Talk:Muammar Gaddafi

Template:Vital article

Image change -- issue 2

The lead image should be changed to either one of these images to the left

The reason is that those images are more well-known than the current picture, and that the current picture is low-quality. You wouldn't, for example, have Ronald Reagan or Mao Zedong portrayed as young men in their infoboxes. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion in 2015 did not reach a consensus. I agree that it would be better to have a newer picture of him, but I get that neither of them are ideal. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Could we somehow get a new consensus? I don't know how it works. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a consensus can be reached if enough people voice their opinion in this thread. Another possibility is to open up another request for comment which would get a wider community input. I would support choosing the first image as it's a good photograph and he's recognizable there, even though he's pouting. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I know i'll get reverted if just change the image without a consensus, and I don't want to make a request for comment yet, so I guess i'll have to wait to see if more people show up and share their opinion. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the claim that the current picture is "low-quality". As far as I can see, it isn't. The parallels with Reagan and Mao are also misleading. Reagan and Mao only reached political power later in life; Gaddafi was still a young man when he became leader of Libya. Indeed, he was perhaps at the apex of his international influence in the 1970s, which is when the photograph of him currently in the infobox was taken. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a better analogy; Franz Joseph I, Queen Victoria I, and Elizabeth II all began their reigns as young people, yet on their lead images, they are not portrayed as young, I know that just because it is like that on those articles, doesn't mean it has to be on this article, i know that.

While I do not believe that the current image is very bad, the upper image that I have uploaded here, on this talk page, has a higher quality, both in resolution and in cinematography. It is very atmospheric, you get a sense of Gaddafi as a person that you do not get from the black-and-white photograph. The black-and-white photograph appears to be taken at some kind of event, thus Gaddafi seems prepared, he's putting on a face. While in the upper image, Gaddafi appears to be in deep thought. It is a very moving photograph, and the photographer definitely deserves a Pulitzer (if he/she hasn't won one already) for capturing such a definitive photograph of the Libyan leader. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the above post from IP address 78.108.56.35. I favour the existing image.

According to the article, Gaddafi managed his public image. A candid photo would be completely unrepresentative. Further, he portrayed himself as strong and confident. Thoughtfulness was not his most recognizable attribute, certainly not outside of Libya. Anyway, I disagree that the photo with traditional African dress portrays him as thoughtful. To my eyes, he seems either sour or bored.

As for the example articles mentioned by 78.108.56.35, the first two (Franz Joseph I and Queen Victoria I) reached their greatest fame and influence later in life, as most rulers do. So, we use images from their later years. The third example (Elizabeth II) is of a living person, who actively maintains and updates her public image on coinage, on bank notes, with TV appearances, etc. She is arguably less famous now than earlier, when she ruled an empire, but an image from her youth would conflict with her public image and confuse Wikipedia readers. In a few decades, it might be appropriate to switch to an image from her coronation or from mid-life.

To demonstrate the same principle yielding the opposite result, here are examples of Wikipedia articles whose leading images correctly show people in youth, when they reached the height of their fame/power/achievement, rather than in old age, for which they are less remembered, if at all: Elvis_Presley, ABBA, the Olsen twins, Constantine_II_of_Greece.

Here are examples where recentism lead Wikipedia astray: Carrie_Fisher is shown in old age, when she had virtually disappeared from the public sphere. Saddam_Hussain is shown with a beard, which he only cultivated in the last two years of life, while hunted/imprisoned and rarely in view of the public, let alone in power. Let's not repeat those mistakes in this article.

I favour keeping the existing image of Gaddafi because, in my opinion, it portrays him in the way in which the largest number of people saw him: in a military uniform. Note that mine is a Western perspective. An interesting question is whether Africans remember him more for his pan-Africanism (later years) than for his militancy (earlier years).

--Black Walnut (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC).

Image change -- issue 1

I have no opinion on the image, but I had to change it because it is most likely non-free. Thus, I swapped it for File:Gaddafi 1972.jpg because it was from the same time period. Those who are interested in the FFD discussion can go to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 30#File:Muammar_Gaddafi,_1973.jpg. —howcheng {chat} 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And unfortunately, I had to change it again, this time using File:Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg for the exact same reason. —howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl. This is really a case of recentism. Gaddafi was at his most "notable" in the 1970s and 1980s when he formulated his ideology and enacted major political changes in Libya. Using more recent photos would seem strange in this context. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Which image should we include in the infobox?

There is a clear consensus to use Option A (File:Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg).

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article use Option A or Option B in the infobox?

Which image of Gaddafi should be included in the infobox: Option A (File:Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg) or Option B (File:Muammar al-Gaddafi-30112006.jpg)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Context: The previous image which was used in the infobox for several years was deleted from Wikipedia amid copyright concerns last year. Option A was added to the infobox as its replacement although there was never clear consensus for it. Thus a discussion is needed, and an RfC is a good means of determining a consensus. Option A is a clear image and shows Gaddafi in his prime; however, it is in black and white and depicts Gaddafi looking to the right, away from the text itself. Option B shows Gaddafi at a later date but also shows him looking left, towards the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option B Its the better image of the two; its in color and its my mental image of Gaddafi, and likely the readers as well. ~ HAL333 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option A Mostly because he looks like he's been caught off guard being photographed from below and does an awkward smile. Plus, an older picture doesn't matter because he was already in the position he was most notable for. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Mild preference for Option A I'm persuaded by your argument above, Midnightblueowl, that an image of him in his prime is appropriate. His attire in that photo also seems to be more formal. I also think a serious image is more appropriate than a smiling image given his bio. That said, the lack of color and disconnect from my mental image are major downsides. But Option B is just not a great photo — it's a little blurry and the background is distracting. Are there no better alternatives than these two available? Sdkb (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  A third option that we have is File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg. Although a nice clear image, and one that is in colour, it replicates some of the main problems of both Option A and B, and brings with it some additional issues. The photograph shows Gaddafi as an old man; it has him facing right, away from the text; and has him looking rather moody, which could be construed as a deliberate attempt to portray Gaddafi negatively in the lede. In my view, it's not worth seriously considering as an option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option A: It seems reasonable to have an infobox image showing a public figure "in their prime", as Sdkb puts it. For Gadaffi, that was undoubtedly in the 1970s. The guidance on WP:Recentism is also relevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A – Makes sense to picture him in his prime. And I also share Sdkb's concerns about option B. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• How about both? See example here. I don't find it jarring to have two images of him in the infobox (even though it's not the norm here on Wikipedia). I find it more jarring that I need to scroll down half the article before I see a picture that matches my recentist mental model of him. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure that works, to be honest. It would be highly irregular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  Definitely irregular. I would be strongly opposed to that. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option A Aside from the technical qualities of the image (B being poorer, A taken at a closer range and giving far greater facial detail) personally I find black and white images for portraits can be quite powerful. I also favour an image that conveys an historic context, even if only implicitly, and, as above, avoids RECENTISM. --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A is a much better photo, and capture an historic moment. A more recent (older Gaddafi) photo could be used, but the suggested one in B is much poorer than A.--Eostrix (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option B Because the portrait B (the right one) looks to be closer (to his actual face) in the mind of the readers in comparison with the other image which looks younger ... As well as this, being a colorful image might be more attractive for the readers, too. It was my personal view! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A I agree with Brigade Piron about the importance of showing a public figure in their prime. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A On Wikipedia, the overwhelming precedent is every powerful person or entertainers have their pictures changed to an old (usually black-and-white) one on the same day they died. Some recent examples are Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Kirk Douglas, Daniel arap Moi, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Pope John Paul II, Kim Il-sung, Slobodan Milošević. For people who are still alive, we obviously would go with the more recent photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A Prime Gaddafi. I don't think the most illustrative photo is (in principle) the most recent one, thus Wikipedia shouldn't use the most recent photo just because "it is the closest to this day and age", either if we deal with a deceased individual or a living one, because enforcing such emphasis detracts from the encyclopedic quality of the articles just to please RECENTIST sensibilities.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A This was when Gaddafi was at his height of activity. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A - taken at a time when Gaddafi was among the most influential people in Africa and the Arab world. Applodion (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A per above, in particular per IceFrappe's comment. The "mental image" of younger readers (as of today) is quite irrelevant. --MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option A, since it is the more serene and relaxed of the two images, during the dictator's early years of power.Davidbena (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing comment: The legobot has ended the RfC after a month. It looks like we have a very clear consensus in favour of Option A. Many thanks to all who offered their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to publish my idea but by which time you had already posted the closing comment, so a edit conflict occured but that is my fault as I took too long, I gather it is too late to post now Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

By my all means, feel free to offer your view below, Lochglasgowstrathyre! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion ended at 06:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC). The conclusion was to keep the image, because there is no copyright problem.
--Black Walnut (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The final brutal moments of Muammar Gaddafi?

I've seen them on youtube, and it's something this wikipedia article could really use, regardless on how offended people become. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGm492qVEzA&t=67s> LockyHimself (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Does the description of that brulity in the existing section ("Capture and death: September–October 2011") not suffice? What more would you write?
--Black Walnut (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Western Bias

This article relies very much upon Western sources often funded by the American State Department, which do not present an unbiased view. My changes made this clear, so why were they reverted?