This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011.
Gaddafi's date of birth cannot be reliably determined due to conflicting sources. A specific birth date should not be used without further consensus. See discussions:
<A6>#Gaddafi's date of birth, <A5>#Date of birth
NATO's substantial aid and assistance to the opposition forces contributed to Gaddafi's assassination, and this is a fact. By attacking Gaddafi's convoys, NATO contributed to his assassination by facilitating his capture by the rebels. Furthermore, this event is widely classified as an assassination[3][4][5]. If you are unwilling to read the article on the Killing of Muammar Gaddafi, then I suggest you refrain from consuming unnecessary time. Continue IP hopping, making unconstructive edits and edit warring, and you may find yourself reported to the vandalism noticeboard. Skitash (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash In the very article you point to, "assassination" is pretty clearly not the conclusion of any set of certain actors. You should correct your edits on this point as they are currently non-neutral. Izno (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I would like to propose that we change the current image in the infobox for a new one that I compiled. Since I feel like the current image is a bit too young for the infobox.
I vote for Option 1, His official portrait. 121.122.87.53 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo reflects Gaddafi in his prime, although is not even being given as a numbered option here, as it should be. It is important to note that the copyright status of Option 1 is unclear in the United States, so it would not be advisable to use it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 due to it being the most common photo of ghaddafi. Lukt64 (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Option 1, Option 3, or Option 4. However, in my opinion (which I know isn't worth much), they all have some problems. I disagree with Midnightblueowl in that we should keep that, although I do agree with them that it should be a numbered option. My problem with that one is that it isn't great for specifically identifying Gaddafi. What I mean is that most of the left side of his face is hard to see, and his forehead is completely blocked. He does look a bit young, but I would say he aged decently, and that specifically doesn't seem like a huge issue. For pros, it appears to have the highest resolution of these choices, and I think you get a good sense of his overall frame, as his shoulders are partially visible. Option 1, is, in my opinion (again, not worth much), the best for identifying Gaddafi. It gets most of his face from a straight-on angle, the background and his outfit are simple, which allows a reader to focus on his face. Again, a decent sense of his frame. However, the resolution is a little lower on this one, and the contrast feels like it needs a bit of work. Also, the copyright status, as mentioned by Midnightblueowl above, is dubious here in the U.S.. Option 2 has a good resolution and again captures his frame well, but the angle is a bit odd, as is the face he's making. More of his face is visible here than our status quo, but only by so much. Additionally, his outfit might be a bit visually distracting from his face (although that could just be me). Option 3 also has a good resolution, and shows most of his face. The outfit is also distinct but not too distracting here, and the background is nice and simple. However, again the angle is a bit odd, as is his expression, and the split lighting likely isn't preferred. Option 4 I think ticks off most of the boxes, with a clear view of his face, the clothes aren't very elaborate, we get a good sense of his frame, and the resolution is decent. However, a close-up might be preferred, and although I don't have a problem with the background, someone else might. I feel option 5 is the weakest of all these, including our status quo. Most of his face is shown, and it is fairly simple, but I think too much of another person is visible in the background, his expression is again a bit odd, and the resolution isn't the best.
Hopefully my over-elaborate points made sense. Anyone else have any thoughts on any of the pros and cons I've raised? ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support current image. As per Midnightblueowl, the current image reflects Gaddafi in the period when his international influence was at its peak. Aside of color, the proposals do not offer meaningful improvements. Applodion (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support current image per the arguments above. Skitash (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my position to Support current image. In my opinion, Option 1 is still best, as it is in color, he's about facing the camera, and it's not too old but not too recent. However, as its U.S. copyright status is uncertain, we can't use it. The current image's only real flaw is that parts of his face are covered, but enough is visible to get the gist, and the resolution is good, so we might as well keep it. ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Done