Talk:The Green Book (Gaddafi)

availability

I ordered a copy from the Libyan Mission to the United Nations about a year ago for free, so I don't think it's out of print. --Seselwa 10:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where can this be ordered from? Could you also fill in some of the publishing details (if there are any), as its very unclear what is 'official' and what isn't when it comes to the Libyan government. Bungopolis 18:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in finding out what the copyright status of the text is (I don't know much about Libyan copyright law). Since there seem to be quite a few unauthorized publications, and the government gives it away for free, I would imagine it's not strictly protected. Bungopolis 19:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no copyright statement and no ISBN. The only information included is “Published by the Public Establishment for Publishing, Advertising and Distribution, Tripoli, Libya”.

I obtained a copy by sending an e-mail (in English) with my address to the Permanent Mission of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations (http://www.libya-un.org). It appears that the "contact us" link is currently broken, so the web page design must have changed since I visited. --Seselwa 22:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to download all three parts of The Green Book by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi. [1] Eidolon1 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While there might not be a copyright statement or ISBN, the Berne Convention on copyright does tend to imply that copyright is automatic. So while one probably wouldnt get into to trouble distributing it, that doesnt mean its necessarily legal to do so without permission. With all that said, I highly doubt Mr Gadafi will be rising from the grave to issue a DMCA. Duckmonster (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Being mentioned in the news

Green book search on Google News --Rarian rakista (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to text should be marked "(in English)"

The link goes to the English translation, not to the Arabic original. I think this should be noted. -- 77.189.25.3 (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

its authorship is disputed

This is a pretty big accusation thats missing any explanation or sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.129.163 (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not even-handed

Gaddafi, all by himself, is sufficiently unbalanced and absurd without certain Wikipedia editors trying to assist him by being more absurd than he is. For example, the first and third quotations in the section titled Excerpts are translated in such a way as to make Gaddafi seem even more ridiculous than he actually is. This just undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. If you want to ridicule Gaddafi, the best and most solid way is to present him exactly as he is. Where the article focuses on ridiculing what is in the Green Book it should stick to a reliable translation. I'm not sure what a reliable translation would be, that needs an assessment from an expert. Perhaps this one. Anyway, to the editors who think this is a good way to go, if your main energy is just to write comedy spoofs on Gaddafi, go write your own blog, but keep it away from Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I support this. Only official translations can be used and even then, the selection of passages is not neutral. --damiens.rf 12:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"This just undermines the credibility of Wikipedia." Credibility of Wikipedia? This is the best joke. At least you didn't say "impartiality of Wikipedia". That would way more funny! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very difficult to accept that the editor who chose the single excerpt from the Green Book did so in good faith. Anyone reading the Green Book recognizes that it is a dissertation on political economy, and the problematic assertions of this excerpt are wholly unrelated to the substance of the book. Anyone reading this excerpt would be inclined to agree with "Dartmouth College Professor Dirk Vandewalle [who] describes the book as more a collection of aphorisms rather than a systematic argument." It is obvious that this choice quote from a professor was not chosen at random either. In fact, the Green Book IS a systematic critique of Western representative democracy, and a rather valiant attempt to structure a participatory democracy instead. Whether Gaddafi practices what he preaches is another question and beside the point. This article is not supposed to be about Gaddafi or the Libyan government, it is supposed to objectively report the content of the Green Book, and instead, it paints a caricature, replete with red-baiting. Moreover, in my edit, all of which has been removed (smacking of censorship, but I'm new to Wikileaks editing so maybe I just don't get it) I included a url for the download of the entire Green Book in pdf form. Why would anyone remove this information from the article? The only reason I can think of is so that readers will accept the jaundiced view of this Dartmouth professor and not be able to judge firsthand whether his is a valid assessment or not. I'm really quite incensed that this kind of skewed presentation wins the day here at Wikipedia. Kenfree (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ken. I'm the arsehole who removed your contributions, and told you to put them here instead. I agree completely that the excerpt from the Green Book you mention is tendentious garbage, and I have removed it. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your candor is much appreciated. I would still like to see a more balanced presentation here, instead of only quoting critics of Gaddafi (who are not doing justice to his dissertation, in my humble opinion). Can't we at least provide the url to the Green Book so that people can download it and judge it for themselves???Kenfree (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of versions listed in "External links" at the bottom. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Kenfree. You are right but Wikipedia follows US agenda so they have to portray Muammar Gaddafi as a dictator, monstrous man who slaughtered Libyans to a degree that US and allies had to invade the country as "humanitarian aid". It doesn't matter that 80.000 innocent civilians were killed, others were tortured, the country was destroyed and Gaddafi was killed without trial. I wonder why Wikipedia do not put the quotation of the Secretary of State: "We came, we saw, he died." smiling and jumping of joy. We have people like Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who wrote a book about what was done in Libya in 2011. We also have those independent journalist who were threatened to death at Rixos Hotel in Tripoli: "The mainstream media, including CNN and the BBC have direct links to NATO, the Transitional Council and Rebel Forces. They are serving NATO interests in a direct way through massive media distortion."

Wikipedia has no link to NATO but follows the same agenda. --Justana (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Green book covers

Why are there two pictures of the cover of the Green book? One in English and one in... Russian? Is the one who posted these pictures thought that the original Green book's language was Russian? Or did you think that this is how the Arabic writing looks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.152.113 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Western View

It is quite strange that among the "western viewers" there is a quotation of an article of a BBC journalist published on October, 21, 2011 one day after Gaddafi's death.

Martin Hasser is known for his highly biased articles to BBC. BBC and CNN were at Tripoli:

"The mainstream media, including CNN and the BBC have direct links to NATO, the Transitional Council and Rebel Forces. They are serving NATO interests in a direct way through massive media distortion.

At the same time, those within the Rixos Media Centre who are committed to the truth are the the object of veiled threats. In the case of Mahdi, the threats were very explicit."

This is at Globalresearch.

At Globalresearch there are many western thinkers that have other opinions about Gaddafi and The Green Book.

Maybe the title should be changed because there are other western views.

I could not help noticing that you took the line about freedom of speech from Martin Hasser's article. It only shows that this article is highly poor.--Justana (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Criticism

The Criticism section is vague and poorly argued. Together with complete lack of any supporting statements it makes the whole article look biased. I suggest to revisit the Criticism section and also look for the other side (for much of the theses in the Green Book are sound, like, for example, when it comes to needs and freedom), or, if that is not possible, remove the Criticism section until actual evidence in either direction is found. —j9t (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

re Staging Memory

An anon IP removed this from the end of the article:

In 2015, the book Staging Memory by Stefania Del Monte dedicates a whole section to The Green Book.{{|citation needed|date=September 2015}}

But another editor (User:Arthur Rubin) restored it. But:

• It's not cited and has been tagged for over a year, which is sufficient time for someone to find a cite, and
• Both Staging Memory and Stefania Del Monte are redlinked, so that's no help, and indicates that they may not be very notable.
• And I can't find anything on Staging Memory except listings of the book for sale at places like Amazon -- no reviews and suchlike -- which means I can't ref the statement, and also this is further indication that the book may not be very notable.

So I'm wondering if we should really have this sentence. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The anon is the banned "Michigan kid". If an unbanned editor wants to confirm the change, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ohhhhh OK. For my part I'm not willing to confirm the change because there's a counter-argument: here's an actual real published book (which may even deserve an an article, possibly, for all I know) with a whole section in it devoted to the Green Book. So might be a worthwhile point. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)