Talk:Saif al-Arab Gaddafi

Saif a defector?

So it wouldn't become an edit war: no source, not a defector, even if it makes sense. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Whoops. I see there were sources. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

that's BS. He did not defect. Every other defector is paraded around by the rebels and widely reported in the foreign press, but this as of now closest "defection" to Gaddafi himself is never reported anywhere but on a Singaporean and a Iranian site... originally the claim came from Libya Alhurra TV. and he was put on the Interpol Wanted list on March 4th, as a member of the regime because he is "Subject to UN sanctions" [1]. In short: defection, never happened. EOD. noclador (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I find that hard to believe too, but as long as even remotely reliable seeming sources can be provided, it's worth at least a glance. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

agreed, but if such a big story is not picked up by any major news outlet,... especially Al-Jazeera with its live blog would report such an event. But they never did... noclador (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Death

The BBC claims Saif-al Arab was killed in a recent NATO strike. 81.97.4.35 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC) CNN reports that Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi was killed during a NATO airstrike per Libyan government spokesman. 18:20, 30 April 2011 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.200.150 (talk)

Well, he is either a defector to the rebels OR was killed in Tripoli-but not both which is how the article currently reads. 72.221.82.139 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point he is reported dead by Libyan officials, this alone means we should take the report with a grain of salt. They may very well be staging this as propaganda, he may not actually be dead... --156.34.70.89 (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't mark this as a confirmed death. We've all seen how spectacular Libyan propaganda can be. I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Libyan propaganda? Do you watch Libyan state television? Do you read Libyan newspapers? Can you speak/read Arabic? We've all seen it? On what do you base any of this on? Fox news, wikipedia, BBC, Reuters - now this is spectacular propaganda my friend, propaganda that you fail to recognise in your own native language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

sided with the protesters against dad = dad used the bombing as an excuse for infanticide?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about taking any side. This is about reliable sources (WP:V), and at this point we simply don't have any reliable source saying he is dead. All we have are media quoting claims by a source (Lib. Gov.) that multiple times has been proven entirely unreliable. This is comparable to another of Muammar's sons, Khamis al-Gaddafi, which the opposition and various sources have claimed is dead, but as this has been questioned (mainly by the Lib. Gov.) and remains unconfirmed by a reliable source, he is not listed as dead. RN1970 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The skepticism has no place at the top of the article. He is dead, it is reported by his family. When rebels report casualties in their side, they are taken to the word. This is not similar to Khamis because Khamis death was only an internet rumor without any basis and has been debunked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geromasis (talk • contribs) 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Geromasis – in terms of reliability of the source (→WP:RS), the basis for the death of Khamis is actually far stronger than the claim of the death of Saif. The only basis we have for calling Saif dead is a claim by the Lib. Gov., which multiple times has been proven unreliable. On the other hand, the death of Khamis was, in addition to being claimed by the anti-Gaddafi side, confirmed according to Al Arabiya (other media have questioned this, which is the only reason it remains as unconfirmed). Al Arabiya is certainly far higher on the reliability scale than the Lib. Gov. Secondly, the controversy over his death certainly belongs in the lead, and WP:Lead makes that absolutely clear [quote]: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." (my underlining). RN1970 (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any serious reason to doubt that he is dead. Even Gaddafi would hardly be stupid enough th run the risk that he might turn up alive some time soon. PatGallacher (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There won't be any risk if he goes into hiding. Tripoli is controlled by security forces. There is no risk of publicity. Considering the "house" was a building with almost no furniture, no wall paint or wall paper, and largely built of reinforced concrete and steel, I would have to say it was not a residential house. There has been no pictures of the body, and the names of the grandchildren were not released. This is a ruse, remember Musa Ibrahim is the same person who claims the entire rebellion was sparked by drugged nescafe. Zenithfel (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In the short term, he might get away with it. However, presumably Gaddafi and his family expect to win this civil war. Does a man in his late 30s then spend the rest of his life in hiding? PatGallacher (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't know what this is and we don't take a stance on it. We report what the newspapers report, which is that Saif is dead according to Libyan officials and opposition members suspect it's a ploy. That said, I don't think common sense applies here; Gaddafi is under extreme stress and pressure and might be willing to make very risky gambles. It's also possible to stay hidden for quite some time. Ocaasi ^c 10:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

-Indeed... Gaddafi originally put his interior minister under house arrest with intention to kill him, a sacrifice made to keep any defections. That failed. In March they reported on "live TV" that Younis rejoined Gaddafi put video of him shaking hand with him, but of course we know that wasn't true. Some of the loyalist soldiers burn alive other soldiers who refuse to fire on civilians, another huge length to go to in order to prevent failure. Gaddafi's forces will go to any length to achieve anything, and we cannot be certain what is what, especially with any reports from Saif Gaddafi and Musa Ibrahim. The fact that Ban Ki Moon and the UN has declared that Gaddafi's government lost legitimacy means we shouldn't regard the Libyan government as a legitimate source of true information. Sopher99 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A targeted airstrike resulting in death is a murder. 'Killed' implys that this was some sort of accident. No reason given for reverting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The targeted airstrike was intentional. The deaths were not, so it is not murder.--Dalaru (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Freely licensed photo?

This report: http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/05/gaddafis-youngest-son-killed-why-may-not-be-case points out that photos of Saif al-Arab's older brother Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi are being widely used in online sources with Saif al-Arab's name under them.

Here http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/30/saif-al-arab-son-of-gaddafi-believed-killed/ is a website apparently from US military veterans who claim that some of them had been in contact with Saif al-Arab in order to try negotiations with Hillary Clinton. This includes a photo claimed to be correct.

Here is a Thomson Reuters photo: http://www.daylife.com/photo/0aXi9yI2O32y0?__site=daylife&q=Tripoli%2C+Libya, and an Associated Press photo that's nearly the same.

The Veterans Today and Thomson Reuters/AP photos look consistent (my subjective impression) with each other as photos of the same guy without and with a beard, and inconsistent with the many photos of al-Saadi. IMHO Neon Tommy is right about the photo error.

Can we use any of this? Fair use of a photo under exceptional grounds is possible, but the exceptional grounds have to be justified (including no chance for getting a freely licensed photo). Boud (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked for copyright compatible photos at Google Images and Flickr and came up empty. Images of individuals rarely meet our fair-use criteria, unless the picture is essential for understanding the subject or that image is the subject or reliably sourced commentary mentioned in the article itself. So neither of those are met. We could possible angle for a very low quality image which showed Saif, and if it was not from a press agency (which have commercial interests) it would have a chance. But not a great one. Ocaasi ^c 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Note, this image http://www.ironmill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/saif-al-arab-gaddafi.jpg seems to be the ubiquitous one. Ideally, we'd need to find it as close to the original source as possible, and with a clear caption from an RS that it is who we think it is. Then again, I tried this with Cheng Jianping whose twitter profile picture was all over the news after her imprisonment in China, and it was deleted. Ocaasi ^c 23:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Saadi seems to have spent quite a bit of time in Italy playing football, the number of people with cameras who might have photographed him and might decide to publish their photo under a free licence might be greater than for Saif al-Arab, who spent a few years in Germany, but not as a football player. Alternatively, if the wrong photo issue becomes notable enough, then that could go into the article, in which case understanding the subject would be easier if the photos were in the article. The question then would be: would having the non-free photos be essential to understanding this one point of the article? My own guess is that the case for "essential" would be weak. In any case, free photos would be best. Boud (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Free photos would be best. I surprised there are so few of him, even licensed photos. "essential" is actually a bit strong; it's more like "significantly improves the readers understanding", but since the image is not especially important to the article, it's better if you can find some commentary-related need, such as a case of mistaken identity. still, it's a stretch. search for free images, commence. Ocaasi ^c 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Doubts about his death in lead

That some opposition groups have cast doubts on the reported death is fair enough to note in the article, but not in the lead. This is not a news paper recording the latest stuff, it is a biography of Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi, the lead records the most pertinent facts bout him. The fact that he's being reported dead is one of them. The fact that his opponents are casting doubt on the reliability of the Libyan government (and I note no neutral source or sovereign government is doing so) is not among the most notable facts about Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi. "Reported" carries that inference that it is not confirmed, and that's enough for the lead. The fact that Zakhalesh is edit-waring to keep this in because "they tell lies" is not neutral editing.--Scott Mac 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be a bit contradictory that everybody is accepting the American claim that bin Laden is dead, even though they have no body to produce. I expect they are both dead, but beware of double standards. PatGallacher (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC news has shown film of his funeral, I doubt if this was an elaborate hoax. PatGallacher (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Al-Mu'tasim-Billah al-Gaddafi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alma Mater

I don't think the personal box should mention an "Alma mater", since he is not known for any academic achievement, nor is there any indication that he ever got a university degree or visited any classes whatsoever. In fact his enrollment may have served as another justification for his residence permit, see (in German): http://www.focus.de/panorama/reportage/tyrannenssohn-in-muenchen-der-hochqualifizierte-gaddafi-jr-_aid_605739.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.135.60 (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saif al-Arab Gaddafi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308073400/http://aspenclassifieds.net/the-eight-children-of-gaddafi/ to http://aspenclassifieds.net/the-eight-children-of-gaddafi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)