Talk:HIV trial in Libya/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

terrible bias throughout the article

I cannot believe the shocking bias repeated over and over and over again in this article. I don't know how many more ways one can slip in the case for the defense of the nurses, but I'm guessing most permutations have been tried. Either we add the Libyan case more thoroughly or we delete large junks of this tendentious piece that repeatedly churns out case for the defense.

If anyone bothers to read the literature with even a remotely open mind, and just a quick pointer I would suggest reading the piece by the Professor from South Carolina University Medical School in the Libyan Journal of Medicine published in March 2007, you find a formidable response to the western scientific point of view. In fact it appears quite clearly to win the argument. One should read it then make the changes. Until this occurs I shall delete the unnecessary repetition of case for the defense - that is remedy the flagrant bias in this article.

Right, I'm sure the rantings of an obscure professor from Nowhere University the mainstream scientific consensus. If you have even studied HIV for TWO minutes you could see what absolute rubbish he is spewing.

Please sign your post. Some (Libyans) call it bias, others (World) call it scientific truth. The co-discoverer of HIV, Dr Luc Montagnier, said the virus in the hospital predated the coming of the foreign medical personnel. That much fact should explain any "bias". --Cryout 18:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Title

It really needs a better title - this is wordy and unless you already knew the story, doesn't give you any info on what the article is about exolon 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes; see the discussion above. I don't really understand Dhartung's opposition to anything with "HIV" in the wording, but surely even something relatively obscure like Benghazi Six would be a much more managable title.--Pharos 12:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Benghazi six brings up hits on google at least. Benghazi six trial may also work. I guess it depends on how the article is being written. But what is clear is that Trial of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor in Libya is horrible, it sounds like a bad novel, not an article. --Falcorian 06:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Strongly Agree that the article should be renamed Benghazi six trial. "AIDS scandal in Libya" is WAY to vague and could refer to almost anything involving AIDS in Libya. Nick 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this new title (AIDS scandal in Libya) is too sensational and doesn't portray the seriousness and sensitivity of the trial and those involved. I think the title should not involve the word 'scandal'.Yellowmellow45 18:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems a little NPOV. --Falcorian 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? It is a scandal! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, how about AIDS controversy in Libya? Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Controversy -- maybe. How about Disaster. There are suposedly 426 *children* that have somehow contracted HIV. That's a disaster. Unless you are suggesting that 426 children never contracted HIV in the first place. Jeff Carr 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
'Scandal' in a headline should be reserved for a tabloid. The German and French pages use the title "HIV Trial in Libya." Would there be any objection to this change? Gilliamjf 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That seems ok to me Yellowmellow45 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Gilliamjf 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to throw my support behind the change as well. --Falcorian | Talk 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The case is known as Libyan-Holocaust inside Libya.Islampedia 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the largest outbreak of hospital-induced HIV in history .. The article is not about the trial only the trial is only part of the issue. A better title is "Benghazi-Hospital HIV outbreak" or simpy "Benghazi HIV outbreak" This is a more historic event than the trial itself. Islampedia 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular opinion

I think this article is sorely in need of information regarding the popular opinion in Lybia throughout the incident. Possibly Bulgaria as well though that might be superfluous as their opinion might be obvious. Uly 15:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

december 25th

does it matter that it is Christmas day ? --Jerome Potts 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

pro-america

I still insist the article is pro-american! Maltesedog 08:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And I still insist the NPOV template is removed! That is of course unless you can provide an example of whatever you're talking about! Jibbajabba 08:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, what is it that you don't like? --Falcorian 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about pro-american, but it sure is overly political and lacks details about the hospital and the children. AIDS isn't trivial to spread. It's actually difficult. That's why children don't usually contract it. Fluids other than blood decrease the likelyhood of transmission. Thus, it's usually anal intercorse or needles.

I suppose a doctor in a hospital giving shots could have passed HIV between children by using the same needle. (No one does that anywhere in the world right?) Perhaps one of the children was born with AIDS and then it was passed around to the rest. Or the same needle was used on adult patients? Maybe this is the reason for transmission in lots of places in the world. That would make this title much better as "AIDS tradegy in Libya" Jeff Carr 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the book "The World's Most Dangerous Places" (see [1]) you're advised to bring your own syringes because in the Third World needles ARE reused frequently.
If any of these kids had transfusions/received blood, that could be another possibility. not all countries stringently check blood yet. and yes, re-use of needles is common in some parts of the world still.
As for the article being pro-U.S., why would you say that instead of pro-Bulgarian or pro-European? 216.164.138.57 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Europe an american colony? nevermind 84.167.242.144 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not "pro-american" if it's anything, it's "pro-defendants". Johannes H.-Larsen 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As an American, I think the U.S.'s goal here is a peaceful resolution. We have enough to work on without rekindling old feuds. Simesa 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I still insist the article is pro-american and pro-bulgarian Islampedia 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also mildly anti-Libyan, as it properly should be. The inherent and chronic evil of the Libyans is apparent, even through the neutral wording. The Americans are correct to object, especially in view of the cowardice of the EuropeansHoserjoe 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Discussion

I've moved the original discussion on this page here to help better organize the talk page. I hope that's ok. I suspect these comments were added before wikimedia had the added feature to have talk topics. Jeff Carr 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is also a very poor title for an article, and it should be renamed. Adam 03:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a better suggestion in mind right now. If there's a name the Bulgarians are giving it, I don't know it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A search on "Bulgarian nurses" does not return this article in first four pages (it appears on the fifth) - could someone who knows how to make a link create one? Steve H. at 205.147.242.4 17:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the Wikipedia search, I'm not sure what you mean by "create a link". The title Bulgarian nurses would not by itself be appropriate. There should be another version titled with the word nurse which is more common in the US than medic (here limited to military or emergency responder usage), but the article really needs a better name. I found Benghazi six and made a redirect, but that's obviously not the common name nor is it very descriptive. I've decided to post this naming conundrum to the Village Pump and get some wider input. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the title, what about simply Benghazi HIV trial?--Pharos 08:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Libyan HIV trial ? Simesa 11:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't like either of those much, partly because I think it's misleading (i.e. POV) in that it accepts the Libyan prosecution at face value, which is to say, as an honest attempt to ferret out the truth. That just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I also strongly prefer keeping the accused in the title, somehow, as the article is much more about their plight than the HIV epidemic. But then we're stuck with either a non-specific portmanteau phrase like "foreign medical professionals" or using the phrase we've got "Bulgarian medics and a Palestinian doctor" because we can't leave one of them out. That said I could accept a move to something like Libyan prosecution of foreign medical professionals, although that almost sounds like an article detailing multiple prosecutions over a number of years rather than one incident dragged on. (By the way, my request at Village Pump was fruitless, but I'll try again.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I think your perspective is slightly skewed here. That the Libyan government is charging them with causing an HIV epidemic is a fact; we also have an article on witch trials- that doesn't mean that we are accepting the "crime" as real. It is also clear that "explaining" the HIV outbreak is at the heart of the charges, rather than say, a particular animosity for Bulgarians. I don't see how including "HIV" in the title is POV when that is what the subject is all about.--Pharos 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
My perspective is slightly skewed?! Seriously, dude. The widespread majority opinion outside of Libya is that this is an unjust prosecution, a scapegoating, which the Libya government is using for two purposes: to deflect criticism from its own poor health-care practices, and to shake down Western governments for cash. Calling this the "HIV trial" presumptively implies that the trial is actually about finding the source of the HIV infection, when top HIV experts have said that it's medically practically impossible for the epidemic to have been introduced. I'm all for simplification here, but I'm not going to do it where the price is allowing the fantasy-level (witchcraft-trial) legal theories of Libya to frame the entire story. I actually have thought that it would be a great idea to have a separate article on the Benghazi HIV epidemic all by itself, in part to support this article. The pawns in all of this, of course, are not just the medics, but the Libya people, who have been frighteningly misled. That may be POV, but I believe our responsibility to the truth -- and to medical safety -- is higher. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you've misunderstood my meaning here. I just don't see how semantically the term "HIV trial" implies the prosecution is legitimate at all; the phraseology has been used in a number of mainstream reports [2] [3] that are highly critical of the trial. I just think that having a name people are more likely to search for will make the facts more accessible to the world at large. Of course, I agree it would be a very good thing to develop a separate full article on the actual HIV outbreak.--Pharos 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Quid pro quo

I have looked in vain for any evidence in the article to support the assertion that Gaddafi wanted to trade the Benghazi Six for the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, plus US$5.7 billion in compensation for the 426 HIV-infected children. Can anyone please assist?Phase1 00:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AB395FAE-6314-4FB1-A1DD-2CB146C68DC2.htm mentions some demands. The demand for the release of the Lockerbie bomber was fabricated to excacerbate Europe/Libya relations?24.6.209.232 07:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this. The referenced link mentions compensation of $13.3million per infected child. At the last count there were 426, so that makes a total of $5.666billion (or $5.7billion to the nearest decimal point). Still can't find any mention of Megrahi though.Phase1 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
In August 2003, when Libya accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, a compensation package of $2.7 billion was agreed for the families of the 270 victims ($10 million per family). This resulted in Britain and Bulgaria co-sponsoring a UN resolution to remove UN sanctions against Libya. Bulgaria's involvement in tabling the motion led to suggestions that there was some linkage with the trial of the Benghazi Six, though this was denied at the time.[4]Phase1 13:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The two case are comparable. This is what the Libyan wanted to say. There is no trade on this comparison it is only an example to explain the Libyan points of view ( Which are not included in this article!). Trade like this was never offered/accepted by the families. I did not find any link supporting what this section claims Islampedia 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's explicitly stated in [5] - "We believe al-Megrahi is innocent in the same way you believe that your nurses are innocent," Seif al-Islam Gaddafi said, adding, "Just like you have the right to demand the return of your nurses, we have the right to insist for the return of al-Megrahi to Libya."
The two cases are linked but not comparable: Qaddafi apparently cooked up this second one to try to get back at the West. Instead, he has made it obvious that Libya is still a barbarous country relying on torture [6] and show trials. Simesa 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I found that HILARIOUS. NO REALLY. I just laughed my ASS OFF. You mean UNLIKE the U.S little torture holidays in Guantanamo? You know why they do it there btw? So that they could do it outside of US soil. Yeah that's right. The US has a fucked up lease treaty with Cuba - pretty much a slave treaty, since Cuba doesnt want it. (not that Fidel can do much about it, though he never cashes the checks either). This was needed in the days where torture in the US wasnt acceptable, and it still convenient to do it there, despite torture now being "acceptable" in the US, just as long as you dont call it torture and dont talk about it. Then we have the CIA kidnappings and eastern europe torture gulags. I think I'd prefer guantanamo... at least it's in the spotlight, so you know whatever fucked up torture that goes on there is nothing compared to eastern europe...

Learn to speak modern day US - Lesson 1 & 2:

Kidnapping = We dont kidnap. We use extraordinary rendition. See? It's VERY diffrent. First of all it's two words. Second of all it's not pronouced as "kidnapping" at all. Torture = Something others do, we dont. Waterboarding is only torture when other people do it.

So anyway, before you go shouting your mouth off the next time, please consider the biggest criminal organisation in the world, the US goverment in your statement first.

That said, I've seen very little evidence of wtf went on in this hospital to get a good picture. If you ask me this is just a big political show...

213.141.89.53 08:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you're confused about what kind of people are involved, Guantanamo Bay is filled with Islamic killers, and Ghaddafi has arrested Christian nurses. Some folks here can't seem to discern the difference. 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nature article on HIV strains in the children

Would someone who gets Nature please examine the text in this article, which is largely taken from newspaper articles. I cannot find the report online, and accuracy might be critical here. Simesa 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The text is at [7] and [8]. Simesa 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~ Simesa 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re :Medical study exonerating the six this is a headline in some of the western press and is pure POV, I would call it yellow journalism, cut and pasted here by someone who did not read the nature articles. The definition of exonerate is to hold blameless. The nature articles do not say that the 6 are BLAMELESS nor do they say anywhere that the children were infected before the Bulgarians arrived. The article says that the most common recent ancestor of the PARTICULAR STRAINS of HIV predated 1998 (when the Nurses got there)

 This is NOT remotely the same as saying all the children were infected before the Bulgarians arrived

and nowhere does either article say that. Some of the children were not even born before the Bulgarians arrived and did not get infected from their mothers. Previous WESTERN investigations have already concluded that at least 282 of the infections were concurrent with the accused being at the hospital, and 59 of whom no information is known. Final Report of Prof. Luc Montagnier and Prof. Vittorio Colizzi (UNESCO) http://declanbutler.info/blog/LIBYA1.pdf More than 400 children were stuck with HIV infected needles. Are the accused being scapegoated in an absurd show trial, absolutely, and outrageously, but that does not mean they DID or DID NOT stick dirty needles into some of children and give them aids. Being falsely accused of one thing does not prove someone innocent of another. Is justice possible in Libya - NO. Do we have to be jingoistic and and make false attributions because of it? NO

Can we agree to fix this section?

the conclusions of the nature article are as follows.

"We found that, irrespective of which model was used, the estimated date of the most common recent ancestor for each cluster pre-dated March 1998, sometimes by many years (Fig. 2). In most analyses, the probability that the clusters from the Al-Fateh Hospital originated after that time was almost zero (for details, see supplementary information). For the three HCV clusters, the percentage of lineages already present before March 1998 was about 70%; the equivalent percentage for the HIV-1 cluster was estimated at about 40%."

Dec 19 20:54:20 EST

In other words, before the Benghazi Six arrived in Libya the children were already infected with multiple strains of HIV from a common ancestor that was in the local population. So a Libyan medical worker infected at least some of the children. Simesa 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No - In other words 40% of the lineages of the strains of HIV which were involved in the epidemic existed IN NATURE before march 1998 ie the breeds of HIV viruses could not have originated after Bulgarians arrived. So they were not cooked up in 1998 as part of a Genetic Engineering plot. The bugs were homegrown, or at least around Libya - some for years. Doesn't mean these children were infected before 1998 at all. This report says nothing new and does not address how long any particular bugs were any of the infected children or how they got there. Just that some of the strains of the bugs had been around. The Libyans are translated as saying it had no scientific merit. I would say it had no PROBATIVE merit on the case over what was already known. It exonerates them of genetically engineering a virus in 1998 and bringing it to Libya. But then we already knew that because of the 2003 report, if we had been inclined to believe something that bizarre in the first place.

The 2003 report put the number at 21 children infected BB (before Bulgarians). I guess we can infer that the rest were infected while the Bulgarians were there. Whether it was a Libyan who infected the original 21 children or not- who knows who was there doing what? Maybe it was a visiting English nun. It wasn't the Bulgarian nurses. Reading between the lines it is interesting that NOBODY in the west has made the claim (Nobel scientist or otherwise) that the Bulgarians DID NOT actually treat the Libyan children. Now THAT WOULD exonerate them if they could prove it. That sticks out like a sore thumb to me and it may be in both sides have no immediate desire to dig into that. Its a desperate situation. There were an awful lot of infections (one might even say a spike) during the Bulgarians tenure. All but 21 of over 400. So whats the real deal?? Using Big Science to attack a bizarre theory that makes no sense anyway with or without million dollar gizmos, in a world class publication doesn't convince me that its JUST a bogus frame up, even though it is a bogus frame up. It used DNA mutation rate to date the origin of the strains. Big Big science. Super big. So big nobody has to bother to understand it and can make up anything they want about it for their headlines. Its in Nature - its scientific - it EXONERATES them.

Heres a quote from the "Nature" study author in plain language from the VOA article summarizing his work.

"This shows that the strain that had given rise to the outbreaks at Al-Fateh Hospital in Benghazi had been circulating for some time prior to the arrival of the Bulgarian medical staff in 1998," said Pybus.

Ok the Bulgarians didn't sneak that particular strain of HIV in to Libya with them as part of their evil plan (at least not in 1998 - but they COULD have planted it years before HA HA HA).


Above that on VOA about 40% of the kids being infected before 1998 is either a deliberate or accidental "misinterpretation" by VOA. Yes the article did say SOMETHING about 40%. AS IN "the percentage of lineages already present before March 1998 ...for the HIV-1 cluster was estimated at about 40%"

40% of the lineage of the strains of HIV were present before 1998. NOT 40% OF INFECTED HUMAN CHILDREN.


Its a last ditch effort to put some more pressure on the Libyans which did not work. Its a blow to the Libyan Prosecutors Count Dracula theory of evil Bulgarian medical experiments if you happen to be somewhat rational. But who stuck 400 kids with a dirty needles and how did that happen? Neither side seems too keen on that right now. 68.60.68.203 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is a rather bizarre mish-mash of statements. As best as I can tell, you admit the HIV strains were present in Libya BB (as you say, "Before Bulgarians") yet don't think children were infected BB? Simesa 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't "admit" anything.I state what is in the nature article, what its actual claims are, and discuss some false reporting surrounding it. And months later you post an insulting comment. Try not to get personal with me and have the subtlety to not dump me into some kind of enemy camp where I DON'T BELONG. Because you evidently still refuse to understand the distinction between a strain of HIV and HUMAN children does not mean the above is a mish-mash. I will assert here as I have asserted ALL ALONG over and over, repeatedly that the number of children infected before the Bulgarians is on the order of 20s!!! twenty something is not 450! This is from Hard evidence not some made to order "statistical model" of evolution derived from an unrelated infection occurring elsewhere. The only exculpatory value of the nature study is if you happen to believe the CIA cooked up some strain of HIV and brought it to Libya, to that hospital specifically. Since you are so sure you tell. 1 Which ward were the nurses on during the period that the other 400 something children got infected 2 which patients did they treat 3 How did they treat them 4 which patients got ill 5 who else treated them and how. 6 why were the patients who got ill treated the way they were . answer those and THEN claim I am writing Mish-Mash68.60.68.203 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that the opening section which points to the VOA references

Again, your statements contradict. Five nurses cannot handle multiple wards by themselves, therefore there were other nurses in those wards - who weren't charged. Some 20 infections happened "BB"? - I would certainly look at theose other workers to find the culprit(s).
And CIA plot? - name one shred of evidence that the CIA was involved or cared. OTOH, At least one Libyan (the Lockerbie bomber) had no compulsions against murdering children. Simesa 08:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm NOT sure you wanna give credit to the CIA for being honorable and a cute little organisation. There's alot of declassified documents I could point towards if you'd like. I'm not saying they are involved, but the CIA has proven that it has no compulsion against murdering children. Just like the Lockerbie bomber.

213.141.89.53 08:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Lawyers Without Borders[3], who handled the defence of the six, responded by calling for the international community to request that the court order an independent scientific assessment, by international AIDS experts, of how the children became infected.[4"


"Such an assessment was done, an evaluation of genetic material, and it was found that many of the children were infected years before the Benghazi Six arrived in Libya"

This is inaccurate as well but I do not know how to change it.

First: the Nature paper does NOT address the question of HOW THE CHILDREN BECAME INFECTED Not one single word.

Second "it was found that many of the children were infected years before the Benghazi Six arrived in Libya"

Well thats not in this particular paper please see above - it merely backed up what the first study said about the GENETIC ORIGINS of the strain(s) the children were infected with. But for "many" read 21 and years before read a year, as in 1 year. First infection of this strain in the hospital was reportedly BY april of 1997.

I have to say that a 2004 nature EDITORIAL (not a scientific paper) did make the claim that the Montagnier report said that, or something close to it, so from Montagnier report in actuality we have the following.

The FIRST study "Final Report of Prof. Luc Montagnier and Prof. Vittorio Colizzi (Paris, 7 April 2003) DID address both issues.

page 18: determined that

the FIRST infection "was already present in the Benghazi Hospital in April 1997"

and concluded that "According to the Al-Fateh digital List,

in the year 1997, at least 7 children were already found infected. 
At least 14 children admitted and discharged from the Hospital in January and February 1998 
(before the Bulgarian staff under Court took in the positions in the Hospital) were found 
to be seropositive when the analyses were performed in late 1998."

So you could say that that report clears or exonerates the Bulgarians of responsibility for 21 of "around 450" cases. But see below. "Many of the children" is misleading obfuscation when precise statements are available, The number is 21. and "years before" is obviously false - unless you think 1997 is years before 1998. This is not an editorial so why can't we say "21 of the children" and "in 1997" so we do not mislead people about the reports? The distinction between A STRAIN OF HIV and AN INFECTED HUMAN CHILD is also one that wikipedia can make. I don't blame Nature for spinning this, but they did - in an EDITORIAL, not in a scientific paper.

To sum up 
first infection in hospital April 1997 - total 7 children diagnosed in 1997 14 more
children infected before Bulgarians arrived but diagnosed after. 
The Bulgarians worked on the pediatric ward. The iatrogenic epidemic was mostly in children 
and a few mothers who likely acquired it from their breast fed infants according to report.
400 + became infected after the arrival of the Bulgarians.

I would further note that they were "charged with participating in a conspiracy ... ; causing an epidemic by injecting 393 children with HIV"

393 children out of the 420 -450 (it varies) making it very probable in my estimation - (the Libyans did get the report after all it was addressed to them) that ALL of the children they were ACTUALLY CHARGED with infecting, were in fact infected while they were on staff. Doesn't makes them guilty and Obviously being at the hospital or even on the ward where people got infected should not be enough to get you a firing squad. It is possible that none of the prisoners ever injected a single one of the infected patients or maybe they had reason to believe the needles they used were sterile, or just assumed something that wasn't true. Why were needles being reused? What was the procedure? Who was responsible for cleaning the needles? Who stuck infected needles in 450 kids who are now dying? Nobody is reporting on that.


thanks in advance to Simesa I don't know how to do this

68.60.68.203 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


I've been on a Wikibreak since early January, and am still trying to read all of this Discussion section. Several comments appear to be unsigned. Simesa 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"You are not currently logged in. While you are free to edit without logging in, your IP address (viewable on your talkpage, where you can check messages sent to your IP) will be recorded in this page's edit history. Creating an account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits."

Seems you are allowed to edit without signing in. Not saying it's a good idea, but it doesn't invalidate opinions (since this is a discussion page) or facts presented. 213.141.89.53 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As proof of what happened , can hardly be found outside libya, i am very curious to the wording of the verdict. Libyan health care is at a rather high standard, i doubt that they had so little needles (to make it the cause and reason of all this). As an example of medical care (and "coincedence") Libya had until this event managed to keep HIV out of the country. There are indications aids has more often been deliberately introduced to populations(by USA), children with regular blood infusions and tests would be vulnerable to that kind of practice. Proof in the ordre of this or that HIV strain, and for that matter, this or that genetic marker etc., are only acceptable when they come from different partys (as you can't decisively check it yourself). All this in the article has been brought to the attention of the judge. Then it is rather certain at least the judge is convinced of their blame. So instead of relying on usian tourist guides from an era when USA tried to impose a boykot on Libya , one might easily draw different conclusions when reading the earlier Libyan investigations into what happened in the hospital. For me personally this verdict is a signal Libya does still seriously think these people are guilty. I miss that aproach in the comments and article. Think of it from the point of view of someone that thinks: I hope they don't let go these murderers because of international pressure and interests, then it hurts to see so much neglect.80.57.243.100 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another odd set of comments.
The Herald article says: "It showed that the strain of HIV with which the children had been infected was a West African subtype, which had clearly been present and spreading locally in the mid-1990s, long before the medics arrived. If the "molecular clock" was stopped on the day they arrived, in March 1998, it would show that the original virus had already branched into many, many different viruses – a sign that it had already been transmitted many times between people within the hospital."
The authors of the study did offer to make available all of the methods and data they used, yet the Libyan court not only didn't wait for independent verification, it refused altogether to hear the evidence.
It certainly appears that there is more than enough reasonable doubt of the Six's guilt as to warrant acquital - but Libya doesn't dare let this get into an international court. Simesa 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless they had diplomatic passports or something during their visit, prolly not... While I might think the verdict appears a bit harsch - I'm not fan of death sentences - THEY ARE however common practice in say states like TEXAS, US. I think they electrocute retards there even. Either way, I think that Lybia has enough autonomy to appoint their own courts and judges and have thoose carry out the law, just as your country and my country probably has. Guilt and reasonable doubt isn't determined by popular opinion in most of the worlds countries, excluding some.

213.141.89.53 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

welcome back - on one point anyway, the Herold article ignores the fact that this was an appeals trial which do not admit new evidence (not remotely unique to Libya) and that the study actually came out after it was over. - a near complete misrepresentation. As I have said before the nature article was a tempest in a teapot - the damning report was Colizzi, which used the actual case records - and made it into evidence and was considered by the courts 68.60.68.203 03:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The appeals trial before the Libyan Supreme Court is not in question. The retrial in Tripoli could and should have admitted new evidence. Simesa 08:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
if you need any further proof of this concept Colizzi does not rely on "statistical models" for rates of anything, which can be subject to honest debate, and did not happen to show up after the trial inciting all kinds of disingenuous reportage claiming that their evidence wasn't accepted. It is precisely why the "Refutation in The Libyan Journal of Medicine" that was published, attacked the made to order nature report, and not Colizzi. The paper, which was written by scientists in america was addressed by basically just plain refusing to publish it in western literature. Thus it ends up in The Libyan Journal of Medicine. I have always considered the Nature tactics dubious for a scientific Journal. I truly respect Colizzi, who has never compromised his honesty in dealing with this incendiary issue, and had the guts to say that the medics just might not have been following correct practice either. 68.60.68.203 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Arab Mind

I'm reading The Arab Mind. This is a controversial book. It offers relatively simple explanations for the actions of Arabs. The point I wish to address here is that a Middle Eastern writer (not the author of the book) wrote that Muslims must only be governed by Muslims. This may lead to the rejection of the study published in Nature, as it did not come from a Muslim source. However, the authors of the study have published, for use by anyone, the data they collected and used in their study, in encouragement of having the study reperformed. Simesa 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly get the relevance of the book to the article. Nil Einne 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the interjection of a quasi-racist book of pop psychology is what the article needs either. Ford MF 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It also doesn't you marginalizing resources. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a great deal of the bias in the trial is explained in the book. I've read it - have any of you? Simesa 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but IMHO we need a greater degree of relevance before we add links. Just because one or two readers feel a very controversial book (which wasn't even written for this event) helps then understand the event is not sufficient relevance to add it to the article IMHO. Let's not forget that Libyan's are only part Arab anyway Nil Einne 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

20% of the arabs are christian, 85% of the the muslims are not arabs. You are mixing arabs with muslims and trying to understand the minds of nobody. Islampedia 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Motive?

I haven't seen in the mainstream news nor here the motives that lead to the HIV infections. Why did they do it? -Mr.Logic 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC) I agree. what was the alleged motive. It is not mentioned in this articleMuntuwandi 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There were some wild charges that it was a CIA or Mossad plot, but I think they disappeared. Good question, we'll have to try to find out. Simesa 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, the apparent lack of any possible motive only adds to the absurdity of these accusations. Some of the most renowned HIV experts have stated the cause were the bad hygienic conditions in the Libyan hospitals, and it's pretty apparent I have to say. Todor→Bozhinov 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that an official motive exists. It would be absolutely unserious to claim that the CIA or Mossas stand behind killing 400 hundred children. Including such a myth, that even the Lybians denied, in this article would be uninformative. However, I would be happy if somebody could publish the part of the judges decision that explains their beliefs about the motives -- if such an excerpt exists. And I have to add - no matter what your religion is, let's pray for justice! --Cryout 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All the evidence suggests the doctor and nurses were not involved and I agree there is absolutely no evidence it was a CIA and Mossad plot and even the Libyans appear to have abandonded the claim. But I see no reason to discount it as something they wouldn't have done if they felt there was a good reason. There doesn't really seem to be a good reason in this case either but I just wanted to point out there is no reason IMHO to say it's something they definitely wouldn't do since IMHO it's not. 'Intelligence' agencies can be real nasty pieces of work and do a lot of nasty things. If killing a bunch of kids serves their motive, they would have done it Nil Einne 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And it is just as obvious IMHO that it was a Muslim plot. Haven't Muslims intentionally slaughtered far more children in recent decades than the CIA or Mossad? Again last week in Gaza. 159.14.18.40 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Possible motives - negligence ignorance incompetence malfeasance
Anybody here actually know who stuck needles in those kids??
Libyan motives ? Bulgarians if I recall, I believe it was the Bulgarians, took a strikingly odd and unusually prominent role in the so called "coalition of the willing", and run up to war, but I would have to go over the time lines better. Or maybe Gadaffi is a Boris Karloff fan and just watched the villagers with torches scene in Frankenstien
The Official Motives ?
I believe that the prosecutions official theory of the case is that the children were used as human guinea pigs by an unnamed mystery (but specifically and officially non-Bulgarian state) drug company to test (what turned out to be an ineffectual) vaccine. Thats about it. It wasn't a Bulgarian drug company.Thats all they "know".
Who said anything about obvious? Please refrain from speculating on wacky conspiracy theories here. I was simply pointing out that there is no reason IMHO to discount the CIA/Mossad angle simply because you believe they would never do something like that. The fact is, the evidence strongly supports the idea it wasn't a plot of any kind, but it's not for us to speculate Nil Einne 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that NONE of "the evidence" suggests that the doctor and nurses were NOT involved - but None suggests they WERE involved either. There pretty much isn't any "evidence" about what the accused were doing WHERE WHEN HOW and to WHOM in that hospital at all in any engish language source. They were on staff and 400 + kids got infected with HIV or HIV and Hepatitis while they were there. 21 got infected before they got there. Thats ALL the "evidence" there is, but that evidence wasn't reported in the media -you have to read it for yourself -here http://declanbutler.info/blog/LIBYA1.pdf. This is no impediment to the story however, because what the accused truthfully did in that hospital while this was happening does not seem to be a subject of the remotest interest to anyone. It is irrelevant to the uncut unadulterated industrial strength political theater for both sides.Do 450 needlessly condemned to death little Libyan kids matter to anyone besides their parents, who are trying to "blackmail" the west for money? If you can find otherwise please post it-I want to know!! Also if someone could point me to a citation that is not internet hearsay 20 times removed that Gadaffi actually claimed the cia did it (not that I doubt this) that would be good. A direct quote from his speech, ie first person - in context. - some sites claim that he said it at a "2001 aids conference". but I cannot even confirm he was there much less what he actually said. 68.60.68.203 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I,ll just answer myself here. April 27, 2001. Abuja, Nigeria. At the African AIDS Summit, Muammar Qaddafi delivers a lengthy speech in which he says that the CIA and the US engineered the AIDS virus in their laboratories and that the epidemic is a major experiment. As evidence, he cites the tragedy in Benghazi where close to 400 children have been infected by a doctor and a group of nurses acting on the orders of the CIA or Mossad. Qaddafi promises that the trial of these people will become an international trial, just as the trial of the Libyans in connection with the Lockerbie airliner bombing.68.60.68.203 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Torture

The meaning of "electrocute" is to KILL with electricity, so the medics were not alleged to have been electrocuted, as stated, but rather to have suffered electric shock treatment. As the word "electrocuted" is contained within a quotation it cannot be altered (unless the quotation is replaced by a general statement) but still needs some correcting notation. User:Shulgi 19 December 2006, 15:10.

I don't think that's the ONLY definition for "electrocute". 71.216.188.161 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, it does appear to be [9]. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-20 00:16Z
  • Electrocution implies death. Popular culture uses the term more loosely, but an encyclopaedia should not. :) 203.206.126.26 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution

  • Is there a schedule now that the death sentence has been confirmed ? Hektor 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The defendants' lawyers have 60 days to file an appeal with the Libyan supreme court. Simesa 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So no emergency there. Does anyone know if by Lybian law the head of state or any other official has the possibility to pardon or commute the sentence ? Hektor 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Libyan law this is impossible. However, with external political pressure on Ghadafi the laws may change, one strong option which ghadafi is trying now that to forbid the death penalty by law during this year. He tried this before but the changes which he suggested were blocked by peoples committes. (It is difficult to understand the political system in libya if u keep comparing with elections and the system in the west, this is why in most people in the west can not understand the role/power of Ghadafi in this system)Islampedia 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alias

It says that Ashraf al-Hajuj also has the alias al-Hadjudj. This I find does not constitute an alias, simply a different transliteration. It sounds exactly the same, and does not really seem an alias. Kaiser matias 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aljazeera used the name Ashraf al-Hazouz http://english.aljazeera.net/News/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=22698 Islampedia 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor

There is quite a bit of info on the Bulgarian response but nothing about the Palestinian response. Has there been any response worth noting concerning the fate of their national? Libya obiviously has more cultural and political points of contact with Palestine than Bulgaria so I was expecting something. Thanks. --JGGardiner 09:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

not much, there is a petition which I included in the article. Some sporadic reporting.68.60.68.203 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How can there be a "Palestinian" response? There is no Palestinian entity, no country, no government, no nothing. There is no such thing as a Palestinian national. "Palestine" is an Oslo invention , a figment of Europe's imagination. Further, the "Palestinian" doctor is a Christian, which means that without a nationality he is the perfect sacrificial pawn in this barbarous Libyan game - nobody will speak for him. Hoserjoe 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone can find the truth?

Some evidences can show their guilty or innocents?Nevertheless,the ones (no matter the bulgarian or not) who infect the 400 childrens with HIV are damned to hell.Ksyrie

    • I was here just to condemn those who did this nasty evil.Why not create another topic to talk about the truth of this case?Ksyrie
      • You may want to actually read the article. They are most likely innocent, at least according to the journal Nature. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-20 14:59Z
        • The article proves only one fact ... Few libyans are using the internet and very few of them know what is wikipedia! Islampedia 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As a senior civil servant in Britain once famously remarked: Truth is a difficult concept. Thus, the "truth" in the HIV trial in Libya case may never be uncovered.Phase4 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say the nature article says they are innocent. According to it's author "This shows that the strain that had given rise to the outbreaks at Al-Fateh Hospital in Benghazi had been circulating for some time prior to the arrival of the Bulgarian medical staff in 1998," said Pybus

So they are innocent of bringing that STRAIN OF HIV to Libya and introducing it into the hospital in the first place .This the first major public awareness of AIDS in Libya and has caused quite a bit of public hysteria -and the bizarre conspiracy theory the nurses are accused of. When AIDS first hit the media in the United States people set fire to a little hemophiliac's house to burn him out of town. The kids weren't just infected with HIV but also Hepatitis. Proper procedures were not being used and things were not being sterilized correctly. Its happened before in other places, not because someone was evil. The nurses may or may not be involved in faulty medical practices. Facts are in short supply. Lots of people believe all kinds of things about AIDS including CIA conspiracy stuff- it tends to have that effect. I hope as much mercy as possible is shown to the nurses whether or not they did anything wrong. 68.60.68.203 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I would like to add that the nature article is kind of a red herring -it didn't really add anything new but created a big splash. The Final Report of Prof. Luc Montagnier and Prof. Vittorio Colizzi (Paris, 7 April 2003) is far more important as they had access to the Libyan documents and can place the FIRST incidence in the hospital to (before) April of 1997. It also said that the strain of virus was present in Libya and probably came from west african immigrants. Anyone wanting to know the available facts, should read that document.68.60.68.203 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just be cool,all of you,I suggest to create a new article to discuss the true nature of this AIDS instead of the legal case in this one.Ksyrie
    • what is a page about the "trial" about then - everything but the facts? I don't think the page is ready to be split yet -maybe in the long run it should be. 68.60.68.203 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how many kids have died?

I couldn't find the exact number on the page. --Bentendo24 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The high number of cases (around 450), and the period of time of the nosocomial infection (over three years) can be explained by both the high specific infectivity of this strain and certain incorrect practices used by the medical and nursing staff at that time. Final Report of Prof. Luc Montagnier and Prof. Vittorio Colizzi (Paris, 7 April 2003) 68.60.68.203 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 56. Rich Farmbrough, 09:25 21 December 2006 (GMT).

going on 450 68.60.68.203 11:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The WHO Report of Dr. P.N. Shrestha (December 1998-January 1999).

I believe that this report is sealed by the UN and all that is known about it are some comments referring to it in the Colozzi Document 68.60.68.203

Actually, it was already referenced in the article. I quoted from it and put the ref there. No, I found the Colizzi document - you may be right, I'll have to check further. Simesa 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
the nurses were held for two days only at that time so I think the post "while the Bulgarians were still on staff" which you removed was not incorrect. Presumably they were observed by the WHO commission.I have read else where (several places)that this report is not public I could dredge that up for you if you really need it.
  • December 14, 1998. The Bulgarian Embassy in Tripoli receives a fax signed by a group of health professionals working at the Benghazi Children’s Hospital, informing it that Bulgarians Sevda Simeonova Yablanska and Snezhana Ivanova Dimitrova have been detained by the Libyan authorities and that Bulgarian medical workers have been interrogated daily at the hospital.
The Embassy meets with representatives of the General Directorates of Protocol and Consular Affairs of the General People’s Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation (GPC for FLIC). The Bulgarian diplomats learn that the infection of many children with HIV has been investigated in Benghazi for three months since October 1998.
  • December 16, 1998. The Bulgarian Embassy in Tripoli presents a verbal note to the Directorate General of Consular Affairs of the GPC for FLIC, urging that Sevda Yablanska and Snezhana Dimitrova be released. They are released and the investigative proceedings are terminated.
  • December 18, 1998. The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry asks the Health Ministry in a letter to arrange for the Compass Consult company to provide assistance to the specialists it has sent to Libya. It emerges later that in late 1998 the Bulgarian Embassy has not linked the brief detentions of Bulgarians in Benghazi (which were not unusual, as it turned out) to the investigation that autumn into a massive spread of AIDS. Sofia has not been informed of the nascent AIDS scandal. 68.60.68.203
if I can explain, my point in all this is that not everything is 100% black or white-the comments in the WHO report presumably could apply equally to the Bulgarian nurses as to the Libyans, Colozzi himself said as much.The facts are not always as comfortable as we would like. 68.60.68.203 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've asked WHO to put the document up; that seems to be the most straight-forward solution. And an undeniable fact, by Al-Fateh's own data, is that children were infected before the Benghazi Six ever arrived. Simesa 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
yes of course. I posted that stuff. If the WHO responds in any way, it would be quite interesting. But I think it is not public on purpose. 68.60.68.203 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a request to a different WHOP organization. Some summaries are at [10] and [11]. Simesa 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:replacing Montagnier/Colizzi 2003 with
This document has not been found on the Internet

Well but this is a block quote from the colozzi document about the contents of the WHO report and I attributed it as such. Not been found on the internet doesn't make sense - the colozzi report has been found on the internet I found it there, lots of people have, its linked on the page and that is where the quote comes from. It might be interesting to find out why the WHO was not released, but this is the only reference to its contents that I know of. It may be confusing and that is why I entered an attribution to its proper source.
*My entry about the nurses being there when the WHO inspected in this context is significant, and was also removed. See above where I verified it. also see discussion below.68.60.68.203

Medical staff involved--Dates--Bulgarians present during WHO inspection

addition "were arrested (on December 18, 1998" is incorrect - This evidently the basis also for the removal of my post about the Bulgarians being present during WHO inspection. 2 Bulgarians were detained on December 14 and RELEASED on December 16 , The WHO team came 28 December 1998 – 11 January 1999 The nurses were detained again in February. Well actually they "had gone missing" Feb 10 and were reported as kidnapped by the Bulgarian embassy. They WERE on staff during the entire period that the WHO team based its report on. My post was correct, and should be reverted.Furthermore of persons detained on Dec 14 and released on Dec 16 only two were Bulgarian and only one would eventually become one of the 6, Snezhana Ivanova Dimitrova. So the 6 were not arrested on Dec 18 only Snezhana Ivanova Dimitrova was detained on Dec 14 and she was released on Dec 16. If you read the section Final Report of Montagnier and Colizzi I entered they present unequivocally that "Three Children (Category B) were admitted and found seropositive after the 9 February 1999, date of departure of the Bulgarian staff." , perhaps that eluded you. The false date should be removed as well. I have two independent corroborating PRIMARY sources so February 9 is carved in stone as far as I am concerned as relates to the presence of the Bulgarian nurses on the Wards.That representatives of the World Health Organization made an inspection at the peak of the crisis while the Bulgarians were there and made a report is of primary significance. It is the only independent direct observation we have.68.60.68.203 06:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I should say, that there was, that we don't have 68.60.68.203 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

verify time line here
http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/WebPage/!/The%20trial%20in%20Libya%20-%20CHRONOLOGY%20OF%20EVENTS%20(May%206,%202004%20%20by%20BTA).htm#_Toc72050151
or here http://www.bta.bg/site/libya/en/02chronology.htm 68.60.68.203 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Cleanup

This article is very long, very dense, and very difficult to read. Can someone please work to clean this article up? I don't even know where to find what the people confessed, or why they did it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is, and I am sure that will happen eventually. It is alleged that confessions were extracted through torture/abuse of the prisoners who signed documents in Arabic they could not understand. It would be pretty hard to find anyone who actually thinks they "did" take a geneticaly engineered HIV virus to Libya and conspired to purposefully infect hundreds of kids, for any reason, who could explain that to you. Oh wait - there is the Libyan government - they did it to test a vaccine that didn't work, and brew illegal alcohol. 68.60.68.203 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no one has suggested the virus was genetically engineered. Indeed this doesn't make much sense since if you're testing a vaccine, you'd want a normal virus not something that's been modified Nil Einne 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't this happen now? I came here because it was linked from the front page and was slightly embarrassed for Wikipedia that a high-profile article is in this state. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the cleanup. But I venture that we may not have heard the last of this issue this year. Simesa 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but the article can be updated in its entirety, rather tha just adding new caselogs to the end. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
CLEANUP PART ONE WORK ON A COMPREHENSIBLE INTRODUCTION
The HIV trial in the country of Libya concerns the trials of six foreign medical workers accused of conspiring to deliberately inject 393 children with the HIV virus, causing an epidemic at El-Fath Children's Hospital in Benghazi. The main defendants were five Bulgarian nurses, and one Palestinian physician. There have been a number of trials, appeals, retrials, convictions and death sentences imposed, reversed and reimposed over a period of many years. From the outset a highly charged atmosphere surrounded the case. It involved the largest outbreak of hospital-induced HIV in history, there have been allegations and seperate trials for torture, confessions, retracted confessions, charges of cia/mossad plots and vaccine tests gone awry, genetically engineered viruses, the exclusion of scientific evidence, international appeals, and speeches by world leaders. The latest case ended on December 19, 2006, with a conviction, and the defendants were again sentenced to death by firing squad.
The nurses had been recruited in Bulgaria and began work at the Libyan hospital in early 1998. A crisis erupted that summer when a local newspaper reported cases of AIDS at the hospital having been contacted by the parents of two dead children. The crisis deepened as more parents came forward, the newspaper was shut down, but it was eventually revealed that some 450 people, mostly children, had been infected. A WHO team was sent in December and stayed through January of 1999, the report is classified and issued a classified report. In February the Bulgarian embassy reported that 23 Bulgarian specialists had been kidnapped. A week later they are informed by Libyan authorities that “precautionary measures” have been taken against Bulgarian doctors and nurses working at the Benghazi Children’s Hospital. On March 7, 1999 six members of the group subjected to "precautionary measures" are formally arrested on a warrant in connection with the case of infecting children in Benghazi with HIV. They are Kristiyana Valtcheva, Nasya Nenova, Valentina Siropulo, Valya Chervenyashka, and Snezhana Dimitrova. Along with Palestinian physician Ashraf al-Hajuj, they are later to become widely known as "the Benghazi Six" Almost a year later February 7, 2000, the first trial, Case No. 44 of 1999 against six Bulgarians, eight Libyans and one Palestinian, began. charging them with, indiscriminate killing of people for the purpose of subversion of the security of the State, conspiracy and collusion, Causing an epidemic by injecting 393 children the AIDS virus, and Premeditated murder. Separate charges entered against some or all of the Bulgarians only were: engaging in illicit sexual relationships, drinking alcohol in public places, distilling alcohol, and illegally transacting in foreign currency.
I am trying to make a start on this 68.60.68.203 07:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You write a lot, and you write very well, but you have to cite your sources! A simple <ref>[http://www.someplace.com description]</ref>< will work. Verifiable sources are going to be vital in this issue - we can't be accused of turning into a propaganda piece. Simesa 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting to that this all has to be whittled down its mostly here <ref>[http://www.bta.bg/site/libya/en/02chronology.htm www.bta.bg</ref>< and the bulgarian embassy site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
oh crud 68.60.68.203 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You just neeeded a close brackets ] as in [1] Simesa 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Article 5

Since Bulgaria is a member of NATO, would Libya executing or even threatening to, the capitves, invoke the 5th clausule of NATO-OTAN base treaty? That one is about mandatory joint military action, which would mean EU and USA can lay its hand directly on the oil, by removing Mr.G...


Probably not. These people have been found guilty of a crime. Yes they may not have received a fair trial and don't appear to actually be guilty of the crime, but I would assume the 5th clause doesn't cover situations when someone is executed because they are found guilty of a crime. Otherwise NATO might be invading the US Nil Einne 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Placing that in the article might be regarded as a threat by the Libyans. Simesa 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Torture 2.0 as in allegations

well I wrote

"there have been allegations and separate trials for torture" in the intro At what point can the allegation bit be dropped I don't think its really necessary here. I would much prefer a direct - the defendants were tortured, but I won't do it now. can wikipedia accept this as a simple fact? Of course there are lots of ways around it that don't sound quite as lame- "widely reported accounts of torture" Blah blah blah 68.60.68.203 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I think it can be dropped when someone is convicted of it. Isn't that how the US does it? 213.141.89.53 09:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it safe to say that the people doing the torturing were the ones that were guilty of the crime? There's no other reason why they'd want to force a confession out of random people who didn't do it, that I can think of.

Copyright Concerns

We recently have a great deal of new text entered into the sections Case 44/1999 of People's Court of Libya and Case 213/2002 - Case 607/2003 Benghazi Appeals Court. [12] and [13] are given as the sources -- however, my concern is that at least some of this text appears to have been taken verbatim from those webpages. We have to be very careful that we have permission to use quoted text -- an alternative is to rewrite the matrerial in such a way as to be non-violating. (There is an official Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Copyright violations, discussing what to do if there actually is a major problem.) Simesa 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian embassy http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/WebPage/!/The%20trial%20in%20Libya%20-%20CHRONOLOGY%20OF%20EVENTS%20(May%206,%202004%20%20by%20BTA).htm#_Toc72050151 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Article 4 The following shall not be subject to copyright
1 normative and individual acts of state govening bodies, and the official translations therof.
http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/pdf/en/bg/bg001en.pdf Bulgarian Law on Copyright and Neighboring rights 68.60.68.203 04:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

LAW ON COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBORING RIGHTS Bulgaria

(PUBLISHED IN STATE GAZETTE NO. 56/29.06.1993) Part One

COPYRIGHT

Chapter One

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subject Matter

Article 1. This Law shall regulate the relations connected with creation and distribution of literary, artistic and scientific works.

Arising of Copyright Article 2. Copyright on literary, artistic and scientific works shall arise for the author upon the creation of the work.

Chapter Two

SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

Protected Works

Article 3. (1) Subject to copyright is any literary, artistic and scientific work which is a result of creative activities and is expressed in whatever manner and whatever tangible form, such as:

1. literary works, including works of scientific and technical literature, publicism, and computer programs;

2. musical works;

3. stage works - dramatic works, dramatico-musical works, pantomimes, choreographic works etc.;

4. films and other audiovisual works;

5. works of fine arts, including works of applied art, design, and folklore artistic crafts;

6. works of architecture;

7. photographic works, and works created by a process analogous to the photographic;

8. projects, maps, schemes, plans and others related to architecture, territorial lay-out, geography, topography, museum activities, and any other field of science and technics;

9. graphic arrangement of a printed edition.

(2) Subject to copyright shall also be:

1. translations and adaptations of pre-existing works and folklore works;

2. arrangements of musical works and folklore works;

3. periodicals, encyclopaedias, collections, anthologies, bibliographies, data bases, and other works similar to the above, which include two or more works or materials.

(3) Subject to copyright shall also be a part of a work under paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as preparatory drawings, plans and other works of the kind.

Exceptions

Article 4. The following shall not be subject to copyright:

1. normative and individual acts of state governing bodies, and the official translations thereof

2. ideas and concepts;

3. folklore works;

4. news, facts, information and data.

68.60.68.203 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Spy allegations

They're back - Gaddafi still thinks either American, Israeli or Bulgarian intelligence is behind the HIV infections. Qaddafi Plays Again Spy Link in Bulgarian Medics' Case Simesa 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of 400-odd names?

Is a list of 400-odd children's names really necessary in this article? I don't see what it will bring to the table other than a massive gap of whiteness. IanUK

If the names of the nurses are pertinent, the names of the children may be also (but as a separate page!). However, our new editor apparently also wants to deny that the blood samples used in the study reported in Nature came from the children, and he'll have to produce a cite from a reputable source for that statement! Simesa 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Islampedia apparently insists on putting all 426 names at the head of the article. His edit comment was that they are the victims in this trial. I will leave a note on his Talk page explaing that the nurses' names aren't any higher than the link to the page I made for the names. Simesa 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Belated Postscript: The page I made for the childrens' names was deleted, primarily on the basis that "Wikipedia is not a memorial", but also on privacy grounds for the families. Finally, there apparently is no open source for the names of the children. (Note: I'm not saying I agree with the article as currently laid out.) Simesa 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
well I was not around for all this flaming nonsense -but in point since then I managed to hunt down the published court record from the Libyan Supreme court (thanks to google translator and one vague reference on novite) this has all changed. The names are certainly all there and could easily be plucked out if someone wanted to. They are listed. More importantly, a lot of the vague incoherent gobldygook in this article about what took place when in Libya, as far as the history of the trials would be rendered clear. But I don't speak Arabic and google translator is not quite up to that task. 68.60.68.203 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Content of genetic analyses references

The study was reported in a "brief communication" pending full print. A "brief communication" constitutes peer-reviewed scientific results - it is NOT an "Editorial". As best as I can tell the full report has not been published yet, although the data used has been released for use by anyone. Simesa 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the study has been published: but it isn't freely available on the web. See [14]. Simesa 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
well it wasn't then it was, and now they seem to have taken it off line again only available for subscribers.68.60.68.203 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya

List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya has been created and linked 3 times in this article. If anyone has more information about the children, please expand the new article. -- Scientizzle 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The name Jalal Othman was mentioned by almanara.org in its extensive report about the case a picture sent by his father is included in the report http://almanara.org/new/index.php?scid=2&pid=46 Islampedia 14:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example of IDENTICAL list Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis Do u think that this list also should be deleted ? .If not then we have to call this site westpedia Islampedia 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Benghazi International Fund

According to many sources an international fund named "The Benghazi International Fund" was set up by US , EU and libyan government. This fund is not mentioned in the artilce in a clear manner. There was an agreement signed in tripoli on 17.nov.2005 about this fund according to aljazeera international http://english.aljazeera.net/News/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=16286 Islampedia 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Only" vs. "Some" in statement about infected children in 1997

Only 21 of the children were infected on 1997 as this report CLAIMS. This number is too small cuz it is less than 5% of the 426. The statement " the particular strain of HIV found in the children was present in only 21 of them before the Benghazi Six arrived in Libya." is more accurately descriping this situation cuz ignoring that the number 21 is FEW hides an important critic about this report.Islampedia 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, "only" is POV. If one write "there are only 12 of these," that indicates that 12 should be considered small; likewise "there are over 12 of these," such would suggest that 12 or more is a lot. "There are 12 of these" is the most WP:NPOV.
Therefore, "the particular strain of HIV found in the children was present in about 21 of them before the Benghazi Six arrived in Libya." is the most NPOV version of that sentence. -- Scientizzle 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing only is POV. 21 is less than 5% which rises questions about the report. Stating the number does not rise this important question. The question is asked from the point of view of the victims supported by the whole world . Removing this adds some additional credability to this report which is POV. Therefore, "the particular strain of HIV found in the children was present in only 21 of them before the Benghazi Six arrived in Libya." is the most NPOV version of that sentence Islampedia 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Why is 5% the magical threshold between "only 21" and "21"? You really can't see how adding "only" to a sentence adds a POV to it?
What if I were to say, as an example, "User:Islampedia only has 10 fingers" vs. "User:Islampedia 'has 10 fingers". Both are factually correct (I assume, forgive me if I'm wrong), but the first is clearly not asserting the same idea as the more neutral second. -- Scientizzle 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact less than 10% is small number with less than 10% we can start to neglict in engineering. This is only 5% which is too small ... Your example of the fingers compares 100% fingers with 5% of children which is strange to me. If the infected children before 1998 were 100 of 426 as example we can say "some" if more than 300 of 426 we can say "most" but with 21 of 426 we have to say "only" because it reflects the correct fact to the reader Islampedia 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm an engineer, so I know your 1st statement is factually wrong. There are no percentage values for few-some-many-most. Your statement is absurd and didn't actually address my point. Maybe it's a language issue... but in English, what I'm saying is true: "only" conotates an emotional qualifier on a rational number, the number itself is inherently NPOV. -- Scientizzle 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also an engineer and I have PhD in Enginering not from libya but from Germany .

I know what I am talking about. epsilon starts with less than 10% depending on the application it could be much less but in general less than 10% is 'few', 'small' or 'epsilon'. "Only" does add the fact that it is 'small' 'few' which is very important . Maybe the whole sentance should be changed in a different way but neglegting the fact that 21 is very small number of 426 is POV. Islampedia 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't explained why 21 must be shown to be a small number rather than just "21"...asserting that is an opinion. -- Scientizzle 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

21 of 426 is a small number this is clear. It is a fact the question why u like to neglict this fact and delete it from the article Islampedia 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

21 relative to 426 is small, but in terms of an epidemic it would be considered significant - therefore, "about" is the best qualifier. Second, the work of Montagnier and Colizzi was done BEFORE the second trial, and that evidence was excluded. Therefore, I reverted. Simesa 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reversioning ... Let us agree on text first

Colizzi sent a letter to the court stating that his work was done with less data than it should be for scientific work based on this letter the second court excluded this evidence. I will bring citation on english for this part it is available in arabic only. "about" could be used if they r 20 or even 400 it defines accuracy but it does not define size of quantity like "only" or "few" cuz 21 of 426 is few LESS THAN 5% Islampedia 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The words "few" or "only" remain POV no matter what you do or say. The second court excluded scientific evidence it didn't want to hear - that is sourced in [15] and other sources. You haven't produced any such letter, and are you sure you are not misinterpreting it? - Is what Colizzi was saying was that the Libyans did not have nearly enough evidence to convict? Simesa 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What you did is called civilized-Terror. Anyway, deleting facts reomains POV no matter what you do or say and no matter how many admins are Bulgarians. Islampedia 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The admin who blocked you lives in our state of Wisconsin, which is very far from Bulgaria. For the rest, see my response on your user page. Simesa 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it forbidden for Bulgarian to live in Wisconsin ? ... What a silly argument. Islampedia 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say honestly as a brand new reader that as it stands "conclusively....about 21" this sentence and number is not clear to me: Was the report "conclusive"? If so why is the word "about" before 21? One adjective expresses 100 percent certainty, one expresses that it is not conclusive - perhaps "about" can be removed. Goldenrowley 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I have inserted "at least" in place of "about", since the Montagnier/Colizzi report uses this terminology, and have cited the claim. -- Scientizzle 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
ok thank you it makes sense now. Goldenrowley 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for sure unreliable source of infomation Islampedia 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed back

Now that the 3RR-violation Block has been imposed, in addition to User:Deiz's changes I changed back the disputed text. This borders on a 3RR violation myself, as I have one change and 3 reverts in the 24 hours previous to this, but I believe it fulfills the intent of the administrators. Other editors should feel free to change it back if they disagree. Simesa 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this after Islampedia's username was brought up at WP:RFCN. Regardless of the name, some of his edits are frankly bizarre, and any changes to improve the article, remove POV etc. shouldn't result in 3RR problems. The some/only thing is frankly ridiculous, WP readers are entitled to make up their own minds after reading facts. Reinserting this arbitrary, inaccurate quantification can probably be considered vandalism and therefore safe to revert at will. If neutral admin eyes are needed here in the future you can give me a shout. Deizio talk 13:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Libyan , Arab League and AU points of view and reactions are ignored

In the international reactions part nothing is written about these reactions and in the whole article nothing is written about their reactions the only exception is one Libyan reaction on 28.dec Islampedia 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Tripoli, Libya 01/01 - The African Union (AU) Commission has expressed concern at what it calls "politicisation" of the case of the medics who have been convicted to death by a Libyan court after they were found guilty of deliberately injecting 426 children with the AIDS-causing virus. The Libyan media quoted the AU Commission as saying the entire Africa was monitoring the case with great interest, and that attempts to politicise the matter must stop forthwith. Instead, it said, people should stop interfering with the judiciary, adding that the court decision must be respected by all . It urged the world to have faith in the Libyan judicial system, which it described as competent and respectful . A Libyan court sentenced to death, on 19 December, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor after they were found guilty of inoculating children with the HIV at a paediatric hospital in Benghazi, east of capital Tripoli. The case has provoked reactions from all over the world with politicians and the media in Bulgaria condemning the verdict. Sofia (Bulgaria) has so far sought the intervention of the European Union. The AU also expressed solidarity with the families of the victims and its desire. It said people should not aggravate the tragic case, where 56 of the infected children have already succumbed to AIDS. http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=498504 Islampedia 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I added this statement in. Presenting useful news stories is a good thing. Accusing people that don't conform to your exact viewpoint of being Bulgarian or anti-Libyan is not a good thing. -- Scientizzle 20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Attacking authors when they post facts which you can not ignore is a bad thing. It seems that we need bulgarian permission to make any change to this article. This time I got permission next time I do not think. It is very sad that wikipedia is under control. When some author make changes to the text it should be dicussed at least for few hours if not days then u can delete or call bulgraian admins. specially when the change it one word which reflects an important critic about that stupid report. The way u terrorize authors is a bad thing Islampedia 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


  • On 24.dec.2006 The Arab League (AL) issued an appeal to Tripoli and Sofia not to politicise the trial against the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor. The League asked all countries not to politicise the issue, as the accused have still one more chance for appealing their sentence. The League also underlined the need to be compassionate to the HIV-infected Libyan children in order to curb the consequences of this "painful human catastrophe" . Sofia News Agency [SNA]http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=74522 (requires subscription) Islampedia 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia thinks that the reaction of one country like US or bulgarua MUST be included in bold and the reactions of 22 countries represented by the Arab League MUST be rejected. Another prove that this article is an extension to government.bg Islampedia 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I read the discussion and the words of Islampedia. And I don't know where to start with my dismay. Mostly, because this is a person (or maybe people) who read the policies of Wikipedia with a clearly stated goal of turning it into an "Islampedia" - all this while Wikipedia is by rule against any political, religious, ethnic, etc affiliation. And finally I see the only logical twist in his (her or their) thinking - that anyone else editing the article is a member of the Bulgarian cabinet or a close supporter: referenced by government.bg. Now, this sounds insane enough to me - first, because Bulgarian officials have neither the time nor the need to war-edit in Wikipedia; and second, because an article like this is under so much sctrutiny, that it would be very hard for a single entity to impose its own viewpoint. Please, Islampedia, grow up, read at least one other article on Wikipedia, then stop and rethink your aggression! You don't help anyone with your current behavior. --Cryout 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It is easy to see from the text of anyone if he is one person or many. I am telling you a simple fact why the reaction of the Arab League is rejected in the international reactions section ?. Would you please concentrate on the issue of this section. If you have other issues against me u r free to post on my talk page. Please grow up and answer the simple question why this article is rejecting the reaction of th 22 arab countries ? why the reaction of one country like US , Bulgaria is included ? I am asking a simple question which helps to improve wikipedia and u claim that there is a group and many peoples this sounds very sick Islampedia 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Reading a text, it is indeed easy to see whatever you are looking for - but this doesn't automatically turn a speculation into fact. I just added the viewpoint of the Arab League. Their words are important and influential and, according to me, very well put. Having said this, I want to remind you that being compassionate with the children's faith has absolutely nothing to do with one's viewpoint to the Benghazi Six case. The international community, for example, has expressed both its pain for the AIDS tragedy and its concerns with the way the case is executed by the Libyan judiciary. Finally, it is hard to depoliticize a case that Gadafi already turned into an international matter - starting with his position a few years back that the medics injected the children and the whole thing was organized by CIA or Mossad. Furthermore, for the Libyan government this a 100% political case - because if the judiciary admits that it is the health system to blame for the tragedy, then many people politicians there will lose their jobs, if not their lives. Again, go back, think and please don't turn my arguments back at me: because I think about what I talk about. --Cryout 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Politisation started when the Bulgarian FM announced that "23 Bulgarian were kidnapped " in Libya the Bulgarian FM Knew that there is an investigation and the Bulgarian were arrested with many other Libyan but they wanted to trigger the Media against Libya and turn the issue to political, the field where Libya is weak. The statements of Ghadafi came years after this and years after the EU , US and other countries put their noses and started a political campaign against Libya. Claiming that Libya wants the issue political is completely wrong. Every statement from Libya started with emphasis that the trial should not be politicized. Statements from Bulgaria on the other hand are interested to make it political because they know that Libya is weak politically and they can win this way but in terms of the court they can do nothing Islampedia 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Any editor with serious concerns about another user's behaviour can bring the matter up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Deizio talk 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Le Temps

I can't get the Le Temps (Switzerland) link to work. It just takes me to their main page. Is that just me? I couldn't find the article in their international section either. --JGGardiner 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis re-write?

The synopsis in the article is very confusing. Could someone who understands the issue please re-write it in chronological order? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 07:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

seems pretty clear to me68.60.68.203 07:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What strikes me about the synopsis is that it doesn't appear to refer to any _evidence based_ objections to the court decisions from international sources. I'm going to add a few words that I think make the synopsis more reflective of what the article itself says. Inhumandecency 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Inhumandecency was referring to the intro and not the synopsis, which actually contains a summary of colizzi - salient points ie date and origin of original infection and means of spread. Caution should be taken to avoid "beating a dead horse." syndrome and partisan creep in intro to insure that the information contained in the article will be interpreted by readers with editors point of view in mind. Since the synopsis contains everything, more or less, the intro was very short - 1,Q what is it. 2A trial of nurses accused of X Q3 who is accused 3A "foreign medics" Q4 who are the victims A4 450 libyan kids Q5 why is this in the encyclopedia, important A5 international event because largest case and controversy over verdict. IMO that is all that should be in intro -not include evidence this side / evidence that side, supporters this side / supporters that side. Formerly the whole shebang was in intro and someone wisely created synopsis section (not I) for all that material which I thought was excellent move. Now everyone is wanting to get in their points in the intro.(not just you) It would be better If people were worried about substance of article and not first paragraph. I would like to get some sort of consensus going about intro and lock it down with some rules about editing it. What do you think?68.60.68.203 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Intro should state the most important facts, in a neutral fashion, so that the reader can grasp the core of the situation at once. Wikipedia's Manual of Style doesn't talk about Intros specifically, but does say there's a "simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read". I agree that the Intro as written now is unbalanced, and we should add some Libyan perspective. (But I don't think we want to add there that Libya explicitly offered to trade the Lockerbie bomber for the nurses.) Simesa 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
lookout Below!!!68.60.68.203 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

RE: with the western nations largely citing scientific studies indicating the epidemic started before the six arrived in Libya and the African Union supporting Libya's contention that they got a fair trial (the last of which excluded those studies as evidence).

First address this myth that "(the last of which excluded those studies as evidence)." The only so called study which the Libyans did not take into evidence was the nature study which came out after the trial was over(and adds nothing to the case except timely media propaganda value as part of the 'Nature' journals advocacy campaign . IMO) This should not be confused with discounting the obvious facts which WERE presented to the courts, which is why i called this section BEATING A DEAD HORSE, and it undermines the tediously researched article that follows.

Second for anyone who has ever followed any kind of court case through an appeals process (which the "last case" was should know that courts of appeal do NOT CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE normally. This is as true in the United States of America as elsewhere, so this statement is misleading and once again undermines the article's neutrality and credibility.

Third I feel it is improper to set this piece up as US vs THEM in the intro IE "the west" vs African Nations. For starters, under other circumstances Bulgaria and the Palestinians would not be described as the "west" and are arbitrarily crammed in under this rubric to set up a prejudiced reading of the article.68.60.68.203 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

rumored trade embargo

Seems wrong to include unreferenced material about a false rumor which was denied by both sides. I have removed it. 68.60.68.203 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

removed the whole section as the only other thing in it was speculation about Libya's incentives which at best are OR (unreferenced) and are just random speculation on the part of the author.68.60.68.203 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

New Breaking News Section

Rather than add a new section at the bottom for every news blip that comes along, which seems to be the process so far please put them here and migrate them from here to an appropriate existing subsection when appropriate.68.60.68.203 08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Bulgarian Reaction amounts to Opinion Blog

Much needs to be done here, to remove POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Please feel free to remove perceived POV. I tried to remove most of the redundant qualifications (e.g. "great", "many"). This part of the article, however, is an account of a certain viewpoint and all we can do is remind the reader that this is not Wikipedia's viewpoint, but that of certain roganizations. On the other hand, the recent events in Bulgaria deserve much more attention, since they are currently defining much of Bulgarian society. To clarify, the protest, the media campaigns, the personal initiatives and the strengthening governmental position on the issue amount to the one single most important political issue in Bulgaria at this moment. --Cryout 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
as a solution I have renamed section "Bulgarian Advocacy Campaigns" which seems like a valid thing to include & removed some random editorializing68.60.68.203 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also a little uncomfortable with the giant size of the ribbon photo especially given that its the only photo on the page. On the other hand I would like to work a link to this photo of Romano Prodi wearing one under the Advocacy topic. [16]68.60.68.203 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[17]68.60.68.203 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

novinite.com Serious Problem for citations (Sofia Weekly) solution

All citations from the Sofia news agency on http://www.novinite.com/ expire in very short order leaving a lot of dead links. All future citations from novinite.com (which is a great resource should be archived using

http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php

which is a simple process resulting in a url like this http://www.webcitation.org/5Me9JUXmq. It would be a good idea to do this for all serious citations, and to start to use either the citation templates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates

or the Reference generator

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php

Please include a descriptive title (preferably part of the actual title of the article) in the Reference ID if using the generator or add a ref name= manually —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Transcript of ruling issued on 19 / 12 / 2006 the Court of Appeal in Benghazi (in Arabic) ]

The text of the judgment and ruling issued on 19 / 12 / 2006 the Court of Appeal in Benghazi (in Arabic)

I have located this here libya-alyoum.com and archive it for future reference. Even a quick google translation reveals that it outlines the entire history of the case, all of the charges, the list of victims named in the indictment (as requested earlier) witness testimonies etc etc. I am picking through it as best I can. It would be a real coup to get this translated.68.60.68.203 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Refutation in The Libyan Journal of Medicine

"Please describe the article in a few sentences and provide reference instead"

if this is really your concern, then why delete the whole section, including link? "Why not describe the article in a few sentences and provide reference instead" 68.60.68.203 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't have the time to do it. Also, I left the comment exactly so that somebody does do the job (for example myself, but later). --Cryout 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Look forward to seeing it68.60.68.203 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
also my excuse is same as yours- however I prefer to err on side of inclusion rather than exclusion. But believe me I did not just copy wholesale without major editing down of material.68.60.68.203 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to err on the side of exclusion, not inclusion; the addition of content must be justified and pro forma. I sympathize with your conundrum; I rarely have the time to edit I used to... but that doesn't mean that half-hearted editing is acceptable. If you are unable to find the time, I think you can rest assured that someone of similar disposition will. 72.240.124.107 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am disappointed to have to say it, but the article is desperately in need of a full rewrite. Simesa 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

elaborate and maybe respond to below proposal68.60.68.203 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
ok I did a lot, think you will find it better, stuff still needed. Reorganized synopsis to respond to previous complaint. Should work better for people now -added short 1 paragraph subsections for synopsis of different aspects- removed a lot of unness subcatagories68.60.68.203 11:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
rewrite mostly done 68.60.68.203 15:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

proposals for a consensus based Intro

See Above Synopsis re-write? I wrote

...partisan creep in intro to insure that the information contained in the article will be interpreted by readers with editors point of view in mind. Since the synopsis contains everything, more or less, the intro was very short - 1,Q what is it. 2A trial of nurses accused of X Q3 who is accused 3A "foreign medics" Q4 who are the victims A4 450 libyan kids Q5 why is this in the encyclopedia, important A5 international event because largest case and controversy over verdict. IMO that is all that should be in intro -not include evidence this side / evidence that side, supporters this side / supporters that side. Formerly the whole shebang was in intro and someone wisely created synopsis section (not I) for all that material which I thought was excellent move...

The HIV trial in the country of Libya concerns the trials and appeals of six foreign medical workers charged with conspiring to deliberately inject 426 children with HIV in 1998, causing an epidemic at El-Fath Children's Hospital in Benghazi.[1]

The main defendants are a Palestinian medical intern and five Bulgarian nurses (often termed "medics"). They are presently under sentence of death, pending a final appeal, but Libyan officials have stated that they will not be executed.

slight change here because I think we should reserve last sentence or two of intro for the latest news.

The epidemic at El-Fath and the subsequent trials have becomeARE highly politicized and controversial.

blockquote> The epidemic is the largest documented out break of HIV within a hospital in history, and the first time AIDS has become a public issue in Libya.

Ok all you partisans here is where I have to justify this departure.

  • I am putting the epidemic and the reaction to it in Libya in a position of primacy for the following reasons.
  • 1 no aids no trial, simple
  • 2 the dimension of the epidemic is historic, not Libya's (government) weirdness, which is nothing new.
  • 3 obviously everything flows from what happens in Libya (public and official)
  • 4 for anyone who says "but this is about the TRIAL and not the EPIDEMIC, well there is probably never going to be a split, and I would object strongly to it, at this point. So next:

Bearing in mind the above points (everything in the west flows from what Libya does at this point, not the other way around)

The Libyan public was enraged and the foreign medical workers were arrested. Moamar Gaddaffi initially blamed the CIA or Mossad for plotting to carry out a deadly experiment on the Libyan children. However, Libya also requested and received help by two of the worlds foremost HIV experts, including one of the original discoverers of AIDS, who led a scientific investigation into the causes of the epidemic. These experts submitted a report, which traced the origins of the outbreak, and blamed poor sanitary practices in the hospital wards for the cross-contamination of the patients. This report was also introduced into evidence, at a criminal trial of the medics in Benghazi and the scientists testified on behalf of the defense. The prosecution introduced a report, by Libyan scientists which contradicted the original one. The medics were found guilty.

The number of trials and appeals has multiplied since the original conviction, and with each new result the case has drawn more, and more international attention. Attempts to resolve the situation have involved world leaders, appeals from scientific and human rights organizations, and various diplomatic initiatives. It remains unresolved.

Thats about as far as I want to get into "BLOOD MONEY" and sundry flames, anyone wanting more can read the article or edit it.

The HIV trial in the country of Libya concerns the trials and appeals of six foreign medical workers charged with conspiring to deliberately inject 426 children with HIV in 1998, causing an epidemic at El-Fath Children's Hospital in Benghazi.The main defendants are a Palestinian medical intern and five Bulgarian nurses (often termed "medics"). They are presently under sentence of death, pending a final appeal.

The epidemic at El-Fath and the subsequent trials are highly politicized and controversial. The epidemic is the largest documented out break of HIV within a hospital in history, and it was the first time AIDS became a public issue in Libya. The Libyan public was enraged and the foreign medical workers were arrested.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi initially blamed the CIA or Mossad for plotting to carry out a deadly experiment on the Libyan children. He has also repeatedly linked the case to the Lockerbie trial. However, Libya requested and received help by two of the worlds foremost HIV experts, including one of the original discoverers of AIDS to conduct a scientific investigation into the causes of the epidemic. These experts submitted a report, which traced the origins of the outbreak, and blamed poor sanitary practices in the hospital wards for the cross-contamination of the patients. This report was also introduced into evidence, at a criminal trial of the medics in Benghazi, and the scientists testified on behalf of the defense. The prosecution introduced a report by Libyan scientists which contradicted the original one. The medics were found guilty.

The number of trials and appeals has multiplied since the original conviction, and with each new result the case has drawn more, and more international attention. Attempts to resolve the situation have involved world leaders, appeals from scientific and human rights organizations, and various diplomatic initiatives. It remains unresolved.

THE END


The latest and greatest can be added to a SINGLE tag line at the end of the intro if it really changes anything. the criteria would be something along the lines of the situation NO LONGER being unresolved. ie they are actually set free or Libya actually kills them.

Sincerely hope to get some responses to this 68.60.68.203 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

so I have asked Inhumandecency, Cryout and Simesa as most recent editors to comment on this so we cat maybe get something going

68.60.68.203 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the intro should say something about the controversial nature of the event, because typically stories about people being accused, convicted, and punished lead to the assumption that they did it. But I don't have a real stake in this and I won't get involved further. Inhumandecency 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

replaced broken link nature study

as an aside of no great importance - it really pisses me off that Nature made such a big fuss - and also claims that all these reports are available free - and then after everything dies down they revert to making the real deal (ie the actual study) only available to their subscribers. Just shows we have to be vigilant about caching important data right away with webcitation.org. I downloaded the study myself but that doesn't help for wiki68.60.68.203 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CIA Accusations

I was gonna make a 30 page A4 of short snippets of all the CIA's crimes. But I'm just going to prove a point here so.

The CIA organized and financed the activities of the Contras in Nicaragua, who murdered tens of thousands of civilians, and tried to disrupt the economy, in an attempt to destabilize the legitimate Sandinista government. (For this the U.S. was condemned in the World Court for engaging in INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM <------- , and it rejected a U.N. security council resolution calling upon it to observe international law.)

That is just one, of the many... many... many.. many... assassinations, coup de'tats and so on that the CIA has been involved in. Usually it goes like this. A democratically elected goverment (usually left leaning but not always) wants to nationalize a resource under US/UK control alternatively does something else that annoys the US. The CIA steps in and kills off the leader or steals an election - puts a usually brutal fascistic dictator in place OR if that fails send in the military. (check Laos, more bombs dropped than in WW2.. on little shitty Laos)

The point being.

Considering the US's & notably the CIA's LONG rap sheet it'd almost be insane to dismiss the possibility of CIA involvement in any murder, coup de'tat and so on the world around. This incident included. They have oil you know and probably other natural resources. I'm personally a bit confused how the CIA can still exist considering how much stuff is verified and released.

213.141.89.53 10:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not out of the realm of possibility...It's also not out of the realm of possibility that a Libyan government organization planned and executed an HIV breakout. Maybe it was the Scientologists. Hell, no one's proven that the band A Flock of Seagulls had nothing to do with this...
The simple response to your statement is that there's no clear evidence of a dastardly plot by anyone and there's plenty of evidence that there were widespread insufficiencies in hygenic behavior within the hospital. Occam's razor is pretty clear on this... — Scientizzle 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Toby Douglass 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: All of the accused are Bulgarians

But al-Hajuj is an ethnic Palestinian Arab with no citizenship who became a naturalized Bulgarian national. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.113.17.208 (talk • contribs).

correct-Ashraf was granted Bulgarian citizenship on June 19. 2007 information has been updated.71.227.123.187 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut down external links

There are way too many external links. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, I'm cutting out news stories and posting them here in case anyone editing would like to use them as references:

--Gloriamarie 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

They have been extraded to Bulgaria

Actually they are on the plane it seems anyone have a source ?


Yes they are now back home and they have received a presidential pardon. Aparrently there is a 1985 treaty between Bulgaria and Libiya that allows exchange of prisoners. They were extraded because of that treaty. One hour after they landed on the Sofia airport they were pardoned by the president. Their release is due to the long talks between Gadaffi on one side and the french first lady and the eurocomissioner Waldner on the other.

Can you please at least DATE your submissions? The above appears to be from: 08:09, 24 July 2007 212.116.151.248

Please read WP:LEAD

The intro is beyond sucky.--Cerejota 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've condensed it a lot so that it is now much shorter. It only got that long within the last week or so.--Gloriamarie 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Really long...

Speaking as newbie I feel this news article is too long... The only people who will read this all are the people who made it. If this is a news article is going to be accessible to a wide public it needs to be concise like a newspaper but not have POV to be a credible source of information. We should remember Wikinews is in competition against reputable sources such as CNN, The Times, BBC etc. Monsta666 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a news article. It's an encyclopedia article, so it should be comprehensive in its coverage. 17Drew 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not Wikinews, it's an encyclopedia article.--Gloriamarie 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also a very strong case for NOT being like everything else out there which already exists, which has been corrupted in its form by the demands of the televisual medium, into things short and sweet and purportedly "simple to understand" but of course in fact actually usually fatal oversimplifications in the name of "viewer accessability". Reality doesn't care about viewer accessability; it is whatever it is and it can well be hard, long and difficult to understand. The inability of television to deal with such material is the primary reason for the lack of meaningful public discourse in our modern society for there are many issues of vital importance to us which are hard, long and difficult to understand and the absense of discourse in these vital matters is a cause of immense harm; not being like this is one of the reasons the Wikipedia is important. It fulfils a need unmet by traditional media. Toby Douglass 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should never give in to over-simplification just because some of the audience has a short attention span. Claim about the need to compete with international fast-food chains is simply strange. --Drieakko 10:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Wiki is not in competition with the CNN, The Times, etc. Those entities are commerical and compete because they compete for readership which in turn for them roughly equates to income which in turn drives profit. The Wiki has no need to be popular. It does not compete because it has no need to do so. As such it can concentrate on reality and truth, not viewing figures. Competition generally is a wonderful thing, but not when it comes to news on television or in print. In those cases, the medium converts news into entertainment and so competition in that field amounts to ever increasing efforts to subvert news into entertainment. Toby Douglass 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides all that, CNN researchers need to come here and find more comprehensive articles for them to base their snappy little reports on. =) --JGGardiner 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia or not, this article is too long. And to some of the above users tripping over to defend Wikipedia to some pseudo-accusation, grow up for God's sake. LuciferMorgan 09:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

virus catagory

I don't think this article belongs in the virus catagory. Legal yes, virus no. Have a look at the virus catagory - lots of pages on actual viruses, not on legal cases which involve viruses. Toby Douglass 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Summary of terms of release" section

I edited this section to make it NPOV. IMHO it should be deleted. Thoughts? --ukexpat 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a strong statement that is not only uncited but contrary to the European Union's position. It should be deleted. Simesa 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The following cite says "... a mysterious $438 million fund has been set up for the victims. The precise origin of the funds remains murky." [18] Until the origin of those funds is clarified, I think we should note the EU's stance, Libya's stance and the popular press's opinions. Simesa 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR is clear here--we can't determine how much money came from whom for what and why. I've made a modest effort to try to display the sides in that section. — Scientizzle 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[19] cites a rumor that the Qataris came up with the cash. While this shouldn't be taken as reliable, it is an indicator of how complex this deal was. Simesa 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

I guess I'm confused why this is still an ongoing issue - and if I am, then the readers will be also. Can someone explain why Libya is now resurrecting what was a closed issue?

Bulgaria is happy, basically - yes, some lawsuits were proposed, but I imagine that Bulgaria and the EU will handle them. The EU is happy, not only is the issue resolved but the Libyan/EU relationship is about to have a renaissance. Saif al-Islam sounded happy; he's going to get a lot of credit for the resolution. The families of the victims all signed for their money, supposedly they were happy. Libya had to know that the Six were going to be freed upon reaching Bulgarian soil, that couldn't have been a surprise - certainly Libya intends to free the Lockerbie bomber if he ever gets back to Libya. [20] The Arab League apparently isn't very happy about this landing in its lap. [21] [22] So I'm perplexed. Simesa 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer may lie partially in [23], where the Bulgarian Intelligence chief is quoted as saying 'the fate of the medics was nothing more than "a grain of sand in the eye of an enormous hurricane bringing together major interests" in Libya, including arms sales and oil concessions,'. Simesa 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashraf al-Hadjudj

The article says in a couple of places that Ashraf al-Hadjudj lost an eye and that one of his hands was paralyzed. Since the release, he has given numerous interviews and talked about how he was tortured, but I haven't seen this mentioned once (in articles I've seen written in English, German or Bulgarian). Also he has said that he wants to finish medical school in Bulgaria and train as a surgeon. I rather doubt that this would be proper training for a one-eyed man with a paralyzed hand. The man is clearly intelligent and outspoken (even in his non-native Bulgarian), and we're bound to hear more about him as books and movies (www.sixthsenseproductions.com/press.htm) are produced on this topic. So I think we should try to get the facts straight here. Dale Gerdemann 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of arms deal

An user deleted recent add about arms deal, claiming that the Washington Post reference (page 2) did not support what was asserted. The WP alludes to the deal in several paragraphs, notably stating: "but officials acknowledged a $230 million antitank missile sale after Gaddafi's son...this week disclosed the agreement in an interview with the Paris newspaper Le Monde." The WP reference is followed by Le Monde reference in question, here (also cited in the article), which precise WP's allusions:

Quelles ont été les véritables contreparties offertes à Tripoli en échange de la libération des infirmières bulgares et du médecin d'origine palestinienne ? Chaque jour, de nouvelles révélations percent un peu le mystère. Dernière en date : l'annonce par la Libye, jeudi, de la signature d'un important contrat d'armement avec la France. Ce contrat porte sur l'achat de missiles antichar Milan à hauteur de 168 millions d'euros, selon une source officielle libyenne, citée anonymement par l'AFP. Ce contrat aurait été conclu avec MBDA, une filiale d'EADS, numéro un mondial des systèmes d'armes guidées. Il s'agirait du premier contrat d'armement signé par la Libye avec un pays européen depuis 2004 et la levée de l'embargo. Tripoli aurait parallèlement signé un deuxième contrat de 128 millions d'euros, cette fois-ci avec EADS pour un système Tetra de communication radio, toujours selon un haut responsable libyen.

In English: Which were the true counterparts offered in Tripoli in exchange of the release of the Bulgarian nurses and the doctor of Palestinian extraction? Each day, of new revelations bore a little the mystery. Last in date: advertisement by Libya, Thursday, of the signing of an important contract of armament with France. This contract relates to the anti-tank purchase of missiles Milan to height of 168 million euros, according to a Libyan official source, anonymously quoted by AFP. This contract would have been concluded with MBDA, a subsidiary company of EADS, world number one of the systems of guided weapons. It would be about the first contract of armament signed by Libya with a European country since 2004 and the lifting of the embargo. Tripoli would in parallel have signed a second contract of 128 million euros, this time with EADS for a Tetra system of radio communication, always according to a high Libyan person in charge.

The references does support the claim made, so I reverted again. Tazmaniacs 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And I removed it again. NEITHER reference conclusively supports the statement that arms were traded for the Six - the French one has suspicions, nothing more, and the Washington Post one desn't allude to it at all! And until you can come up with a cite adequate per Wikipedia:Attribution, one where you don't misrepresent the contents (as you did), I will keep removing it. Put it back in inadequatrely and I'll file an RfC.
The text of the French article, as translated by Babelfish, goes:

Which were the true counterparts offered in Tripoli in exchange of the release of the Bulgarian nurses and the doctor of Palestinian extraction? Each day, of new revelations bore a little the mystery. Last in date: advertisement by Libya, Thursday, of the signing of an important contract of armament with France.

This contract relates to the anti-tank purchase of missiles Milan to height of 168 million euros, according to a Libyan official source, anonymously quoted by AFP. This contract would have been concluded with MBDA, a subsidiary company of EADS, world number one of the systems of guided weapons. It would act of the first contract of armament signed by Libya with a European country since 2004 and the lifting of the embargo.

Tripoli would in parallel have signed a second contract of 128 million euros, this time with EADS for a Tetra system of radio communication, always according to a high Libyan person in charge.

PARIS EMBARRASSÉ

This advertisement intervenes at the following day of the declarations of Saïf Al-Islam Kadhafi, wire of the Libyan leader, who affirmed in a maintenance in the World, Wednesday, which its country would buy "in France missiles Milan anti-tank device, of height of 100 million euros, I think" and after Thursday, the Quay of Orsay and the Elysium contradicted once again that the release of the Bulgarian nurses "was obtained with counterparts such as financial payments or a contract of armament".

Concerning the last advertisement of the signing of a contract of armament with France, Paris did not contradict. Questioned on this business, the spokesman of the Elysium, David Martinon, declared, on LCI: "I image that it is true". But "I do not confirm". "It is not my job to comment on commercial negociations". "I am not with the c?ur of the negotiation", it explained then to AFP. It reaffirmed that no contract had been signed at the time of the visit of president Nicolas Sarkozy in Libya, which followed the taken place release of the doctor and the nurses on July 24. But it estimated that this "very successful" visit had been done also "for the greatest benefit of the French industrialists, that accelerated the things much".

"If commercial contracts were signed soon between Libya and of the French companies, one could only be pleased some", it had estimated before in an interview with Parisian-Aujourd' today in France published Friday. "How to reproach national companies for gaining markets with a partner, Libya, which respects its international obligations".

"THAT RESEMBLES More and more A BUSINESS Of STATE"

"the things become really disconcerting" declared the deputy André Vallini, spokesman of the socialist group to the Parliament, questioned on LCI, Thursday evening, about this new information. "There is inevitably one of the two parts which does not say the truth. Either it is Libya or it is France. Now, one needs that president Sarkozy says what it knows, which it says the truth to the French (...). That resembles more and more a business of State. I hope that that will not seem a lie of State!" the deputy launched.

The Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, had evoked, Thursday, "of possible trade negociations in progress for several years or to come, which it acts of civil nuclear power, of material of armament or any other field". The chief of the French diplomacy made a point of stressing that France would respect "the European and national regulations international applicable since in 2003-2004 Libya did itself the choice to honour its international engagements".

The denial brought by Nicolas Sarkozy, Wednesday, with the existence of possible French counterparts had not alleviated the interrogations of the socialist Party and the Communist Party. The left continued, Thursday, to require explanations on this business and denounced "barter" with a "State hooligan".

A very irate Simesa 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be reading the two same sources with different eyes. The sources does support the claim. Tazmaniacs 15:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I must compliment you on your extensive research! It certainly has been a complicated and high-stakes episode. I reordered the text but the actual changes are slight and I'm confident we will reach a consensus sometime soon - I do expect you to make further changes. Be careful of American columnists: Mary Moore put two things in the same paragraph but never explicitly said they were tied together, a rather sleazy tactic. Simesa 08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! I've made some slight changes to your edit but overall they've improved the presentation and style. I've furthermore added controversy concerning the EPR reactor, and will look for other, English sources. I'm not sure about what you say about Moore, maybe I got confused because I immediately checked the Monde article to which she was refering to. Strange enough that this doesn't seem to make headlines on English-language sources; Iran is a problem, but not Libya? In any cases, you can see that if Sarkozy doesn't stop flatly denying any such deal, he has been contradicted by a variety of important sources... As a sidenote: one of his last word during his inauguration speech as President was to speak about the "Lybian nurses" (sic): "La France sera aux côtés des infirmières libyennes enfermées depuis huit ans…" which shows that negotiations were already engaged... Tazmaniacs 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As you seem to have been watching this article quite close, I also want to point out that it's getting very long. Maybe we could break it up in different subarticles, keeping quick resumes here of important stuff. We could start by spinning out the Chronology as done in several other articles... Maybe you want to do this, as you are more familiar with the article? Tazmaniacs 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)