Readers' Representative Journal

A conversation on newsroom ethics and standards

« Previous Post | Readers' Representative Journal Home | Next Post »

Here we go again: Kadafi vs. Gadhafi vs. el-Qaddafi

Moammar Kadafi The leader of Libya is once again making front-page headlines. And there's nothing like large type to make people notice that The Times doesn't spell his name the way other news organizations do.

The man we call Moammar Kadafi is Muammer el-Qaddafi in the New York Times, Moammar Gaddafi in the Washington Post and Moammar Gadhafi in Associated Press articles.

It’s no wonder readers think the L.A. Times has a mistake. But all of the spellings are transliterations from Arabic, and so all are interpretations.

Many news organizations, including the L.A. Times, tackled the question in February. You can check out what Time magazine and the Christian Science Monitor had to say, too.

We began using Kadafi in 1969, when the rebel leader seized power, under guidance from our Middle East correspondent at the time. He advised that the sound that begins the leader’s name was best translated as a “k”. (That also explains our spelling of Koran vs. AP’s Quran.)

Some of the discussion on Twitter:

Photo: Moammar Kadafi in April. Credit: Joseph Eid / AFP/Getty Images

 
Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments (4)

I found out that he has his own website, and he spells his name Gathafi on the site. Since that is how he himself spells it, that, in my opinion, is the correct spelling. But this is all Anglicization.

Not even his websites, or published versions, or passport, or family members' usages are consistent! They all vary, so it's not possible to say with any certainty "how he himself spells it".

And you are right, GMK. They are all anglicizations. We should instead use the one truly correct version, the original - القذافي.

Unfortunately transliteration is not an exact science. If you ask two experts how best to transliterate the same language, you are likely to get at least three diverging opinions. Academia's equivalent of religious wars have been fought over this.

Instead of joining the fray, just learn the language's native writing system. It's invariably easier and far more productive than fighting over transliteration.

I thought it was pronounced, Khadaffy Duck.


Welcome to the backup site for The Los Angeles Times. This is where we will post news and information if latimes.com becomes inoperable or inaccessible.

Recent Stories
Readers' Rep blog has moved...  |  September 10, 2012, 11:23 am »
'9 Chickweed Lane': Some readers not laughing |  September 7, 2012, 7:48 am »
Readers question play of Mitt Romney, Neil Armstrong stories  |  August 28, 2012, 12:47 pm »
Scott Kraft named L.A. Times deputy managing editor |  August 28, 2012, 11:18 am »
Megan Garvey named assistant managing editor, digital |  August 22, 2012, 1:15 pm »