interesting to know the opinion of the only South American member state of the OECD on developments in one of the most significant OPEC countries. It's telling as to Chile's relationship with the Western world versus the vestiges of NAM represented by the likes of BRICS and leftist-ruled countries in South America, Africa, and East Asia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I got the link to work, but the date on this release is 16 September. It's not a reaction to Gaddafi's death, it's a reaction to the UNGA vote to accredit the NTC's representative. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Please add the type of car: a Toyota truck
This is regarding this sentence in the article:
"In a video of his arrest[notes 1] he can be seen sitting on the hood of a car, held by rebel fighters.[14]"
As seen in this video, he is on the hood of a Toyota truck, which has a certain significance for those who know about the Chadian-Libyan Toyota War - (see here, and please ignore the stupid title) - the video starts at 0:06 and the emblem is clearly visible at 1:14 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxq2RW6gm2w
68.174.111.195 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"International reaction" section is pointless
It tells us that leaders around the world have said exactly what we would have expected them to say. In ten years time (always a good test of notability), nobody will care what Julia Gillard in Australia said. The whole section serves no purpose and should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a big problem for Wikipedia that events like this attract the kinds of editors who don't even seem to be aware the Discussion page exists. Since the above post, there's been over 20 changes to the section in question, with no comment here at all. I'm wondering if a bold delete is appropriate. It may finally get some attention here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not appropriate, because that's sourced material and it's common practice to do this on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Being sourced does not make it notable. What purpose does the section serve? What about the fact that it's almost entirely predictable? What about acknowledging the points I made? What about Julia Gillard? What about the fact that this page is for Discussion? Do please try a little harder? HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have often wondered about these sections that border on "in popular culture". Probably the best strategy , though is to wait until the event is no longer news, then consolidate into a well crafted paragraph, outlining the broad reaction and notable exceptions, such as that of Chavez mentioned above. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
- No, it's not appropriate, because that's sourced material and it's common practice to do this on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with HiLo48. I came to this article to learn about the details of his death. What some talking heads from around the world said about it serves no educational purpose. Van Vidrine (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think many will find it educational. Also, a world leader is not considered a talking head by the traditional definition of simply being a pundit (though from all the simple soundbites, it often seems that way). As it stands this section is a bit like the reaction to JFK's assassination article. Although, obviously far less about mourning. We have statements from officials and that will probably be of interest in the future. It should probably be pared down as so many of them are similar. I strongly advocate for keeping the Vatican's and the UN's response. Because both theoretically should advocate for peaceful solutions, it gives a great perspective on how unfazed much of the world was by the fact that he might have been killed not in accordance with the rules of engagement.Redsxfenway (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reactions of various heads of state and world leaders to a national leader's assassination is encyclopedic, since one assassination can affect future events in other countries. Some leaders are happy, Chavez is unhappy about it. Rebel movements in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain may be inspired by it to increase their struggles. Syrian military defectors in particular appear to be moving from a peaceful movement toward military resistance. Arab countries align either in favor of the status quo of authoritarian dictators and princes, or in line with the democracy movement. The slaying of Gadaffi is punctuation in the Iraq Revolution, and the views of other nations' leaders give some indication of where the Arab world goes from here. Edison (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most have said "what we would expect them to say", but not all. Some have said it was "sad", and an "outrage". This has international implications, so stating what international leaders have said or done in response to this is at least somewhat relevant and notable. And encyclopedic. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then include just those who didn't say "what we would expect them to say". The section is otherwise pointless. Just filler. How does what Julia Gillard of Australia said affect anything? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most have said "what we would expect them to say", but not all. Some have said it was "sad", and an "outrage". This has international implications, so stating what international leaders have said or done in response to this is at least somewhat relevant and notable. And encyclopedic. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And another "reaction" has just been added, still with no constructive justification here. I propose to delete the lot, and ask editors to explain the notability of each entry BEFORE re-adding. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, for starters, I'm going to delete those responses that are entirely predictable. Such responses are not notable, and hence do not belong here. If anyone wants to put one back, they should come here and explain what's notable about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Its ironic, I came to this page specifically to see the reactions of world leaders. Not all are positive. Im glad I read them and saved before you guys decided to delete this information. Metafis (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- This information will NOT be "deleted". At the very most it may be made into a separate article, as is sometimes done. But completely deleted just because "HiLo" wants it to be? And because he "does not like it", against Wikipedia policy and normalcy? Ah, no. The matter is encyclopedic, relevant, and sourced. The info will never actually be "deleted". Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am quite sick of you saying that someone who explains why they have a different opinion from you is doing something simply because they don't like it. I am acting in good faith. By accusing others of simplistic, emotional behaviour, you are not. Discuss the words people actually say, not a total misrepresentation of them! HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you notice, though, I was not the only editor on your section here saying that the "Reactions" section is note-worthy enough to stay, and encyclopedic. You have failed to produce one valid WIKIPEDIA reason that can't stand scrutiny for its removal. I mean, yeah, you may think it's trivial and "words to be expected", and not all that notable, but so what? That means that YOU "don't like it", because of those reasons. The point is we assess what is "notable" if the thing is copiously or separately sourced. Also, it's arguably relevant, when a global event takes place, what the world leaders and peoples think about it or what they would do about it, in response. Also, what you forget is more stuff can be added to those "reactions" later if the reactions get more serious than just words. But even the "to be expected words" other readers may appreciate (as Metafis clearly said) the International reactions section, and even looked SPECIFICALLY for that! Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- We DO NOT assess what is "notable" if the thing is copiously or separately sourced. Hollywood hookups and movie star babies are widely reported, and hence multiply sourced, but they are not notable. I asked several times what made the comments of Julia Gillard of Australia notable, and received no response. If anyone now wants to argue the notability of a particular foreign leader's comment, that's fine by me, but the mass of predictable responses that was previously there added nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hashem sfarim is absolutely right. This all boils down to a big fat case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not justification for removing this information. Why do you want to strip it out? Your only answer seems to be, "I don't think it matters!" Well, unfortunately for you, it does matter, or it wouldn't be widely reported information. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS, and there's no valid reason not to include this information. And if you try to delete sourced information from this article just because it doesn't interest you personally, I'm going to restore it. That's not how Wikipedia works. It's not just for one person, it's for everybody. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations. You have just successfully ignored almost every word I wrote in my last post. One question for you. Why is Julia Gillard's comment notable? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kudzu1 - that reversion was unilateral and stupid. I have explained that sourcing alone does not make something notable. You have not responded. Given that being sourced was the reason for your edit, I shall revert. You MUST show why it is NOTABLE material. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your deletion of that content in the first place was unilateral. I restored it because you lacked consensus to make that change. I'm not going to sit on Wikipedia all day waiting for you to respond; for all I know, you're on a completely opposite time zone, and I have a job and a life like most people on Earth do. I've registered my opposition to your proposal, I am an active editor on this page, and under Wikipedia guidelines, you thus have no consensus to delete reliable and sourced information from this article. Moreover, I'm not the only editor to have said s/he opposes removing this information. Your argument is entirely fallacious and quite frankly I'm offended by your gross intellectual dishonesty in claiming I've done something wrong by reverting your deletion of sourced material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kudzu1 - that reversion was unilateral and stupid. I have explained that sourcing alone does not make something notable. You have not responded. Given that being sourced was the reason for your edit, I shall revert. You MUST show why it is NOTABLE material. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations. You have just successfully ignored almost every word I wrote in my last post. One question for you. Why is Julia Gillard's comment notable? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hashem sfarim is absolutely right. This all boils down to a big fat case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not justification for removing this information. Why do you want to strip it out? Your only answer seems to be, "I don't think it matters!" Well, unfortunately for you, it does matter, or it wouldn't be widely reported information. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS, and there's no valid reason not to include this information. And if you try to delete sourced information from this article just because it doesn't interest you personally, I'm going to restore it. That's not how Wikipedia works. It's not just for one person, it's for everybody. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- We DO NOT assess what is "notable" if the thing is copiously or separately sourced. Hollywood hookups and movie star babies are widely reported, and hence multiply sourced, but they are not notable. I asked several times what made the comments of Julia Gillard of Australia notable, and received no response. If anyone now wants to argue the notability of a particular foreign leader's comment, that's fine by me, but the mass of predictable responses that was previously there added nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you notice, though, I was not the only editor on your section here saying that the "Reactions" section is note-worthy enough to stay, and encyclopedic. You have failed to produce one valid WIKIPEDIA reason that can't stand scrutiny for its removal. I mean, yeah, you may think it's trivial and "words to be expected", and not all that notable, but so what? That means that YOU "don't like it", because of those reasons. The point is we assess what is "notable" if the thing is copiously or separately sourced. Also, it's arguably relevant, when a global event takes place, what the world leaders and peoples think about it or what they would do about it, in response. Also, what you forget is more stuff can be added to those "reactions" later if the reactions get more serious than just words. But even the "to be expected words" other readers may appreciate (as Metafis clearly said) the International reactions section, and even looked SPECIFICALLY for that! Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am quite sick of you saying that someone who explains why they have a different opinion from you is doing something simply because they don't like it. I am acting in good faith. By accusing others of simplistic, emotional behaviour, you are not. Discuss the words people actually say, not a total misrepresentation of them! HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hashem sfarim - you reverted my constructive change to the article, insisting that I await consensus here, but you won't even bloody well discuss. How the hell can we achieve consensus to your satisfaction when you won't participate? Why should I not revert to my preferred form of the article again? And, why is Julia Gillard's comment notable? HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I HAVE commented here a number of times, and YOU keep unilaterally removing huge segments, with no consensus, and where most editors disagree. As far as Australian prime minister, well she expressed Australian support for Libya's National Transitional Council in the transitional phase. That may be significant. Nothing has been settled yet, but you act as if it has been, and you can on your own delete whole paragraphs, even though most disagree with you so far. Please stop edit-warring, and wait a little longer for possible consensus. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, seconding this. You can say someone isn't discussing if they haven't bothered to express their opinion on the Talk page and they just keep blatantly edit-warring. Both of us, as well as other editors, have said we object to this change and explained our rationale as to why. While maybe in 2021, people will look at this article and think, "Who the hell cares what some Australian prime minister said?" maybe by 2021, Julia Gillard will be a household name. Read WP:CRYSTALBALL, HiLo. As for now, Gillard's reaction is notable because she's a leader of a major world economy, and her opinion is relevant in the field of international relations. It's not as though Libya is an insignificant speck of a country, and frankly, even if it were, it would matter to someone. It isn't hurting anybody to have this information on Wikipedia; it's clearly cited in WP:RS; and it contributes to the depth of knowledge in this article to know which world leaders reacted to Gaddafi's death and how they responded. HiLo, you may not care about Julia Gillard's take, but other people do. It isn't not notable simply because you find it uninteresting or predictable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- And to go along with that, it was also in the ref (that I added to the paragraph), that Australian Prime Minster said she was ready to help Libya's new leaders work towards peace and stability in the wake of the former leader's death. That seems at least a little relevant. And also, I'm sure that some Australians (at the very least) would care about that to some degree. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that this issue has been discussed multiple times, and over many other such articles where such an Reactions sectioned is believed or perceived to be relevant to the article. As such, it is quite difficult to arrive at a common uniform consensus about the utility of such a section. Different people are bound to have different opinions about it, in much the same way as each one of us will perceive any other wikipedia article as either great or worthless. That said, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia, we as editors are tasked with choosing information that is reliably sourced and verified, and relevant to the article. It is not our call to decide what is 'important' or what is not. Finally according to WP:NPOV, it is essential to represent all facts objectively and without bias. Even if 99 out of 100 people feel Julia Gillard's reaction is unimportant, for the sake of the interest of the remaining one person, we must keep it, since Wikipedia follows NPOV.
- Check out my contributions on similar discussions on other articles, too. Talk:2011_Mumbai_bombings#Reactions_section_being_reformatted_unnecessarily & Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Norway_attacks Batram (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, seconding this. You can say someone isn't discussing if they haven't bothered to express their opinion on the Talk page and they just keep blatantly edit-warring. Both of us, as well as other editors, have said we object to this change and explained our rationale as to why. While maybe in 2021, people will look at this article and think, "Who the hell cares what some Australian prime minister said?" maybe by 2021, Julia Gillard will be a household name. Read WP:CRYSTALBALL, HiLo. As for now, Gillard's reaction is notable because she's a leader of a major world economy, and her opinion is relevant in the field of international relations. It's not as though Libya is an insignificant speck of a country, and frankly, even if it were, it would matter to someone. It isn't hurting anybody to have this information on Wikipedia; it's clearly cited in WP:RS; and it contributes to the depth of knowledge in this article to know which world leaders reacted to Gaddafi's death and how they responded. HiLo, you may not care about Julia Gillard's take, but other people do. It isn't not notable simply because you find it uninteresting or predictable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I have achieved my goal. I've finally had some editors make some constructive comments here. I do disagree with some of the perspectives, but at least some relevant comments have been made. We have moved on from the idiotic "It's notable because it's sourced" positions. Much better for Wikipedia. It's a shame I had to do something dramatic to achieve this better level of Discussion. Do try harder next time children.
As for "...this issue has been discussed multiple times", this article is less than two days old. It's a pretty pointless comment. You cannot demand that other editors have seen other discussions on other articles. You need to be able to make clear arguments here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- HiLo48 the reason I cited similar discussions that have been recorded for such disputes in case of other articles is to put across the point that most of the points you have been raising in this section have been more or less discussed elsewhere previously, too. I do not see how the age of the article has anything to do with the arguments for or against having a reactions section; unless you wish to claim that every time we have a new article with a Reactions section, we need to engage ourselves in the same old rhetoric discussions about whether to keep or delete. That is redundant, we are discussing Wiki Policy here, and not the merits and demerits of individual articles. Moreover, you are confusing yourself between Notable and Sourced, hence Wiki material which is the basic policy, and your version of Sourced, hence notable and Wiki material which is a gross misrepresentation. And please review the WP:N policy again - it clearly discusses notability of an "article", so unless someone decides to have a separate article for this reactions section, you may rest assured that Col Gaddafi's death is notable (enough) for Wikipedia. Finally, as a friendly word of advice, try not to be so patronizing towards your fellow Wiki Editors. Most of them have been around as long as you have, and a few even longer. Batram (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why should I not be patronising if they, in chorus, produce appalling arguments like "It's notable because it's sourced"? They may have been around for a while, but their logic is poor. As for your argument that these kinds of sections are normal, so you shouldn't have to explain every time, that too is silly, unless it is a formal policy. Otherwise, why should I believe you? Refer me to a formal policy on such things, and all would be fine. Claiming "We always do it this way", without giving even one example, is just arrogant conservatism. Never going to be a constructive response to those who ask "Why?", and try to make the world a better place? I still think it's a pointless section in its current form. As an Australian who generally quite admires the woman, I can assure you that Julia Gillard's comment is nothing more than predictable pap for local consumption. It doesn't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. Now cut it out with the personal attacks. You're getting way too worked up about this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- For those reading this and not looking at that Wikilink just used by Kudzul, it's yet another allegation that the reason behind what I am doing is that "I just don't like it". Then he accuses me of personal attacks. No-one has made more effort here to explain the logic of his position than me. The arguments against my efforts are shallow, and far more like personal attacks than anything I have posted. Finishing by implying that I should just shut up simply shows that he is unable to respond rationally and logically to my comments, so must resort to approaches that do not address the content of the article, nor the actual words I have posted, but rather, attack me. I feel even more certain about my position now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I actually said "it's sourced therefore it's notable", but rather "it's sourced AND notable". Just like the point Batram was making. You seem to be confusing or misunderstanding the arguments. Something is not necessarily "notable" simply because it's sourced. I agree. There are some handbags that have references for them, but I would not necessarily consider those handbags "notable". I said that the "Reactions" is (for the most part) notable AND sourced. Not "notable BECAUSE it's sourced." Although it's true that it HELPS notability when something is sourced or referenced, but not always. In this case here, the international reactions is arguably notable and important to some degree, (and Australia's I said that she said she was ready to help Libya's new leaders work towards peace and stability in the wake of the former leader's death. If she'll be actually "helping" Libya's new leaders, that might be important, and have significance politically and economically.) Anyway, again, to make it clear... You got it wrong when you thought I was saying only that it's sourced therefore notable. But rather it's sourced AND notable, and the references only bolstering up the "notability" not necessarily determining it, because, again, being tied to a very notable and very sourced event (the killing of Gaddafi etc etc) in the first place, would be part of it. These leaders are not commenting about pot-holes in the street, which could theoretically be "sourced" too, but I would never really consider all that "notable". But THIS EVENT is obviously (much) different. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. And forgive me, HiLo, but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be precisely your rationale here. You just don't think the reaction of world leaders is interesting. Well, it may not interest you, but it interests some people, and it's germane to the topic. As someone who is very interested in international relations, I personally find the reactions of governments to major events in other countries to be quite fascinating and informative. The fact that Gillard reacted the way she did suggests that Australia is less concerned with how the war ended than that Gaddafi is gone and Libya now has the opportunity to rebuild; Australia has positioned itself as an important trade partner for the Mediterranean region, taking an outsized role in its humanitarian aid delivery to Libya throughout the conflict (which earned it an early spot in the Libya Contact Group). As for my statement that the material is sourced, let me explain: you don't need to seek consensus to remove unsourced material from a page. But this material is sourced, so you do need to obtain consensus for that removal. You argue it isn't notable; I disagree; under WP guidelines, you can't just go ahead and remove the information because you don't find my argument compelling or don't think I've posted here frequently enough or whatever your excuse was. My argument isn't just that you shouldn't remove it because it's sourced, it's that I believe this material is notable for a number of reasons (which I've enumerated), and you can't remove it because it fulfills the two necessary criteria: it's backed by WP:RS AND other editors want to keep it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your narrow perspective here is preventing you from seeing the difference between someone validly disagreeing with you while presenting reasons for their views, and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Throwing the latter term around is NOT Discussion. It is an unhelpful and provocative insult. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Pff, that's a lot of nonsense Kudzu1. That something has the interest of a lot of people, does - of course - not make it encyclopedic. A lot of people are interested in personal details f.e., but human interest should stay out of wikipedia of course(for the most of it). Many people would have interest in a particular part of an article, but making that very long would violate NPOV, we should keep balance. The death of Gaddafi may have a far-reaching effect, but these reactions tell nothing about the effect. It remains to be seen, and we should stay patient. The sourced vs. unsourced rule comes out of your hat, I supposse. I don't think inventing rules is that good for Wiki.I totally agree with the people suggesting deletion of the section. We should delete it not in the last place because this is making wikipedia into wikinews. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Human interest", really? These are the reactions of world leaders to a fellow (former) world leader being dragged out of a drainpipe and shot. Those reactions are being included in the proper article and documented in a verifiable way. It's not like we're including what Kim Kardashian wrote on Twitter about Gaddafi dying, or what Stephen Harper said about that YouTube video with the baby monkey riding on a dog. Gaddafi ruled Libya for 42 years! And how foreign governments reacted to the news of his high-profile capture and killing isn't notable or worth documenting? Seriously? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not human interest, human interest is a great example why "what they want" is not always "what they should get". Wikipedia shouldn't describe the news, this "international reactions" paragraph is nothing more than news. People should go to news agencies for that. How these officials react is nice for wikinews though :-). Utnog La (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Human interest", really? These are the reactions of world leaders to a fellow (former) world leader being dragged out of a drainpipe and shot. Those reactions are being included in the proper article and documented in a verifiable way. It's not like we're including what Kim Kardashian wrote on Twitter about Gaddafi dying, or what Stephen Harper said about that YouTube video with the baby monkey riding on a dog. Gaddafi ruled Libya for 42 years! And how foreign governments reacted to the news of his high-profile capture and killing isn't notable or worth documenting? Seriously? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. And forgive me, HiLo, but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be precisely your rationale here. You just don't think the reaction of world leaders is interesting. Well, it may not interest you, but it interests some people, and it's germane to the topic. As someone who is very interested in international relations, I personally find the reactions of governments to major events in other countries to be quite fascinating and informative. The fact that Gillard reacted the way she did suggests that Australia is less concerned with how the war ended than that Gaddafi is gone and Libya now has the opportunity to rebuild; Australia has positioned itself as an important trade partner for the Mediterranean region, taking an outsized role in its humanitarian aid delivery to Libya throughout the conflict (which earned it an early spot in the Libya Contact Group). As for my statement that the material is sourced, let me explain: you don't need to seek consensus to remove unsourced material from a page. But this material is sourced, so you do need to obtain consensus for that removal. You argue it isn't notable; I disagree; under WP guidelines, you can't just go ahead and remove the information because you don't find my argument compelling or don't think I've posted here frequently enough or whatever your excuse was. My argument isn't just that you shouldn't remove it because it's sourced, it's that I believe this material is notable for a number of reasons (which I've enumerated), and you can't remove it because it fulfills the two necessary criteria: it's backed by WP:RS AND other editors want to keep it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I actually said "it's sourced therefore it's notable", but rather "it's sourced AND notable". Just like the point Batram was making. You seem to be confusing or misunderstanding the arguments. Something is not necessarily "notable" simply because it's sourced. I agree. There are some handbags that have references for them, but I would not necessarily consider those handbags "notable". I said that the "Reactions" is (for the most part) notable AND sourced. Not "notable BECAUSE it's sourced." Although it's true that it HELPS notability when something is sourced or referenced, but not always. In this case here, the international reactions is arguably notable and important to some degree, (and Australia's I said that she said she was ready to help Libya's new leaders work towards peace and stability in the wake of the former leader's death. If she'll be actually "helping" Libya's new leaders, that might be important, and have significance politically and economically.) Anyway, again, to make it clear... You got it wrong when you thought I was saying only that it's sourced therefore notable. But rather it's sourced AND notable, and the references only bolstering up the "notability" not necessarily determining it, because, again, being tied to a very notable and very sourced event (the killing of Gaddafi etc etc) in the first place, would be part of it. These leaders are not commenting about pot-holes in the street, which could theoretically be "sourced" too, but I would never really consider all that "notable". But THIS EVENT is obviously (much) different. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- For those reading this and not looking at that Wikilink just used by Kudzul, it's yet another allegation that the reason behind what I am doing is that "I just don't like it". Then he accuses me of personal attacks. No-one has made more effort here to explain the logic of his position than me. The arguments against my efforts are shallow, and far more like personal attacks than anything I have posted. Finishing by implying that I should just shut up simply shows that he is unable to respond rationally and logically to my comments, so must resort to approaches that do not address the content of the article, nor the actual words I have posted, but rather, attack me. I feel even more certain about my position now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. Now cut it out with the personal attacks. You're getting way too worked up about this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why should I not be patronising if they, in chorus, produce appalling arguments like "It's notable because it's sourced"? They may have been around for a while, but their logic is poor. As for your argument that these kinds of sections are normal, so you shouldn't have to explain every time, that too is silly, unless it is a formal policy. Otherwise, why should I believe you? Refer me to a formal policy on such things, and all would be fine. Claiming "We always do it this way", without giving even one example, is just arrogant conservatism. Never going to be a constructive response to those who ask "Why?", and try to make the world a better place? I still think it's a pointless section in its current form. As an Australian who generally quite admires the woman, I can assure you that Julia Gillard's comment is nothing more than predictable pap for local consumption. It doesn't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- HiLo48 the reason I cited similar discussions that have been recorded for such disputes in case of other articles is to put across the point that most of the points you have been raising in this section have been more or less discussed elsewhere previously, too. I do not see how the age of the article has anything to do with the arguments for or against having a reactions section; unless you wish to claim that every time we have a new article with a Reactions section, we need to engage ourselves in the same old rhetoric discussions about whether to keep or delete. That is redundant, we are discussing Wiki Policy here, and not the merits and demerits of individual articles. Moreover, you are confusing yourself between Notable and Sourced, hence Wiki material which is the basic policy, and your version of Sourced, hence notable and Wiki material which is a gross misrepresentation. And please review the WP:N policy again - it clearly discusses notability of an "article", so unless someone decides to have a separate article for this reactions section, you may rest assured that Col Gaddafi's death is notable (enough) for Wikipedia. Finally, as a friendly word of advice, try not to be so patronizing towards your fellow Wiki Editors. Most of them have been around as long as you have, and a few even longer. Batram (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, there's over 200 countries in the world. If we try hard we can probably find comments from leaders of them all. Will that make sense? Or are some "less" important? Are some unimportant? Do we really want 200 of them? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reactions are important, maybe that section should be split off and made into a new article? There are already many articles which are lists of "international reactions". --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are not, all reactions here (and on the other articles) can be removed from the article afaik. We should not simply copy the news and create articles from that, it's not being critical enough about keeping up with our way of neutral presentation. Articles should be balanced, we should show the reader why certain statements are relevant, and what has been their effect. It's better to wait, you can't do that instantly, I would say. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's not WP. There's nothing non-neutral about reporting what important people say about important events. As an example: the fact that NATO is saying Gaddafi's death affects its mission in X way is significant; NATO's operations in Libya have caused hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars in damage, and if it is prepared to end the mission, that signals it thinks the war is functionally over; if it said it isn't prepared to consider Gaddafi's death significant to its operation, that would be very telling as to its expectations. International reactions matter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree that what important people say can be regarded as notable. The issue is, who is important? When I deleted what I regarded as non-notable content I did not delete the NATO material. I deleted comments from leaders of countries that have no obvious connection with Libya. So, I guess you're agreeing that I can repeat my deletion of comments from people who are less important in this context, such as Julia Gillard? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! Gillard is a world leader. Her country was actually one of the top three contributors of humanitarian aid to Libya this year. International reactions are important; she is a notable figure who is prominent in the field of international relations; even if it were the king of Bhutan choosing to comment, it would be notable, because he's a world leader too (and the very fact that Thimphu was getting involved in commenting on Libyan internal affairs would be interesting). We as editors don't get to choose which countries aren't important. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gillard being the Prime Minister of Australia does not prove anything about the significance of her reaction. The effects of these statements are yet to be seen. So, let's remove them until the moment is there when something can be concluded about the international debate. It's too early. Utnog La (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kudzu1 - I note that you're incapable of fully responding to posts containing more than one significant point. You repeatedly ignore much of what I say. So here is a simple, single question... Which of the 200+ world leaders is unimportant in this context? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think I was quite clear about that, despite your flagrant insults: none. Any world leader's reaction to the sudden killing of another world leader is significant in terms of I.R. and is worth documenting. It's not too early to determine that the reaction is significant. It is significant, because it's a major event that many members of the international community frankly had a large stake in. The reaction of the leftist axis led by the likes of Venezuela and Zimbabwe is significant even if it was predictable; the reaction of the interventionist axis led by the likes of France and the United Kingdom is significant even if it was predictable; the reaction even of world leaders whose countries had no direct involvement is significant, because they're reacting to an event with global ramifications. It's significant; if HiLo and Utnog La, two editors on Wikipedia, find them to be dull pablum, you guys don't have to read it (the same way I generally steer clear of articles about chemistry and bluegrass music). But other people are interested in it. In fact, somebody came here to comment because they were disappointed that information had been removed when they were trying to learn more about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have just proven how nonsensical your position is. It would be absolutely ridiculous to have comments here from the leaders of all 200+ nations in the world. Since many of the states of the USA have larger populations than some smaller countries, I guess we include their governors' comments too. Same applies to provinces of Canada and states of Australia. How about the counties of England?...... Silly, silly, silly. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. It's just plain nonsense Kudzu1, and against common sense. Utnog La (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's obvious we need to be selective, and that's exactly what I was when I deleted a lot of the dross. Despite Kudzu1 choosing to lecture me on how important the NATO stuff was, I hadn't actually deleted it. I left it there because it's obviously important. That ill-informed response from him, and his most recent one about everything being notable, show me that his views are not much help when we are trying to make sensible judgements on this article. What we should be doing here is deciding which comments are notable, not arguing from an idiotic "I want it all" position that everything must stay. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a compromise we can choose to include neighbour countries, major regional countries, the G20 and important global institutions. I would personally suggest to remove them all, but that's against the balance of course. Utnog La (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- HiLo, you are extremely close to pushing me to report you for incivility. I'm addressing your arguments; you're throwing around insults like "idiotic" and "extremist" as if it bolsters your position somehow. It doesn't. World leaders have a say in the United Nations; many are members of supranational organizations; they set their countries' foreign policy. You may have blundered into this article and suddenly decided that a longstanding Wikipedia policy of documenting international reactions to significant events of global consequence is somehow "stupid", but I just disagree. Plain and simple. And I've explained my reasons as to why, and it's a real shame you can't even seem to muster up any respect for where I stand. All you've done is insult me. It's not an appropriate way to act on this website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- [2]You just placed these two reactions back, stating that there is no consensus for keeping them out. Consensus does not mean that the sole holder of an extreme point of view will get his will. Keeping reactions of countries like Kuwait in the article means undue weight. I kindly suggest you not to push your will through, because there is no consensus for your point of view. Utnog La (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- HiLo, you are extremely close to pushing me to report you for incivility. I'm addressing your arguments; you're throwing around insults like "idiotic" and "extremist" as if it bolsters your position somehow. It doesn't. World leaders have a say in the United Nations; many are members of supranational organizations; they set their countries' foreign policy. You may have blundered into this article and suddenly decided that a longstanding Wikipedia policy of documenting international reactions to significant events of global consequence is somehow "stupid", but I just disagree. Plain and simple. And I've explained my reasons as to why, and it's a real shame you can't even seem to muster up any respect for where I stand. All you've done is insult me. It's not an appropriate way to act on this website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a compromise we can choose to include neighbour countries, major regional countries, the G20 and important global institutions. I would personally suggest to remove them all, but that's against the balance of course. Utnog La (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's obvious we need to be selective, and that's exactly what I was when I deleted a lot of the dross. Despite Kudzu1 choosing to lecture me on how important the NATO stuff was, I hadn't actually deleted it. I left it there because it's obviously important. That ill-informed response from him, and his most recent one about everything being notable, show me that his views are not much help when we are trying to make sensible judgements on this article. What we should be doing here is deciding which comments are notable, not arguing from an idiotic "I want it all" position that everything must stay. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. It's just plain nonsense Kudzu1, and against common sense. Utnog La (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have just proven how nonsensical your position is. It would be absolutely ridiculous to have comments here from the leaders of all 200+ nations in the world. Since many of the states of the USA have larger populations than some smaller countries, I guess we include their governors' comments too. Same applies to provinces of Canada and states of Australia. How about the counties of England?...... Silly, silly, silly. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think I was quite clear about that, despite your flagrant insults: none. Any world leader's reaction to the sudden killing of another world leader is significant in terms of I.R. and is worth documenting. It's not too early to determine that the reaction is significant. It is significant, because it's a major event that many members of the international community frankly had a large stake in. The reaction of the leftist axis led by the likes of Venezuela and Zimbabwe is significant even if it was predictable; the reaction of the interventionist axis led by the likes of France and the United Kingdom is significant even if it was predictable; the reaction even of world leaders whose countries had no direct involvement is significant, because they're reacting to an event with global ramifications. It's significant; if HiLo and Utnog La, two editors on Wikipedia, find them to be dull pablum, you guys don't have to read it (the same way I generally steer clear of articles about chemistry and bluegrass music). But other people are interested in it. In fact, somebody came here to comment because they were disappointed that information had been removed when they were trying to learn more about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kudzu1 - I note that you're incapable of fully responding to posts containing more than one significant point. You repeatedly ignore much of what I say. So here is a simple, single question... Which of the 200+ world leaders is unimportant in this context? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gillard being the Prime Minister of Australia does not prove anything about the significance of her reaction. The effects of these statements are yet to be seen. So, let's remove them until the moment is there when something can be concluded about the international debate. It's too early. Utnog La (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! Gillard is a world leader. Her country was actually one of the top three contributors of humanitarian aid to Libya this year. International reactions are important; she is a notable figure who is prominent in the field of international relations; even if it were the king of Bhutan choosing to comment, it would be notable, because he's a world leader too (and the very fact that Thimphu was getting involved in commenting on Libyan internal affairs would be interesting). We as editors don't get to choose which countries aren't important. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree that what important people say can be regarded as notable. The issue is, who is important? When I deleted what I regarded as non-notable content I did not delete the NATO material. I deleted comments from leaders of countries that have no obvious connection with Libya. So, I guess you're agreeing that I can repeat my deletion of comments from people who are less important in this context, such as Julia Gillard? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's not WP. There's nothing non-neutral about reporting what important people say about important events. As an example: the fact that NATO is saying Gaddafi's death affects its mission in X way is significant; NATO's operations in Libya have caused hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars in damage, and if it is prepared to end the mission, that signals it thinks the war is functionally over; if it said it isn't prepared to consider Gaddafi's death significant to its operation, that would be very telling as to its expectations. International reactions matter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are not, all reactions here (and on the other articles) can be removed from the article afaik. We should not simply copy the news and create articles from that, it's not being critical enough about keeping up with our way of neutral presentation. Articles should be balanced, we should show the reader why certain statements are relevant, and what has been their effect. It's better to wait, you can't do that instantly, I would say. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Redsxfenway, User:Hashem sfarim, User:Batram, User:Metafis, and User:Edison have all echoed my position here, so it's not "the sole holder of an extreme point of view", much as you would like to dismiss me as such. You don't have consensus to remove the content, and the content is sourced, meets basic notability guidelines, and otherwise complies with WP guidelines; therefore, it is against WP for you to remove the content no matter how right you think you are. I see no need for a "compromise" on this. You're trying to overturn longstanding Wikipedia practice of including this sort of content, and actually the majority of editors who have weighed in disagree with you. You and HiLo are in the minority, not me. Sorry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, most of the above mentioned have not explicitly written that all should be included. Please, stop misquoting people, it's annoying and treacherous. The few that are with you, are in the same group, the extreme inclusionist. That's against the policy of Undue Weight, and not the middle road at all in this discussion. Utnog La (talk)
- I'm not misquoting anyone. All of those editors said they didn't think the content should be deleted. The stuff about "well what if some really tiny country that doesn't have anything to do with Libya comments" is speculative. User:Qantasplanes reverted your arbitrary removal of the responses of several European countries (including NATO members that have participated, in the case of Denmark and the Netherlands quite heavily, in Operation Unified Protector) for a reason. Those other editors have weighed in for a reason. Yes, I get that you disagree with me, and you disagree with them, and you think our position is "extreme". And I agree that adding the comments of the Dutch PM in the lede or in sections where it's not germane would be WP:UNDUE, as would be taking up a big chunk of the page with a person's soliloquy about Gaddafi's death when it could easily be summarized in just a few sentences (I did this with Albania a day or two ago). But simply including information in its appropriate section, with citations? That's not hurting anyone, and it certainly doesn't violate WP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kudzu1 - I won't move from the view that I think your position is extreme. On this matter, wanting comments from EVERY country included is, by simple definition, extreme. You are simply being arbitrarily stubborn. You lectured me about not excluding NATO, when I hadn't excluded it. Something is wrong with either your logic or your powers of observation. You ignore parts of what I say whenever I make more than one simple point in a post. It has become impossible to have a rational discussion with you on this material. Maybe I shouldn't describe such behaviour as stupid. Maybe you simply don't understand. But your comments are certainly extremely frustrating and unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk)
- Not every country has or will comment. Part of the notability is that they're commenting in the first place. This is an entirely speculative notion that you've brought up; literally the only countries that have commented so far are those with some stake, be them members of NATO, members of OPEC, members of the G-20, members of the AU, members of the Arab League, members of the Security Council, etc. And I'm sorry you have a problem with the way I'm discussing here, but I don't think we're going to reach common ground because you seem to want to delete everything that you don't find interesting, and I want to include it as long as it's sourced, relevant, and has support from active editors to include. I find it frankly baffling that your response to me registering my opposition and explaining why I believe this material is notable is to call names and patronize me. User:Batram advised you to stop doing that, and I advise the same. It's not helping. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your position is changing like the wind on a spring day. It's totally impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- At least 5 editors so far, on this section have stated that the section should stay, and should stay overall intact without major deletions. That I've counted. (Who knows what the silent majority is on this too.) Only about 3 have voiced that they would like the section to go. Last time I checked 5-3 AGAINST your position is NOT a "consensus". At least not to warrant the section's removal. But if anything favoring the thing staying. I'm tired of this. If the meat-puppeting and constant edit-warring and revertings don't stop, then we'll have to take a formal vote maybe, and if that doesn't settle it, then this thing has to be reported. This is silly now. I already stated that my position (if you read farther up) is NOT that "it's sourced therefore notable", but rather "it's sourced AND notable". I know that something merely being sourced does not ipso facto mean "notable" necessarily. I know that if those world leaders expressed views on pot-holes in their streets, and if their statements were sourced, I would NOT consider that "notable" necessarily. Even if sourced. But this situation is obviously (much) different. Maybe not every single country should be on the section, but most of what's been placed there should be. Australia too I would say. She has had dealings with Libya in certain ways. Not sure how that's so hard to grasp or appreciate. Regardless, the section in general should never be deleted, but at the very most possibly made into a separate article, IF the original article gets too big. But the information itself should NEVER be discarded completely from Wikipedia. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- (addendum)...also, I wanted to point out that originally you incorrectly quoted me or PARTIALLY quoted me, and misrepresented what I said...saying that I only thought something was notable because it was sourced. So in that sense you mis-quoted me, and then misunderstood me. Here below is COPIED AND PASTED VERBATIM what I originally wrote, where you LEFT OUT the other sentence and point completely...
- .***** "The point is we assess what is "notable" if the thing is copiously or separately sourced. Also, it's arguably relevant, when a global event takes place, what the world leaders and peoples think about it or what they would do about it, in response." *****
- In your response to me right after, you only made reference to the "notable if copiously and separately sourced" sentence and TOTALLY LEFT OUT the sentence right after, where I said "also it's relevant when a global event takes place"...meaning that the SUBJECT MATTER was also relevant to whether something is "notable." Again, my point was that it's notable AND sourced, and that the sourcing only further bolstered the matter up. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just voting, and counting who opposes or favours what. We do have principles, even when there's hot news: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." A reaction of a minor country in Europe is what Jimbo calls the small minority. If the inclusionists want to argue against a balanced way of working here, they should change rules like Undue weight first. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- And who gets to decide which countries are "minor" and therefore not worth including? That's a dangerous game to get into. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The community of wikipedians of course. To frame them as "minor" is not appropriate, you should say "insignificant in the debate",. Utnog La (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Minor" was your word, not mine. And there doesn't appear to be any consensus as to which countries are, as you say, "minor" or "insignificant". As I said, I think it's dicey to say the least to start rejecting the perspective of countries based on arbitrary criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The community of wikipedians of course. To frame them as "minor" is not appropriate, you should say "insignificant in the debate",. Utnog La (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- And who gets to decide which countries are "minor" and therefore not worth including? That's a dangerous game to get into. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just voting, and counting who opposes or favours what. We do have principles, even when there's hot news: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." A reaction of a minor country in Europe is what Jimbo calls the small minority. If the inclusionists want to argue against a balanced way of working here, they should change rules like Undue weight first. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- At least 5 editors so far, on this section have stated that the section should stay, and should stay overall intact without major deletions. That I've counted. (Who knows what the silent majority is on this too.) Only about 3 have voiced that they would like the section to go. Last time I checked 5-3 AGAINST your position is NOT a "consensus". At least not to warrant the section's removal. But if anything favoring the thing staying. I'm tired of this. If the meat-puppeting and constant edit-warring and revertings don't stop, then we'll have to take a formal vote maybe, and if that doesn't settle it, then this thing has to be reported. This is silly now. I already stated that my position (if you read farther up) is NOT that "it's sourced therefore notable", but rather "it's sourced AND notable". I know that something merely being sourced does not ipso facto mean "notable" necessarily. I know that if those world leaders expressed views on pot-holes in their streets, and if their statements were sourced, I would NOT consider that "notable" necessarily. Even if sourced. But this situation is obviously (much) different. Maybe not every single country should be on the section, but most of what's been placed there should be. Australia too I would say. She has had dealings with Libya in certain ways. Not sure how that's so hard to grasp or appreciate. Regardless, the section in general should never be deleted, but at the very most possibly made into a separate article, IF the original article gets too big. But the information itself should NEVER be discarded completely from Wikipedia. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your position is changing like the wind on a spring day. It's totally impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not every country has or will comment. Part of the notability is that they're commenting in the first place. This is an entirely speculative notion that you've brought up; literally the only countries that have commented so far are those with some stake, be them members of NATO, members of OPEC, members of the G-20, members of the AU, members of the Arab League, members of the Security Council, etc. And I'm sorry you have a problem with the way I'm discussing here, but I don't think we're going to reach common ground because you seem to want to delete everything that you don't find interesting, and I want to include it as long as it's sourced, relevant, and has support from active editors to include. I find it frankly baffling that your response to me registering my opposition and explaining why I believe this material is notable is to call names and patronize me. User:Batram advised you to stop doing that, and I advise the same. It's not helping. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
At the very least, an issue of undue weight
I support merging the section into prose. Before this edit, the section on "International reactions" was 2,094 words long, and the entirety of the rest of the prose in the article was 1,660 words long. Regardless of the value of the "International reactions" section (which I also believe is largely irrelevant, since people are starting to count !votes now), it's going to be very difficult to justify how the reaction to an incident deserves more space than the details of the incident itself. Even after the trimming, the section is still 1,465 words long, which is still rather substantial in comparison to the core content of the topic. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Prose is preferable, I would support a rewrite of the reactions into prose. A benefit of that form of language is that the writer can group the reactions in opposition and support, (or other headers) and give a balanced report of reactions. Makes the picture more clear to the reader, and enables the writer to trim down the reactions section in comparison with the main topic. -- Utnog La (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a suggestion. Summarize the reactions on this page and add a seealso link to either a new article for International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi or a new section of the existing article International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war. That way the information remains on Wikipedia in an accessible location without compromising presentation, and the gist of that information is presented here in an abbreviated way that (hopefully) won't upset people like you and HiLo. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in WP:UNDUE that suggests this is an issue of undue weight. The international reactions section is a clearly defined subsection of the page; it's common practice to have articles and sections for international reactions on major events on Wikipedia; and it's really an apples-and-oranges comparison here. The Flat Earth example given suggests a scenario in which the claims of Flat Earthers are presented in direct contrast with the claims of the scientific community as if it's a real, mainstream debate. There isn't a remotely comparable scenario here; the statements of various foreign ministers and government officials in other countries are simply documented in a separate section at the end of the page. As for the length issue, I'm not sure what your point is; WP:SIZE doesn't dictate that we split off that section, or that one section should be necessarily larger or smaller than the rest. If people don't want to read what the Dutch PM or the Colombian president said, they don't have to read that section, but for those who are curious as to how world leaders reacted to one of their longtime colleagues being dragged out of a drainpipe and shot, it's there. Clearly meets notability guidelines, clearly sourced, presented neutrally, and doesn't violate UNDUE in any way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I actually didn't refer directly to WP:UNDUE, but as long as you've brought it up, the applicable statement is: "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" (emphasis mine). The Flat Earth example is clearly irrelevant to this discussion. And WP:SIZE is not a policy and doesn't address the issue of article content at all; were you referring to another page perhaps? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Generally when one refers to "undue weight" on Wikipedia, they're referring to WP:UNDUE, the guideline governing issues of undue weight. As for WP:SIZE, it's another guideline, and this page doesn't meet the criteria for needing a separate article to contain international reactions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Very well; the very paragraph I quoted above, regarding giving undue weight to "any aspects" of a topic, was taken directly from WP:UNDUE. The examples in that policy mostly revolve around neutral point of view issues, but the paragraph I quoted clearly shows that it is not meant to be limited to that, unless I am radically misinterpreting it. As for WP:SIZE, I did not discuss the idea of splitting the article so I wasn't quite sure why that was being cited. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think including a sentence or two on what certain world leaders had to say in the appropriate section is remotely undue. If it were in the lede, it would be undue. If it were presented in the "events" section in order to reinforce or contradict what Jibril or another Libyan politician said about Gaddafi's death, it would be undue. But its inclusion in the proper place, with proper citations and due weight accorded in the article to the Libyan perspective, isn't undue in any way. Regards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I remain pretty critical about your perspective of this event, Kudzu. The death of Gaddafi is an important event in Libyan history, the reason why the reactions of Libyan leaders are virtually non-present here is strange. The local reactions are under-presented, the international on the other hand over-presented. And, the reactions are less important than the event of course. But if you do not want to keep up with guide lines like UNDUE and the notion of proportionality in general: go on reverting and your block is going to come. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I actually agree that a "sentence of two on what certain world leaders had to say" is appropriate. The issue is here is that there are at least 35 sentences (assuming one sentence per country/entity). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think including a sentence or two on what certain world leaders had to say in the appropriate section is remotely undue. If it were in the lede, it would be undue. If it were presented in the "events" section in order to reinforce or contradict what Jibril or another Libyan politician said about Gaddafi's death, it would be undue. But its inclusion in the proper place, with proper citations and due weight accorded in the article to the Libyan perspective, isn't undue in any way. Regards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Very well; the very paragraph I quoted above, regarding giving undue weight to "any aspects" of a topic, was taken directly from WP:UNDUE. The examples in that policy mostly revolve around neutral point of view issues, but the paragraph I quoted clearly shows that it is not meant to be limited to that, unless I am radically misinterpreting it. As for WP:SIZE, I did not discuss the idea of splitting the article so I wasn't quite sure why that was being cited. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Generally when one refers to "undue weight" on Wikipedia, they're referring to WP:UNDUE, the guideline governing issues of undue weight. As for WP:SIZE, it's another guideline, and this page doesn't meet the criteria for needing a separate article to contain international reactions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I actually didn't refer directly to WP:UNDUE, but as long as you've brought it up, the applicable statement is: "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" (emphasis mine). The Flat Earth example is clearly irrelevant to this discussion. And WP:SIZE is not a policy and doesn't address the issue of article content at all; were you referring to another page perhaps? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
An intermediate proposal
There's a good discussion going on above about how if the list is trimmed, how do we know what to trim? I believe that we already have the tools at our disposal, namely the general notability guideline, which states that a topic becomes notable when there is significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Let's take the example of Kosovo. Is there significant coverage (i.e. more than a passing mention) of Kosovo's reaction in reliable, third-party sources? I actually don't know; this is a thought experiment. I'm aware that the GNG is usually used on the article level, but I do think it could be a useful sieve here. Regards Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- You will find reliable, third-party sources for (almost) all European countries, I suppose. But that doesn't make them relevant to describe the subject though. What to include, and what not, should be based on the nature of the subject. Utnog La (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, the mere presence of sources is not usually enough. The key here is significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG. To go back to my example, I am looking for significant coverage of Kosovo's reaction and failing to find any. In the case of Kosovo, the source given is primary as well... I think that at least for Kosovo, the ice is pretty thin. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like my concerns have now been rendered academic. I think this is a positive step, and I think User:Kudzu1 is awesome for taking it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't really worth arguing about anymore, since I have things to do today. This way everybody gets to have their cake and eat it too, at the small price of having an extra article on Wikipedia. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perfect! And thanks for the proposal, Orange Suede Sofa, but as I understand "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That wouldn't have been a nice way of judging, as it was headline news all over the world, so this criterium wouldn't have excluded any country, that is insignificant in the debat but has a somewhat developed press. It would actually include 100+ countries... Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Summary execution vs. extrajudicial killing
The link to summary execution was removed from the "see also" section, but the link to extrajudicial killing remains. Unfortunately, the first sentence of the article on extrajudicial killings states that the practice is "...the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process." Gaddafi was not killed by governmental authorities, so this is likely to confuse readers. However, common usage of the term "summary execution" is not restricted to governmental authorities, and Gaddafi's death has been called a "summary execution" in the media. Are there definitions of either term from some legal body that we can rely on? --24.187.233.18 (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The media is wrong, as I said before. "Execution" is technically a legal term. This was a murder, an assassination, and Gaddafi got NO due process at all. He was a bad guy, but so were the rebel thugs. If Gaddafi was a murderer, then they MURDERED a murderer. It's that simple. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing back, Hashem sfarim. I agree with you that Gaddafi was murdered, and since I oppose capital punishment altogether it wouldn't matter to me whether he did get that trial only to have a death sentence passed down later. But personal sentiments aside, what I was trying to say in my previous message is that there's no reason we cannot use the term summary execution the way it is commonly used, especially since I have yet to see anyone provide a definition by a legal body to contradict such usage. Outside of a court, the word execution most often just refers to the death penalty, whether it was passed down legally or not. And according to international laws, summary executions are essentially always illegal in both civilian and military jurisdictions. Therefore, in practice there is no other way to use the term summary execution except according to common usage. I should think this formality would negate your criticism. In any case, Gaddafi was captured in a civil war and summarily killed. If you prefer that neutral terminology over "summarily executed," you can provide a redirect, but because "extrajudicial killing" and "summary execution" refer to different concepts (although most extrajudicial killings are in the form of summary execution/killing), I would prefer if both links stayed. --24.187.233.18 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding images of the guy dead?
I saw a million pictures of him dead. Can we put a picture in the article like.. -_X <-- Gaddafi After being killed. Just my 2¢. TKhaldi (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- We can but nothing to graphic and we want to add appropriate pics. But a problem surrounds on which pic came first of his death since his death is still unclear. --What was this guy eating? (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, all images of that event are non-free. You would have to fill out a rather daunting non-free use rationale if you were to upload an image, and in my experience, uploads of that nature are frequently challenged. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. If there is a free-use image, and it can be justified as improving or necessary to the article, it can be included. However, it's an uphill battle because it's a controversial subject. In the article Death of Caylee Anthony, a vocal number of editors protested the use of a public-domain image of the victim's school picture in the article . Although an image was justified and with precedent, I think the constant arguments, deletions, vandalism, harassment, etc. got to be too much. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one prior precedent worth noting, Benito Mussolini has a picture of his corpse handing upside down. Assassination of John F. Kennedy has a picture of the exit wound at the back of JFK's head. And well, Lynching has, imo, way too many pictures depicting the action. As far as a free-use picture of Gaddafi, I am not aware of one at the present time. If a picture of the corpse is considered notable enough to include, wouldn't it be justified under fair use as being a notable event, which will not occur again?
- Wikipedia is not censored. If there is a free-use image, and it can be justified as improving or necessary to the article, it can be included. However, it's an uphill battle because it's a controversial subject. In the article Death of Caylee Anthony, a vocal number of editors protested the use of a public-domain image of the victim's school picture in the article . Although an image was justified and with precedent, I think the constant arguments, deletions, vandalism, harassment, etc. got to be too much. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Amnesty International?
RE: "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called for an independent autopsy and an investigation into how Gaddafi died in captivity." Really? Sorry but what's the connection? Are they really not sure what happened? More important to include would be the cited author's conclusion that "So, am I troubled by the manner of Qaddafi's death? Yes. But it's not realistic to expect people that have been ruled for four decades by a brutal tyrant -- who left no institutions left behind and called his people "rats" as he vowed to hunt them down "alley by alley"-- to behave like Western democrats when they finally catch him." So...we should remove the reference to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch because (1) it is irrelevant, and (2) the cited article is an op/ed.--72.47.85.22 (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not irrelevant at all. These calls were widely reported, and both organizations carry considerable cachet internationally. Replace the citation if you feel it is not the best one available, but there's no cause to remove the content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Tortured before execution?
I just came across www.bestgore.com/torture/video-pow-colonel-muammar-gaddafi-being-sexually-violated-rebels/ this video. Is it accurate and if so, is it worth including in the article? See also here. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I just posted something on here about Gaddafi being sodomized, and some jackass deleted it. Didn't know they would delete discussion, which is flat out a shitty thing to do. Thanks for helping to confirm the info, however.
Here's a CBS news article about it. Maybe this should be included on the article page. --38.105.120.70 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Mercenaries
There were some reports of Gaddafi having engaged mercenaries to protect and evacuate him. Shouldn't that be in the article? --41.18.231.123 (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Implication
Unwarranted speculation is against wiki policy. Also didn't Tunisia already have a revolution, is the editor suggesting an October revolution for Libya? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speculation if it's done by Wikipedia itself would be against policy. But simply reporting what others (presumably in the know and who are involved) are speculating or assessing about a situation would not necessarily be against WP policy. It's simply stating reactions of officials, which are found in reliable sources. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was attempting to reword whatever some other editor put in there. The original text was nearly a word for word copy from a paper, so I attempted to reword it. And yes, the ref does speculate a second Tunisian revolution. I personally think the section should be removed until further info appears. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- "I don't like" is not a valid reason to remove whole sections, and then use FRONT reasons that are not even applicable or true...against WP policy of discussing first on talk...blanking whole sections before thorough Talk discussion is not WP appropriate. The section is not "unencyclopedic". "Aftermath" and "Implications" sections (and the like) are found on many reputable WP articles. The point is it's a type of "reaction" to the situation. The section is valid and sourced. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but an aftermath section hours after his death is rather overboard IMHO. It contains one source that is rather closely paraphrased by this article. I'll move over to a different side of the wiki, just to calm down. Apologies, Buggie111 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well I was saying sections like that, along those lines, such as "Fallout" or "Implications" or "Aftermath" or "Ramifications", etc...are found on good Wikipedia articles. And again, reliable sources bring out "implications" big time on this event, even 3 hours after announcement, let alone 8 or 10. Again, too, it's NOT that WP itself would be speculating or predicting (or simply assessing), but REPORTING what others have been assessing on a given momentous happening or situation. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, right. Having another look over it, Id suggest removing the whole part on Bahrain, Syria, etc., and leaving sa shorter section on how the French are concerned about Algeria. But, then again, I have no knowledge of Middle-eastern activites besides Ottoman warships. Your'e much more of an expert, and I am inclined to trust you. Buggie111 (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well I was saying sections like that, along those lines, such as "Fallout" or "Implications" or "Aftermath" or "Ramifications", etc...are found on good Wikipedia articles. And again, reliable sources bring out "implications" big time on this event, even 3 hours after announcement, let alone 8 or 10. Again, too, it's NOT that WP itself would be speculating or predicting (or simply assessing), but REPORTING what others have been assessing on a given momentous happening or situation. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but an aftermath section hours after his death is rather overboard IMHO. It contains one source that is rather closely paraphrased by this article. I'll move over to a different side of the wiki, just to calm down. Apologies, Buggie111 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- "I don't like" is not a valid reason to remove whole sections, and then use FRONT reasons that are not even applicable or true...against WP policy of discussing first on talk...blanking whole sections before thorough Talk discussion is not WP appropriate. The section is not "unencyclopedic". "Aftermath" and "Implications" sections (and the like) are found on many reputable WP articles. The point is it's a type of "reaction" to the situation. The section is valid and sourced. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was attempting to reword whatever some other editor put in there. The original text was nearly a word for word copy from a paper, so I attempted to reword it. And yes, the ref does speculate a second Tunisian revolution. I personally think the section should be removed until further info appears. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hashem sfarim - you reverted my removal of SOME of the speculation in the Implications section with the rude suggestion that I did it because I didn't like the content. My reasons were nothing of the kind. I removed it because it I believed it added nothing to the article, and that speculation rarely, if ever, helps articles. I was unaware of this discussion, but now I see it I see no consensus. You are acting like you own large chunks of this article. You have ignored further posting above. How about discussing before doing any more to the article? It's really not that urgent. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, no, sir. Buggie removed THE WHOLE SECTION, without any real discussion or consensus, which is against WP norms and policy, and is acting like the article was his. NOT ME. I simply reverted an unwarranted removal of a whole section, which should have just been modified or re-worded etc at most. Also, buggie at least admitted things. Also, do you notice that that section has been reworded and copy-edited and shortened by some other editor? I never undid that other editor's re-working of it, because I KNOW THAT I DON'T OWN THE ARTICLE. But to totally remove a whole section? That is sourced? And say "we should not speculate", when that is not what was going on, because WP is NOT "speculating" by simply reporting what world leaders are assessing on a big matter like this. Ramifications and Aftermath, etc. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I said I had backed off. No need to bring me up again. Hilo sums me up perfectly. Now, where's the unwatch button.......Buggie111 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you read all of what I wrote, I said already that you backed off and were cool. Also, you miss the point that HiLo in effect brought you up here. And accused me of stuff. I was merely responding to what he said, and explaining what happened. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Geez you post crap. I DID NOT bring up Buggie here. It's incredibly difficult to have a rational conversation with you in the mix. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- You brought up "the discussion here", which duh obviously involved Buggie. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Geez you post crap. I DID NOT bring up Buggie here. It's incredibly difficult to have a rational conversation with you in the mix. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you read all of what I wrote, I said already that you backed off and were cool. Also, you miss the point that HiLo in effect brought you up here. And accused me of stuff. I was merely responding to what he said, and explaining what happened. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I said I had backed off. No need to bring me up again. Hilo sums me up perfectly. Now, where's the unwatch button.......Buggie111 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, no, sir. Buggie removed THE WHOLE SECTION, without any real discussion or consensus, which is against WP norms and policy, and is acting like the article was his. NOT ME. I simply reverted an unwarranted removal of a whole section, which should have just been modified or re-worded etc at most. Also, buggie at least admitted things. Also, do you notice that that section has been reworded and copy-edited and shortened by some other editor? I never undid that other editor's re-working of it, because I KNOW THAT I DON'T OWN THE ARTICLE. But to totally remove a whole section? That is sourced? And say "we should not speculate", when that is not what was going on, because WP is NOT "speculating" by simply reporting what world leaders are assessing on a big matter like this. Ramifications and Aftermath, etc. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
meant Tunisia where I said Libya. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Storm drain not Sewage pipe
Gadaffi took shelter in a dry storm drain under the road, not in a sewage pipe. The repeated description of the pipe as being for sewage was surely just wishful thinking by reporters - i.e. assumed poetic justice. (Unless the word sewage means something technically different in American English than in British English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.204 (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It looked like a drainage pipe of some sort. I don't know exactly if it were a storm pipe or a sewerage pipe. Libya is a desert country and it doesn't receive a huge amount of rain. I stick with sewers. (I'll need a shower later :P) TKhaldi (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sirte is on the coast. On a coast, storms are pretty common.94.113.101.38 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this its own article and not part of his bio page?
Can someone explain? Is seems more like an effort to increase page count rather then relevance related --dashiellx (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the exact policy statement but it does seem to be a general WP practice for 'fluid/ongoing situations' (possibly the equivalent of continuous tense) that apply to only one part of a particular biography or event - the funerals of Otto von Habsburg and Pope John Paul II had separate pages, as did the 2010 Polish /Katyn air crash. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- They still do. That was probably the point you were making, but that's not the way I read it. Anyways there are 120 "deaths of" pages. Many of those people would not have pages if not for the way they died plus there's bin Laden conspiracy page. But there are still a significant number of people with separate pages. There are also 76 articles on assassinations almost all of which are separate from the article on the actual person. This might be eventually folded back into Gaddafi's main article, but because of the way he died and his great importance it seems unlikely.Redsxfenway (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the discussion, I just wondered. --18:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
0 Page view statistics way--Iljia (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's only been up a day. It sometimes takes a day before the program can tally up the views. I'm sure there will be more than "0" tomorrow. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does that question really need to be asked? The assassination and death of Muammar Gaddafi is ITSELF stand-alone and notable, and separately sourced. The question and complaint (to be frank) is kinda silly. If the death of Osama bin Laden (and others) have separate articles, this surely should too. It's not even really debatable, to be honest. If you look up "death of Gaddafi" or "assassination of Gaddafi" etc on Google or Yahoo etc...you'll find THIS TOPIC ALONE sourced copiously, APART from Gaddafi's general bio. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The subject itself is notable due to a number of factors, notwithstanding its geopolitical implications. This isn't to say all, or even most, deaths should have separate pages, but when things lead the news in every country, it's a good rule of thumb that it is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does that question really need to be asked? The assassination and death of Muammar Gaddafi is ITSELF stand-alone and notable, and separately sourced. The question and complaint (to be frank) is kinda silly. If the death of Osama bin Laden (and others) have separate articles, this surely should too. It's not even really debatable, to be honest. If you look up "death of Gaddafi" or "assassination of Gaddafi" etc on Google or Yahoo etc...you'll find THIS TOPIC ALONE sourced copiously, APART from Gaddafi's general bio. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- A few years ago Nicolae Ceauşescu was deposed as dictator of Rumania, given a brief kangaroo court show trial, and machinegunned along with his wife. The execution videotape was broadcast on news programs worldwide. But his death is covered by one section in his bio article. Once the dust settles, in a few months, we could consider a merger of this article into the main article about Gaddafi. Edison (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, no I don't think so. To be blunt, comparing Ceausescu to Gaddafi is rather dishonest and silly. Who the hell even remembers or cares about Nicolae? Nobody really, aside from a few older Romanians maybe, or a couple of people in that region in Europe. He was a blip. Whereas Gaddafi has been known, for DECADES, and as arguably a HISTORICAL FIGURE even before he died! With his "America is Satan" and his flamboyance and craziness, and then shaking hands with Obama and McCain recently, and also the nature and circumstances of his death IS FAR MORE NOTE-WORTHY AND STAND-ALONE that Ceasescu's ever could be. I remember it in the 1990's, machine-gunned, blah blah, sorry, it was a BLIP ON A SCREEN. That's why it's in his main bio article. NOT THE SAME AS THIS. So stop comparing the two. Doesn't matter that they were both dictators. Ceausescu HIMSELF was hardly known or notable (by comparison). This section and debate is silly and inane, to be honest. This subject is so stand-alone and separate, and separately sourced, it's like not funny. Wikipedia's "snowball's chance in hell" applies here, as far as this article ever "getting merged" after "dust settles". It just won't happen. Because logically it can't. It's too notable and famous and infamous on its own. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps more succinctly, we'd have a page for Ceausecu's death if it had occurred in the same era as Gaddafi's, with comparable exposure and media transparency. Ceaucescu died some 25 years before Wikipedia, and so his death was historical from the outset. We have a lot more information (in real time) on Gaddafi's death, a lot more interest on the part of readers and editors alike in Gaddafi's death, etc. It's why we have arguably more detail on the Libyan civil war than we do on bloodier, more significant conflicts like the Korean War. These are wars that social media, including Wikipedia, track in real time, as compared to events that are the stuff of history textbooks. Naturally, there's going to be more material to cover (that isn't just being copied out of a book), and there are going to be more people looking for the latest information on what happened. It's our task as Wikipedia editors to provide them with the most reliable, recent, and comprehensive information available. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that, that if Ceausescu's death happened more recently it would have probably been more famous and notable and viewed, etc. But also, it has to do too with the person and character and situation behind an execution, assassination, or death, even today. Gaddafi HIMSELF seems to have been more notable (even in 1989) than Ceausescu. By the way, he didn't die 25 years before Wikipedia, but 12 years. He died on Christmas 1989 (almost 1990), and Wikipedia was founded in 2001. So about 12 years or so. But still way before WP, or even before common Internet usage in general. And yeah, that does play a role too. So as I said before, to compare Ceasescu with Gaddafi, and to say that "the death of Gaddafi" should be "merged" into his regular bio article seems a bit weird or silly. This matter of Gaddafi's death, and the rebellion involving it, is incredibly stand-alone and separate and notable, it's not even really debatable or disputable. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, my mistake. My math gets a bit fuzzy past one in the morning. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that, that if Ceausescu's death happened more recently it would have probably been more famous and notable and viewed, etc. But also, it has to do too with the person and character and situation behind an execution, assassination, or death, even today. Gaddafi HIMSELF seems to have been more notable (even in 1989) than Ceausescu. By the way, he didn't die 25 years before Wikipedia, but 12 years. He died on Christmas 1989 (almost 1990), and Wikipedia was founded in 2001. So about 12 years or so. But still way before WP, or even before common Internet usage in general. And yeah, that does play a role too. So as I said before, to compare Ceasescu with Gaddafi, and to say that "the death of Gaddafi" should be "merged" into his regular bio article seems a bit weird or silly. This matter of Gaddafi's death, and the rebellion involving it, is incredibly stand-alone and separate and notable, it's not even really debatable or disputable. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd have to respectfully disagree with Hashem sfarim that comparing Ceausescu to Gaddafi is dishonest and silly, although I understand that the difference in degree and geopolitical importance between them may lead to that judgment. Both were brutal dictators willing to turn the state monopoly of violent force each controlled against their own people. I agree with all the rest Hashem and Kudzu1 say: Ceausescu's death was already history (even if only a few years old) when WP started and no longer notable in of itself. Even Benito Mussolini, who was way more significant than Ceausescu, only gets a section on his death. MarkVolundNYC (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps more succinctly, we'd have a page for Ceausecu's death if it had occurred in the same era as Gaddafi's, with comparable exposure and media transparency. Ceaucescu died some 25 years before Wikipedia, and so his death was historical from the outset. We have a lot more information (in real time) on Gaddafi's death, a lot more interest on the part of readers and editors alike in Gaddafi's death, etc. It's why we have arguably more detail on the Libyan civil war than we do on bloodier, more significant conflicts like the Korean War. These are wars that social media, including Wikipedia, track in real time, as compared to events that are the stuff of history textbooks. Naturally, there's going to be more material to cover (that isn't just being copied out of a book), and there are going to be more people looking for the latest information on what happened. It's our task as Wikipedia editors to provide them with the most reliable, recent, and comprehensive information available. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, no I don't think so. To be blunt, comparing Ceausescu to Gaddafi is rather dishonest and silly. Who the hell even remembers or cares about Nicolae? Nobody really, aside from a few older Romanians maybe, or a couple of people in that region in Europe. He was a blip. Whereas Gaddafi has been known, for DECADES, and as arguably a HISTORICAL FIGURE even before he died! With his "America is Satan" and his flamboyance and craziness, and then shaking hands with Obama and McCain recently, and also the nature and circumstances of his death IS FAR MORE NOTE-WORTHY AND STAND-ALONE that Ceasescu's ever could be. I remember it in the 1990's, machine-gunned, blah blah, sorry, it was a BLIP ON A SCREEN. That's why it's in his main bio article. NOT THE SAME AS THIS. So stop comparing the two. Doesn't matter that they were both dictators. Ceausescu HIMSELF was hardly known or notable (by comparison). This section and debate is silly and inane, to be honest. This subject is so stand-alone and separate, and separately sourced, it's like not funny. Wikipedia's "snowball's chance in hell" applies here, as far as this article ever "getting merged" after "dust settles". It just won't happen. Because logically it can't. It's too notable and famous and infamous on its own. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps what I should have said 'were given' their own pages (rather than had) to make the point clear. Could add that with these several deaths and/or funerals the wider/international context has to be considered so 'the topic' does not just concern 'the death of X' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Wording
Correct word to use is MURDER, Gaddafi was not executed nor assassinated, he was MURDERED in broad daylight.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.101.206 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of "assassination" within this article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved it to "death". Evercat (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. I'm semi-amused, semi-disgusted. So it's ok to use the word death when it's an official killing, but when it's unofficial it's an assassination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeAkin14 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it was actually both. A (failed) assassination attempt by France and USA followed by an execution by NTC forces. Bad move be either if you as me. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Per the IP address's changing of the term in the "Implications" section, from "assassination" to "execution", I changed it back, because it was NOT an "execution", but an "assassination". Let's stop the POV. And slants and propaganda. "Execution" is a legal term, and like it or not, Gaddafi got NO due process, and was arguably murdered....it was an assassination NOT an "execution. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think that until we know for sure how this man died we should refrain from using terms like "assassination" or "execution" and just say he's dead or that he was killed. My $.02. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the words sewage drainpipe (where he was hiding), according to the photos it need to be reword as storm water drainpipe (looking at its size, also it is laid above the ground, there is no way it to be wastewater pipeline, sewer stands for wastewater pipeline; sewage=wastewater). thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanaakka (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC) If information not enough, best would be use a wording like.. road culvert/stromwater culvert....again certainly sewer drainage is completely wrong Sumanaakka (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Sumanaakka
- As much as I hate the word "sewage" also, I checked the BBC timeline, and they use "sewage pipe", not stormwater pipe, so I guess it stands. Also, if the 1st sentence says that the cause of death is undetermined, why is the article in the "Assassination" category at the bottom of the pg? --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The article wrongly mention a strike by the French air force after a US predator missile strike. It was in fact the RAF (British Royal Air Force) who raided the convoy after the US strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.226.69 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not in any reliable source I've seen or read. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Definitions
(Trying to get out of the 'GA loop' that arises otherwise)
Consider the death of Simon Sudbury (the Archbishop of York mentioned above), about whom most of us can be neutral some 630+ years after the event. There are 'sufficient if tenuous parallels' between the two deaths for 'the terminology of the death' to be the same. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposed move to Murder of Muammar Gaddafi
It is a disgrace that this article is not headlined 'Murder of Muammar Gaddafi' like [Category:Murder by year|the many other 'Murder of' articles] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.92.41 (talk • contribs)
- A "disgrace"? Don't be so dramatic. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The title is not inaccurate as is. What's disgraceful about it? HotshotCleaner (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- To not recognise an obvious and confessed lynching assassination and murder by a title as exactly that when we have the better example of so many others that do. That's the disgrace.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.92.41 (talk • contribs)
- I didn't know someone had been convicted of murder. Wait, nobody has. Nor has anyone been arrested or confessed to anything in any legal way. In all the "Murder of..." articles, a perpetrator has been found guilty of murder, hence the title. Without that conviction, the format Death of... is usually used. For example, see Death of Caylee Anthony. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a brazen murder with a brazen confession, Mr Sarcasm. And the Murder of Meredith Kercher was known as exactly that long before there were any criminal verdicts, as just one example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.25.167 (talk • contribs)
- I didn't know someone had been convicted of murder. Wait, nobody has. Nor has anyone been arrested or confessed to anything in any legal way. In all the "Murder of..." articles, a perpetrator has been found guilty of murder, hence the title. Without that conviction, the format Death of... is usually used. For example, see Death of Caylee Anthony. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- To not recognise an obvious and confessed lynching assassination and murder by a title as exactly that when we have the better example of so many others that do. That's the disgrace.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.92.41 (talk • contribs)
- The title is not inaccurate as is. What's disgraceful about it? HotshotCleaner (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi died as a result of being shot (possibly using his own golden gun) by someone, having been surrounded and ill-treated by a mob. It was not a judicial execution nor an assassination in the conventional senses of those term: and the sequence has been termed a lynching and a summary execution in various quarters. Also - NATO may have been responsible for the bombing of the convoy but NATO is not directly responsible for Gaddafi's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The notoriously lying NTC has now climbed back from its exposed lies on this. When will wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.25.167 (talk • contribs)
- One, there's no conviction, or even an indictment. Two, the proposed name isn't WP:COMMON unless you only read Mathaba and pro-government editorials from Zimbabwe, Syria, and ALBA states. Strong oppose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The lie that this was a death in crossfire has been abandoned by the NTC and the killer has openly confessed about his pleasure and wilfulness in doing what he clearly avoidably did. Where's the non-murder aspect of this lynching?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.128.10 (talk • contribs)
- Aw, poor Muammar. Still doesn't address my objections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- What kind of a sick fuck are you to be presented with the evidence of the brutal lynching of this elderly man and say "Aw poor xxx"? Your objection is that it's common sense that the circumstances of this death don't amount to a murder, and I've addressed that with my view of common sense which is that the confession in the light of the supporting video and testimonial evidence and the NTC's announcement of investigation with a view to prosecution. So let's consult the others as to my sense is more common than yours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.79.1 (talk • contribs)
- Forgive me if I'm not shedding any tears over the untimely demise of a man with the blood of tens of thousands of people, including many of my own countrymen, on his hands. That aside, you still haven't addressed my objections. Murder is a legal term, and it's not the common descriptor for what happened to the mad dog. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- What kind of a sick fuck are you to be presented with the evidence of the brutal lynching of this elderly man and say "Aw poor xxx"? Your objection is that it's common sense that the circumstances of this death don't amount to a murder, and I've addressed that with my view of common sense which is that the confession in the light of the supporting video and testimonial evidence and the NTC's announcement of investigation with a view to prosecution. So let's consult the others as to my sense is more common than yours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.79.1 (talk • contribs)
- Aw, poor Muammar. Still doesn't address my objections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- The lie that this was a death in crossfire has been abandoned by the NTC and the killer has openly confessed about his pleasure and wilfulness in doing what he clearly avoidably did. Where's the non-murder aspect of this lynching?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.128.10 (talk • contribs)
Killing a tyrant is never murder. In fact it is the moral obligation of everyone who has the chance to it. Dictators are not people with human rights, and if a dictator gets killed by the populace he has oppressed, all the better. Those who call this incident a murder have no understanding of murder as a legal term, nor as a subject of morality. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Go look up murder, human rights, etc; and see if any of the exceptions which you claim to apply, do apply - for which I'll save you the time and tell you that they don't. This man was a statesman, a grandfather and a prisoner of war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.79.1 (talk • contribs)
- Lets not discuss morality issues here. As the policy for this discussion page so rightly states, this is not the place to air personal views (however correct or well supported and morally superior they might be) on the topics, but rather suggest ways to improve the article. The Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy clearly recommends avoiding leading titles such as Murder of ... unless and until verdict has been passed sufficiently and conclusively to the exact nature of the killing. As for the points raised by the preceding unnamed user as well as User:Cush, let me just say that wikipedia tries to be as neutral and unbiased to 'all' deaths of all kinds of people, for the record both the deaths of Micheal Jackson and Osama Bin Laden have been covered under the same standard title. Batram (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was clearly murder in the form of torture and execution, whilst unarmed and whilst captured by the opposition forces he was sodomized with a knife, beaten and shot in the head.... but I think for the time being the title is fine and the aspects of illegal killing can be covered in the article. If after the trial someone is convicted of murder we can move it then. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone find it rather strange that the IP's supporting the move editing this section are adding {{unsigned}} at the end of their comments? I never really heard of an IP, with no earlier edits, finding a template and then using it (Note:The one IP who posted a rather "neutral statement", the one about Gadafi maybe being shot with his own golden gun, did not add unsigned to his comment)? Also, it seams that they are continuing one the conversation as if they are all being used by one person. Something smells rather fishy here. I've put in the names of each comment, just for the reference. Buggie111 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whoever it is it's a legitimate question -Murder of, Killing of, are both good options - death of is just a stop gap really on the way to the final title. His murder is clearly a war crime. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think Killing of is the best title for the page. Murder of i not reliably sourced enough to warrant that name.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Murder of ... is a blatant POV title, and I see no strong reasons for the article to be moved to this new title, unless and until in the next 24 hours the guy who claims to have shot Gadaffi is indicted, prosecuted and sentenced for the crime. The term Killing, again, is POV (albeit to a lesser extent than Murder) and has a awkward tone to it. If anything, the most widely used alternative to Murder or Killing used on wikipedia has been Assassination of.... But I don't think a lot of wiki users will be comfortable with the idea of calling the death of Gadaffi an assassination (considering the fact that the term has a definitive positive bias to it, and is seldom used for non-protagonist personalities). Of course, I don't have a problem with using Assassination, since I believe it would fall within the ambit of WP:NPOV. Batram (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think Killing of is the best title for the page. Murder of i not reliably sourced enough to warrant that name.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whoever it is it's a legitimate question -Murder of, Killing of, are both good options - death of is just a stop gap really on the way to the final title. His murder is clearly a war crime. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone find it rather strange that the IP's supporting the move editing this section are adding {{unsigned}} at the end of their comments? I never really heard of an IP, with no earlier edits, finding a template and then using it (Note:The one IP who posted a rather "neutral statement", the one about Gadafi maybe being shot with his own golden gun, did not add unsigned to his comment)? Also, it seams that they are continuing one the conversation as if they are all being used by one person. Something smells rather fishy here. I've put in the names of each comment, just for the reference. Buggie111 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was clearly murder in the form of torture and execution, whilst unarmed and whilst captured by the opposition forces he was sodomized with a knife, beaten and shot in the head.... but I think for the time being the title is fine and the aspects of illegal killing can be covered in the article. If after the trial someone is convicted of murder we can move it then. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lets not discuss morality issues here. As the policy for this discussion page so rightly states, this is not the place to air personal views (however correct or well supported and morally superior they might be) on the topics, but rather suggest ways to improve the article. The Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy clearly recommends avoiding leading titles such as Murder of ... unless and until verdict has been passed sufficiently and conclusively to the exact nature of the killing. As for the points raised by the preceding unnamed user as well as User:Cush, let me just say that wikipedia tries to be as neutral and unbiased to 'all' deaths of all kinds of people, for the record both the deaths of Micheal Jackson and Osama Bin Laden have been covered under the same standard title. Batram (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
We can all agree that he died as a result of being shot (and was probably seriously injured prior to that) - the issue is the terminology - murder, manslaughter, summary killing etc. There are other examples Spencer Percival was shot by a person intending to damage another minister - it can be argued whether he was murdered or assassinated; while Stalin died partially because members of the Politburo and staff were too frightened to disturb him - what term should be used? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The death of Julius Caesar is commonly referred to as an assassination, regardless of the fact that a mob did the killing. If Julius Caesar's slaughter by a mob can be considered an assassination, so can the death of Moammar Gaddafi.198.151.130.44 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
At the moment we can only talk about the DEATH of Gaddafi, because we don't really know exactly how he died, only that he is dead in controversial and very foggy circumstances. Execution or murder are emotive words whereas DEATH is properly factual but not frieghted with judgements which might yet turn out to be untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.13.141 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree. For better or worse, we have to go through this type of debate every time there's an article about a controversial death. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Would add George V to the above list. There is probably an article to be written on "the untimely deaths of leaders and politicians, not elsewhere classifiable" - but it would have to be somewhere other than Wikipedia.
It is not clear from what has emerged at what point Gaddafi's death was inevitable - whether from the continuing injuries he was sustaining, or the desire of "certain persons in the group of people to have him dead" Jackiespeel (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a letter in The Guardian a few days ago that what was done to Gaddafi was against Islamic principles on several counts - could a link be included (if it is not already).
There are several points to be considered:
Several 'persons wanted' (Radovan Karadic (sp?), Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden etc) have been discovered 'hiding in plain sight' so it might have been a reasonable assumption that Gaddafi could do likewise (especially as he was known to camp out in the desert).
Under the circumstances, and, given its proximity to Sirte, it could probably be deduced that there was a significant probability that the convoy was either linking up with Gaddafi, or had some members of the Gaddafi family among those present.
The desire for revenge among the locals is understandable - as is the symbolism of using Gaddafi's gun... but what was done to him, before and after death, causes 'disquiet and worse' whatever one's opinion of him. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Murder is defined as unlawful killing. There hasn't been any definitive statement so far that his killing was unlawful, particularly given that it occurred during a war where killing is often considered legal. As such it would be inappropriate to use the term murder. "Death of" or "Killing of" are both appropriate, but I don't see any driving purpose to change from one to the other, at this point. We have articles at Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of John Lennon, Death of Adolf Hitler etc. that all explain the specifics of their deaths in the article. I don't see Death of Muammar Gaddafi as requiring special treatment. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I misread the date on this section, my bad. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It is much easier to define what it is not than what it is. If MG had died as a result of the NATO strike it would have been collateral damage (there is a difference between #assuming# there is a connection with, or attempting to to meet up with Gaddafi, and #knowing# he was in the convoy); had he kept his face covered and someone had killed him for his gold gun it would have been murder; the Ceaucescus were executed after a form of trial (which did not occur here), a gunfight could have been classified as 'death in battle' - but a course of action was taken which led to his death 'specifically because he was MG' that cannot be described as conventional assassination. Like Darius III 'a death by violence not otherwise covered.'
There would be an equally long discussion had MG been found and captured with the intent of handing him over but had died of his injuries variously sustained. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The man was lynched why is the article not called Lynching of Muammar Gaddafi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponox (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC) In reply to the above comment, he was not lynched, lynching is generally accepted to be a mob hanging someone. He was shot dead.
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Muammar Gaddafi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I am willing to review this article. From my initial glance I see that the lead is far too short for the article. It needs to be fleshed out some more if it is to have any chance of getting good status. Once this has been done I will review further. AIRcorn (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- Ungrammatical sentences; e.g. He was widely rumoured to have taken refuge in the south of the country and in fact Gaddafi had fled in a small convoy to Sirte on the day Tripoli fell (widely rumored is also weaselly).Video shows Gaddafi’s body on display in the center of an emptied public freezer in Misrata (also repetitive).
- Prose is choppy throughout the public display section.
- Why use late strongman's? This is also a long and awkward sentence.
- Does the Gaddafi's body section need all the sub-sections? Some are very short and the headings not very encyclopaedic.
- The Concurrent capture or death of relatives and associates heading is very unwieldy.
- What is the inclusion criteria for the other "death of ...." in the see also.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Not gone into in any detail
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- I think everything that needs to be there is without going into too much detail.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Talkpage comments aside, somewhat surprisingl the page history suggests that it is relatively stable over the past few weeks.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Nothing jumped out as being extremely POV. All opinions have been presented as such. However, without going into the references in detail I am not confident enough to pass this criteria for a potentially controversial subject.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg is good, but there is a template questioning the status of File:2011 Battle of Sirte.svg that will need to be addressed.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This appears to be a drive by nomination and the nominator has not responded after two weeks making me reluctant to get into too much detail with this article. Regardless I feel there are enough issues to prevent this passing now without some additional work. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Further comments
'Category of topics which are better considered for GA status at least 2-3 years after the event' (when historical perspective comes into play rather than 'partisan present positions'). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Gaddafi died unpleasantly as the result of 'deliberate violence deliberately inflicted over a period of time by various people of a crowd or mob who may or may not have initially intended to kill him.'
His death does not come under the conventional definitions of murder (which could happen if 'a notable person' is not recognised at the time by the person killing them), assassination whether by a person or group (as with Julius Caesar, execution, in battle or as a result of warfare (if the flyover had killed him directly) or a palace coup (Salvador Allende). The most apposite term does seem to be 'lynching, used in its most colloquial sense' - and most people would not want there to be sufficient cases for a catch-all term to be invented. (Not WP-neutral I know - but sometimes taking a particular viewpoint is appropriate) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Changing the pov somewhat - which other 'leaders, ministers and senior administrative figures' can be said to 'have died of a mob'? The serving Archbishop of York during the Peasant's Revolt and who else? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Julius Caesar. There was also the guy who ran the Bastille in 1789. 198.151.130.44 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Julius was the victim of a collective killing which had been previously planned. There was a Polish ex-PM years ago who was killed by burglars; and Spencer Percival's assassain had set out to kill a different politician - have there been any other cases of 'notable persons' being killed by mistake/instead of the intended victim? 'Other violent deaths' and 'deaths not elsewhere categorised' will contain some peculiar examples. (Jorg Haider counts as drink-driving rather than ordinary car-accicent.) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
In reply to the reply to my comment he was lynched
Wikipedias own entry Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people.
Oxford "(of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging"
West's Encyclopedia of American Law - Violent punishment or execution, without due process, for real or alleged crimes.
The man was lynched, the title of this article should reflect the facts and not mollify according to the prevailing bias of the day. Ponox (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, he was not lynched in the literal sense, according to reliable reports at the time (just about every paper in the world, although they were somewhat euphemistic about it because the manner of Gaddafi's murder was so very ugly), and is recounted in some of the discussion above, he was strapped to the bonnet (or hood if you like) of a motor vehicle, driven around and beaten repeatedly, then anally raped with a bayonet, whether he was shot dead or not is less reliable than any of that. People can lie about it all they like. The new crowd is just a mess, that seems to have been the objective.
Good article? Uh, no. In the main, a biased and confused piece of propaganda, the various players on the page don't even know exactly which agenda they are pushing (the wronged Libyan people, most of whom supported Gaddafi, at least in the east of the country, NATO, etc.), which is probably why the same goes for the article on the so-called 'civil war', actually an outside intervention more than anything else. Interesting that all events lately (Egypt and Syria in particular, Libya too) closely match US government briefings (destabilize everyone in the vicinity) from Muraviec about ten years ago, also that all of the articles on that appear to have been deleted. Princesstwinset (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you're wrong, the majority of Libyans in east Libya (Cyrenecia) were against Gaddafi, hence why they took control of the cities located there BEFORE NATO stepped in. OF course Gaddafi had a degree of public support, but that doesn't change the fact he was a DICTATOR, people generally don't like being shot for having a different opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Coordinate error
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
the grid has an odd number of digits
—108.204.49.149 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "grid", and the coordinates in the article appear to be correct. Could you be more explicit about what you think is erroneous? Deor (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closing this, as the OP has not responded to my query above. 108.204.49.149, if you still think the coordinates are erroneous, please start a new section below, including the {{geodata-check}} template and a clear explanation of the error. Deor (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Deposed
Gaddafi was deposed on 23 August 2011, nearly two months before his death. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC))
- You made this[3] edit on twenty-four July, without consensus first and recently edit warred for it. Read OPENPARA, he was recognizable as the leader. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gaddafi was not the leader of anything after his regime was formally deposed on 23rd August 2011. As he was never elected by anyone he was clearly a dictator. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC))
- He is only regarded as dictator only when one has to condemn his role in the country. Not that he had political post to become dictator. What elections you are talking about and for which post? Prime minister is the biggest post of Libya and he was not one. It is absurd to call him dictator when he was not even a prime minister. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- He was the prime minister for a time. It is absurd to pretend that Gaddafi was not a dictator. If he was not the Libyan dictator then he was not the Libyan leader either. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC))
- The term "dictator", like the term "terrorist", is a heavily subjective one that is usually used as a pejorative. Clearly, Gaddafi did not identify as a dictator, and was not designated as such within the constitutional order of the Libyan Republic and the subsequent Libyan Jamahariya (he was never "Prime Minister" either). While there might be good reason for deeming him to be a dictator (after all, he did wield extraordinary socio-political influence within Libya), given Wikipedia's policies we should not be presenting him as one as if it was an objective fact. We can say "Many critics considered Gaddafi to be a dictator"; we must not say "Gaddafi was a dictator". Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gaddafi was Libya's Prime Minister from 1970 to 1972. No dictator would publicly identify themselves as such. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC))
- The term "dictator", like the term "terrorist", is a heavily subjective one that is usually used as a pejorative. Clearly, Gaddafi did not identify as a dictator, and was not designated as such within the constitutional order of the Libyan Republic and the subsequent Libyan Jamahariya (he was never "Prime Minister" either). While there might be good reason for deeming him to be a dictator (after all, he did wield extraordinary socio-political influence within Libya), given Wikipedia's policies we should not be presenting him as one as if it was an objective fact. We can say "Many critics considered Gaddafi to be a dictator"; we must not say "Gaddafi was a dictator". Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- He was the prime minister for a time. It is absurd to pretend that Gaddafi was not a dictator. If he was not the Libyan dictator then he was not the Libyan leader either. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC))
- He is only regarded as dictator only when one has to condemn his role in the country. Not that he had political post to become dictator. What elections you are talking about and for which post? Prime minister is the biggest post of Libya and he was not one. It is absurd to call him dictator when he was not even a prime minister. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gaddafi was not the leader of anything after his regime was formally deposed on 23rd August 2011. As he was never elected by anyone he was clearly a dictator. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC))
This discussion isn't aiming to address whether or not Gaddafi was a dictator. The OP raised the issue of whether Gaddafi lost power when he died, or months before when he was chased out of Tripoli. I'm not sure why this was a relevant issue because the term "deposed" is described only twice in the article, and in neither instance does it correlate his death with his fall from power. As far as the semantic leader/dictator issue... Stalin, Hussein, Adi Amin, Pol Pot, Pinochet - in all of their articles they described by their official titles according to contemporary and modern sources (generally the worse you are, the more titles you have - chancellor, president, dictator, supreme leader, etc.). Instead of calling Gaddafi a dictator or a leader, how about doing what all of those other articles have done - by replacing all instances of those words with his last name? It is more encyclopedic, and removes all these weasel-word issues. The fact that there are 31 instances of the word "leader" in this article should be a major red flag. If nothing else, let's pull out a thesaurus. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)