Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 9

message: The phrase "During the war, Iraq used Western supplied chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran" is highly misleading and the supplied reference does not even support this statement .
84.70.159.152 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have modified it to note that it was material and technology, supplied by Western and Asian companies.  Actually, it was also from the Middle East as well.  Since so much of this technology and material is, in fact, dual-use, the whole reference should probably go.  It was originally just designed to be inflamatory and give the impression that the West directly supported Saddam's campaign against the Kurds, which is clearly not so. Epstein's Mother 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western supplied chemical weapons

message: If we have to have a picture of Rummy meeting with Saddam, can't we also put up a picture of Chirac personally giving Saddam a tour of a French reactor?  Maybe some mention of the fact that Chirac wrote up the bill of sale with 80% enriched uranium, so he could go straight to a nuclear weapon?  It seems so many relish the dripping irony of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war (when we, the French, and the British were acting in lockstep vis a vis Iraq) that perhaps we ought also have some nice pictures of Chirac posing for official diplomatic photos with Saddam when he went to sell him nuclear technology.  You know, the guy who said war is never the answer.
-----
And the pic of Chirac would just be POV pushing, SqueakBox 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US clearly did not invade Iraq for oil and nothing the US has done since the invasion remotely suggests that.  However, France did secure favorable oil contracts from Saddam in return for weapons, and France was the number two supplier of weapons to Iraq after Russia (according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute).  According to the SPRI, the US was tenth at less than 1% of the total between 1972 and the invasion.  It seems egregious to me to tie the US to Saddam in his war of aggression with a picture of Rumsfeld, when not only were the French partners in that, they were also his main arms supplier after the Soviets.  That deserves at least equal representation since it is far more relevant to his military power than anything the US did.
On the other hand France supported Saddam which makes it relevant to the context. It puts a perspective to the French resistance to the war. Prezen 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Small correction: "It puts a perspective to the French government resistance to the war." The French (population) resistance to the war has clearly nothing to do with Chirac and Nuclear reactor. This population has learned from the 2 last world war and from the decolonisation that "war" should not be an answer. Huygens 25 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The French have been trained to be reflexively Anti-American for two centuries and their loyal opposition to anything the US does can be counted on without any need for a logical reason.
France was a big player in the Iraqi procurement of nuclear materials, but I'm not sure how many pix we need.  Perhaps we should put both of these pictures or none of these state handshake pix?  Chastising Chirac is off topic in this part of the article, which is about Sadaan Hussein anyway.  Perhaps if there ends up being a section on the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Sadaam Hussein (which there should be), it should appear there.weblady 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chirac with Saddam

message: Put a picture that is more polite.
-G
: how about you do it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.98.97 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the image to one that is widely used on the Internet and is unanimously attributed to an official image released by the Iraqi Mission to the UN when Saddam was in power. This is correctly attributed. There is no need to put an insulting picture on a head of state article, regardless of how you personally feel about the person. Flybd5 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will modify the image later, after some time passes. Clearly there are some hotheaded editors here today who can't see two inches in front of their faces and understand that by reverting to an insulting image of a HEAD OF STATE they are adding fuel to the fire and acting in a very disruptive manner. Flybd5 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Picture

message: Shouldn't these go right after the section on his youth? At the moment these are listed right after his rise to power, capture, trails, ect.  ShadowWriter 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam's Marriages and Famliy Relantionships 

message: Hello,
the following aricle (of the BBC) may be worthwile looking at, when this is reworked:
*Saddam trial 'flawed and unsound'
Just a comment, though. -- Eptalon 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article to consider, when reworking 

message: I suggest that these articles be combined as the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline is almost entirely about Saddam Hussein and what he did or did not do with Al-Qaeda.  Perhaps as a sub-page of this main page? --BenBurch 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline]] 

message: is :Category:People convicted of war crimes appropriate? to my knowledge, Saddam has been convicted for Crimes against humanity over the Dujail killings so far,  which does not appear to be a War crime. while he has been charged with war crimes (or is going to be), he has not been convicted of them yet. Doldrums 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorization: "convicted for war crimes" 

message: From the Wikipedia article... 'Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century. During the war, Iraq used US supplied chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran.'
Did the USA really supply him with chemical weapons? What's the source for this? I know it's great fun to bash the USA, but I'd like to see proof of such allegations.
Here is a source about German involvement...  http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
Bajama 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added citation needed tag. This is an uncorroborated fact.Brian23 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed US to Western and added a reference. If anyone else has anything to add, feel free.Brian23 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Supplied Chemical Weapons? 

message: Is anyone gonna start past tensing the article, and also put information on his death.
*Sure. But no reason to worry about it until then; you'll be amazed at how fast the article will be brought up to date. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The world is full of surprises... Maybe he won't be executed. I mean he was a dictator and I'm sure he took many lifes but it is not a guarantee for his execution. Look at the Pinochet example. He destroyed a generation and abolished the rights of people but no one executed him. With respect, Deliogul 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i wonder why no one archived this take page !!!! anyhow about execution it is 100% sure without any doubt saddam will be executed maybe tomorow if not in this few days - if u know iraqis u will be sure as i am ,, so u will not wait for along time --82.194.53.100 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm certain he'll be executed as well - it's no longer a matter of IF - it's about WHEN and who's going to carry it out. But the world is full of surprises and it might not go according to plan. He might commit sucide like Hermann Göring, or even die before the inevitable like with Slobodan Milošević. 81.111.222.205 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I just wanted show the possibility law and according to the law, even an invasion of the world by purple dogs is a possibility. The world is a crazy place and many different things can happen in every second. Also I don't want to be rude but which justice was the one Göring cheated? We all know that it was all about winners and losers...  Deliogul 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess this discussion is moot now :-)  Nyttend 05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When he gets executed  

message: I added a current event tag since I didn't see one. Johp78 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Event

message: I've tried to add some more context for the weapon inspections. I think the spying allegations are important as is the claim Richard Butler (diplomat) withdrew on the recommendation of the US. The Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) and aforement biography provide this info in more detail. This is important especially given the untrue claim the inspectors were expelled (as mentioned, they voluntarily withdrew coz of the impending airstrikes) and the fact that it seems more understandable Iraq or Saddam would not want to cooperate with people who were spying on him Nil Einne 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context for weapon inspections 

message: The opening reads like a hiostory of saddam according to the US government,, which is nowhere near POV, SqueakBox 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddam Hussein 'reigned' as Iraqi President? Though this is true in pratice, constitutionally it isn't. Is this sentence PoVish? GoodDay 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening is accurate. I don't see it as a history as written by the US. It is almost universally accepted. There is no hiding what he did and I think it is stated accurately. I think you have a problem with the US as your recent comments have suggested and are biased towards anything that sounds remotely like the US beat up Saddam. I suggest you rephrase and tone down your anti-US rhetoric. Thank you. Brian23 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually impressed with the impartiality of this article. When there are such strong feelings around as there are in regards to this man, the pursuit of NPOV is going to be particularly difficult.  For the first time, reading this article, I think I started to get an idea of what motivated him and that he wasn't just a brutal dictator (as the US gov't and media describe him), but with an actual agenda that did do some good things for his country (though he was inescapably brutal)... Kudos to whoever wrote this article.  It will need a cleanup in a few days, though- after the execution and everything dies down. Trcrev 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: The first paragraph claims that saddam wassentenced to death for "crimes agst humanity". This is incorrect.  He was sentenced to death for handing out death sentences to 143 people in 1982.
Not the same thing.
Please correct.
:Not true. Many news sources have been lumping his sentence into the category of humanitarian crimes. However, the specific crime should be stated. But Fox News mentioned something about this being the "fastest" case that could be put together. One must realize that this death was not JUST a sentence for the 143 people, it was also one for the 4 to 6 million other confirmed and unconfirmed deaths he has caused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong ;) Saddam was sentence to death for the kill of 143 people in repression for an outrage against the presidential procession in 1982. This is what Le Monde a French newspaper has stated. They even detail that his death put an end to other trials against him (like genocides against the Khurdes) Huygens 25 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info in intro 

message: There is no information on the style of hanging (short drop, long drop, etc.).  Is this information known or just not shown on the page?  I think it would be a good piece of information.  --142.179.137.175 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably more detail than is necessary in this article. This article is already very long and probably will need a cleanup after all of the events of today play out. Trcrev 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of hanging?

message: I read somewhere that the hanging will be televised (I think it was CBS or something).  Is this confirmed?  --142.179.137.175 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched on the news last night that the Iraqi government is still undecided.  If it's televised, it would put conspiracy theorists to bed (he wouldn't be faking his own death) and everyone would know his existance has ended (like how we got the message seeing Zarqawi's body) but it would incite more violence.  If it's not, the converse can be true.  The news also said the Iraqi government is trying to keep it all under its hat to minimize the chance of a coup to rescue Saddam from transport to the gallows or something like that.  We most likely won't hear about it, or even see it, until immediately before or after. 12.167.225.121 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the editing of this page? Trcrev 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The film will be shown on TV, though... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Televised

message: Saddam is still alive. This is an encyclopedia. The first pic was a violation of WP:BLP as well as an insult to Saddam, his family and the Iraqi people. Such edits make wikipedia a laughing stock. Please read BLP and dont repeat, SqueakBox 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an insult. He's in jail.. it's a third-party source photo. It's the most recent photo we have. I don't think we need to sugarcoat it by putting him in a nice-little suit.Brian23 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it. I don't see how it is a gross violation of BLP. It's not as if we intentionally altered the photo. He was in jail and in court. How is that offending. Please explain. Would you rather have us post a picture of him holding a rifle aimed in the air as he rules as dictator of Iraq or maybe one of him a couple of his wives or maybe one of him ordering the gassing of Kurds. Either one can be interpreted as insulting. Unless you can come up with a better reason, I simply don't see how that photo is insulting.Brian23 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, looking at the edits.. I see what you are talking about. It would have made more sense to me if you had stated that you removed an offending pic. When you state "first pic", I think the saddam trial photo. If you are still talking about the saddam trial photo as being insulting, then I still don't understand how that is insulting.Brian23 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. IMO the underpants pic as the main pic should be treated as simple vandalism, the one I replaced it with is uncontroversial, SqueakBox 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Of course now it doesn't matter, Saddam is dead (so no more BLP vio.). But it could still be construed as a violation of NPOV, in which case that could be grounds for keeping it off. 74.38.35.171 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of [[WP:BLP]]

message: Is it mentioned anywhere that he was handed over to the Iraqi police? That seems to be pretty important. Also, I would recommend semiprotecting the article. It's getting a lot of vandalism.--CJ King 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an issue for wikinews Brian23 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see its been added, not an issue for wikinews, SqueakBox 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the article 

message: I removed the anticipated death date. It is ridiculous to add that in there. We'll add it in when he dies.. until then, I don't see a reason to post anticipated death dates. If we did that, we would have to do it for every public figure and that is silly. Brian23 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added update to Announced Execution date/time. Reuters is now reporting that he is still in US custody.Brian23 18:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anticipated Death Date 

message: Perhaps given the recent events surrounding the subject of this article, maybe it should be protected from editing by anonymous or newly registered users.Mellon123 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm an anon. editor and I've added a ton of content to the article, as well as found sources confirming many facts without citations...
The article is semi-protected now.  --weblady 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect from anonymous users 

message: Shouldn't there be a box at the top of the page saying that the article is protected? I can only find a padlock
A padlock is what you get. Try WP:Village pump if you want to change policy, SqueakBox 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, pressed edit too quickly,what I meant was shouldn't there be a box at the top of the article saying it is protected as new or unregistered users would not understand why they can't edit RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or lets have banter 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should be but I dont know what it is. Will keep an eye out for the relevant template, SqueakBox 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: protected status

message: Can we mark him as a dead guy now?
Remember to remove him from the list of living people 75.201.82.175 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead yet? 

message: I can't think of what could potentially be in the recently-created Execution of Saddam Hussein that couldn't fit nicely here. -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Execution of Saddam Hussein should be deleted; I don't see anything useful there that isn't already here. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed - there's nothing that warrants its own entry there. RedHillian 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree - it deserves its own page while it's a current event. When all is said and done, then of course merge. ray 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so there well be controversy and conspiracy theories so we need the execution of Saddam Hussein, so we can put those things in there. And it deserves and article of its own. Pseudoanonymous 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from [[Execution of Saddam Hussein]] 

message: While this may be satisfying to some people, this isn't exactly encyclopedia language... I suggest that someone who has access to editing this should change that to something like, Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging.
:That was added at 5:06 and removed at 5:07, seven minutes before you posted this message.  Vandalism like that gets cleaned up pretty quickly, especially on high-interest articles like this one. -- Chuq 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Then the comment doesn't make sense. Changing it back. Eric119 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging 

message: According to Le Monde a French newspaper, Saddam Hussein last words were:
I hope you will stay united and I warn you: do not trust the Iranian coalition, these people are dangerous
The Iranian coalition could refer - state Le Monde - to the Shi'ite government. These last words have been reported by the witness of death, judge Mounir Haddad, says Le Monde.
This is in contradiction with the statement from Times Online. What were the last words of Mr. Hussein has to be investigated further.
Huygens 25 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last word of Mr. Hussein before is dead 

message: According to the June '04 National Geographic, Saddam is estimated to have been directly involved in the murder of between 4 and 6 million people throughout his career. Anyone care to comment or add that note somewhere in the article? 69.244.153.46 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea... You might find a place to put it. Start looking ;) Øřêōş 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 to 6 million deaths

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "Saddam" just his first name? If so, according to WP:MOSBIO all references to "Saddam" in article should instead be "Hussein", ie. his surname. For example, in the introduction text, one of the sentences reads "As president, Saddam ran an authoritarian government and maintained power and stability in the country." Shouldn't it instead be "As president, Hussein ran an authoritarian government and maintained power and stability in the country"? I think this sounds more formal and more appropriate for an encyclopedia; it is also the style used by credible papers like The New York Times. KeL 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point there. However, many references to Saddam Hussein, especially on television news networks, refer to him as simply 'Saddam'. I don't know why, but 'Hussein' does sound more formal. Øřêōş 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the archived discussion (linked to at the top of this page). -Fsotrain09 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were all on a first-name basis in happier times, when he was our ally. Wahkeenah 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I was wrong. My appologies for wasting everyone's time. KeL 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, "Hussein" was his father's name, not his surname. See note 1 in the article which explains all this. -- Arwel (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rest in Peace old chap. You'll be missed. Allahu Akbar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.137.249 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References to "Saddam"

message: Why are we reporting this execution as if it actually happened? All reports I am seeing say it is still uncomfirmed. Even Al Jazeera says that. We really need to not jump on this and treat it as fact. --OuroborosCobra 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN says it is done. timrem 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you here then Fredd? --WikiSlasher 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The B.B.C. reported it at 3.15, Sky news joined in at 03.17 and Euro-news rounded it up at 03.24. -- 
--Homer slips. 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution 

message: I can't find any reference confirming Saddam Hussein's profession is that of a lawyer. Can anyone point it out to me? Given that for the last 30 odd years, he has been dictator of Iraq, I think that would be a better description unless he actually did practice law. I don't think he held a formal rank in the Army, so we can't use that. Caper13 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in "government office" since I couldn't imagine anything better.  Article says he was an army general, but only made so after the revolution.  It just seems to me that, as someone said in an edit summary, "dictator" really isn't what we think of as a profession, while we have plenty of people who were lifetime government-employed.  He seems to have been a lifetime opponent of the government when he wasn't in power; could he be put as "Revolutionary"?  Nyttend 06:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to leave it blank. If "dictator" is an occupation, then we might as well put "elected official" in every democratically-elected politician's infobox. It's just redundant. Look at the infoboxes for other world leaders. This field is not always applicable and indeed usually isn't, unless the person actually held a real profession before the public career. KeL 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam is a Lawyer? 

message: *Definitely - House of Scandal 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why? Khoikhoi 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not yet. This event is still breaking. Let the edits die down until taking action. Additionally, the  article in its entirety is way too long. So I am almost leaning to keeping the main details and execution as a separate article. -- immunity 05:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No'. This is a incident and deserves its own article. At least leave it a week or two before doing something premature. - Mike Beckham 05:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Execution into this article?

message: Saddam Hussein, like his predecessors going right back to Abdul Kassem wasn't a President of Iraq. - (203.211.74.39 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't a person be both president and military dictator? --WikiSlasher 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military dictator

message: Concerning this sentence:
The stranglehold of the old elites (the conservative monarchists, established families, and merchants) was breaking down in Iraq.
While I'm not particularly biased towards "old elites", the term "stranglehold" is definitely not a neutral term. If you talked to the "old elites" or their supporters at the time I'm sure they'd describe their control differently (stewardship maybe?). Something with more neutral connotation is in order. Brentt 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor POV wording issue

message: Snapping of the neck as caused by the noose and the floor dropping out, or by the eventual suffocation and restriction of the oxygen and air passage way to the throat and to the lungs ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 06:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanging Achille 06:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I was going to say an acceptable abbreviation would be 'hanging' 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, he died instantly, -- implies there was no suffocation, but just the snap. Now if if hanging is not acceptable, what is? Snapping of the neck? -- what caused that? Sudden and immediate tightening of the rope && acceleration... and that was caused by, um gravity and tension... you get the idea Achille 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of death ?

message: please remove the phrase, "currently he's probably on his way to hell". Yelin
:That was added at 6:05, removed at 6:07, and your message was posted at 6:31.  -- Chuq 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on his way to hell? 

message: as evil as sadaam is, we should not celebrate a death but mourn that sometimes in the intrest of humanity these choices have 2 be made. I will not soapbox but i must ask that the colorful language and ref to hell be left for cheap forums. one reason for this is you attrack more hositlity from anyone against what happened to him. I can think of some other people that need the neck noose 4 ongoing crimes against humanity--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section above was quoting a previous edit.  Wikipedia is not censored -- Chuq 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: can we remain pro

message: I think we need protection for the article until the heat cools off SACP 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much more protection do you want? You have full move protection, and a semi-protected article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Saddam's family and relationship history is very confusing.  Could someone please include a simple one-liner:
"Saddam is survived by wife(s) < names >, son(s) < names >, daughter(s) <names>."
Bonus points for including their ages.  ~ Eric 67.42.131.27 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Saddam survived by (at the time of his death by execution)? 

message: The Rise to Power section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power, totally lacks mentioning of the fact that he used to execute his political opponents. This fact is widely known and citable:
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100529.stm
* http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGIC,GGIC:2006-49,GGIC:en&q=Saddam+Hussein+executed+opponents
His "rise to power" was a bloody one, so please mention this. John Hyams 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information now exists. John Hyams 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And now someone deleted it!! John Hyams 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise to Power section 

message: I think the photo of his infobox should  be changed to a photo which was taken during his reign.You know,where he has his famous mustasheDimts 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed this a little here.  Some photos considered are:   and  --ElectricEye (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Do you believe it is neutral to use the phrase "invasion of Iraq."  What one person may call an invasion, another person could call a liberation, or something else.  Maybe it would be better to replace the word "invasion," which seems to be a biased word with the term "entry" into Iraq.
Raindreamer 12:56, 30 December 2006
:2003 invasion of Iraq is the name of the article it links to. You could neutralize it here, but it would still have to link to that article. The article says "The stated objective of the invasion was 'to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'" Let's see how it worked out: (1) was easy, since there weren't any; (2) was relatively easy, as Saddam was in no position to do much terrorism support once he was driven from power; (3) should have added from Saddam and then it would have been "mission accomplished". The question is whether "invasion" is considered to be a negative. Battle of Normandy is called an "invasion", and few would argue that D-Day was a negative overall, as it led to Hitler's defeat. Wahkeenah 09:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Invasion" is a neutral word because that conflict was by definition an invasion. An "entry", as you put it, into a country on which you declared war is called an invasion. Some may call it an act of liberation, others an act of conquest, but "invasion" is the term for the act itself. KeL 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Invade" means "to go into". Typically it means forcefully and quickly. "Entry" also means "to go into", but without any qualifiers. Invasions are entries, but not all entries are invasions. "Invade" is the right term here, I think. Wahkeenah 09:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion Term 

message: Finaly Saddam was refused to wear the "BLACK CAP" over to his head, when he was about execution. Guddu 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, he seemed to be dressed rather casually, considering it was supposed to be a necktie party. He was dressed warmly, to keep him from getting cold feet at the last minute. Wahkeenah 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refused to wear cap 

message: Thanks, and Happy New Year.
:Done, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add oc:Saddam Hussein

message: On November 8, 2005, Adel al-Zubeidi a defense attorney during the Hussein Trials on the legal team representing Taha Yassin Ramadan was killed.
On June 21, 2006, the chief defense attorney for Hussein and his brothers, Khamis al-Obeidi, was kidnapped and killed
who killed those two? someone should add that. --SummerThunder 11:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: by who?

message: From the article: Also, Italy, Malaysia, the EU, Pakistan, the Vatican, Libya and others... Italy is part of the EU, it should therefore be deleted from that enumeration.--134.130.4.46 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy is part of the EU 

message: :Despite this however, countries such as the United Kingdom are unable to broadcast the execution due to national television restrictions, which deem the event "inappropriate" to broadcast.
Could someone make it clear that it is just the execution itself that can't be shown; footage of him being led to the gallows has been broadcast on BBC News 24 and Sky News many times this morning. 81.145.241.67 13:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast of execution 

message: Since America and Britain were once friendly allies with Saddam Hussein at a time when he was executing the worst of his atrocities, I find it strange that there is not an echo of laughter over the moral superiority expressed by these same countries when discussing Saddam, and their gleeful jumping up and down over his execution.  Why are we not discussing the giant elephant in the room: that America and Britain only expressed outrage over Sadddam's barbarism TWENTY YEARS TOO LATE and that they too should be held to account?  Saddam was armed and funded in part by the administration of George Bush Senior, so why are not senior members of that former administration being held to account too?  Have I not made the most obvious point in the history of the universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.154.66 (talk • contribs) 
: The talk-page is not for discussing politics but how we can improve the article. Snailwalker | talk 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction to Execution 

message: Iran's reactions need to be properly covered as Iranians suffered from Saddam as (if not more) Iraqis did. Therefore a reaction from Iran naturally deserve to be covered much more than a reaction from a European or south american country etc. Sina Kardar 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran's reactions

message: He was sentenced to death in absentia. Saddam studied law at the Cairo University during his exile.
: The first sentence doesn't make sense under the YOUTH category (his death sentence is not part of his youth - unless he was sentenced to death during his youth). It should be place under other categories. If this article is opened again, please try to elaborate on the second sentence because it also doesn't make any sense too - it may/should be part of another paragraph of this category and be explained further. Besciamella 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it to mean that the Qassim government sentenced him to death for his participation in the assassination attempt, which happened when Saddam was (officially) 22 years old.  If this were referring to the sentence that got him executed this morning, it wouldn't say "in absentia"  Nyttend 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Youth

message: I have seen several accounts of Saddam's time of death varying by about 10 minutes.  I was wondering what we should use for the official time of death in this article.  Also, the time of death at the top of the page is not the same as the one in the Execution section.  Also, should we continue to list it as both local time and UTC? Bradkoch2007 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's alot of confusion in the Media. I'm not sure all the facts are in yet. Try to find some reliable sources that state the time. Also, i believe that we should use both times for now. It's important that we tell what time he died at in Iraq, but at the same time, make it clear what time he died at to the rest of the planet (which is why "UTC" is used). dposse 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of Death 

message: I would move this section to after 'Rise to power'. This section after 'Youth' somehow disturbs the flow of events. John Hyams 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the strictly biographical information needs to be kept separate in a biography section at the top.  It's fine.  But there were, in this case, family events that were political and these details can be put where they belong in the political account. --weblady 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I still think otherwise, becuase many events that occured in the 90's are described before the reader can understand how he rose to power. Britannica does on its own article what I suggested (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041630/Saddam-Hussein). John Hyams 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage and family relationships

message: As far as I know, the phrase "Alaihis salam" is used for prophets and Gabriel (Jibreel). It means "peace be upon him". The question is why does Saddam have that at the end of his name in the "Youth" subarticle. I mean, does he even deserve peace after what he has done? Please correct me if I'm wrong 
http://islamicweb.com/begin/key_term.htm#P.B.U.H.
Fix it.  It's not understood by most readers. --weblady 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.S. 

message: Do we know yet if these were Iraqi people or American? dposse 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "lawyers, officials, and a doctor." 

message: Who cares what all these countries thought of Hussien's execution...that section should be seriously trimmed down. It's cute that someone took the time to create it, with all those nice flags, but do we really to know what Finland or the Republic of Ireland thinks of his death? Scott 110 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do. This is an encyclopedia, and anyone who reads it and wants to find out the reactions of countries other than the US, Iraq and Great Britian will find the infomation very interesting. dposse 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be complete with all the opinions available of every country.. if possible. 67.8.238.211 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction from countries 

message: The article was under heavy influence from propaganda touting an antiwar agenda. I've tried to restore the balance by pointing out that Iraq was a Soviet ally, not an American ally during the Cold War. I didn't remove a number of claim that I consider to be mendacious, eg the claim that the US supported the Ba'ath party together with the Egyptians since I can't *prove* that its wrong, only that I consider it an extremely unlikely piece of propaganda. Nor did I delete Heller's ridiculous claim that there were no Iraqi troop concentrations in Kuwait.Prezen 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you get your information squekbox, but I can assure you that this article is about as natural as it can possibly be. "Far too pro western" is nothing but an accusation without any factual support. Reading your comment above and this one, I can't help but wonder about your feeling against "the west" or "the US" to be more precise. Please do not edit Wikipedia if you have such strong feeling against any nation or civilization. It will just end up becoming another POV article. Thank you, (Eddie 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How many lives did WHO save? Saddam? Excuse me, but Saddam was a mass murderer. Saddam had people's children raped in front of them to force them to talk. Talking about how many lives "Saddam saved" is an insult to those who were massacred by his criminal regime. Caper13 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV balanced 

message: From the "Escape" section: "they captured the former president's personal secretary Abid Hamid Mahmud, Ace of Diamonds and number 4 after Saddam and his sons Uday and Qusay."  Maybe I missed it earlier in the article, but the Ace of Diamonds and number 4 are just thrown in without explanation that I could find.  I know what it means, but some day someone will not know.  Maybe a short explanation of the playing cards is appropriate? 69.249.18.49 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing Cards 

message: How was it possible that the article was locked with an inappropriate tag?  An admin should remove it, please!
SqeakBox: The article is NPOV.  You have made edits in another article defending another dictator, Fidel Castro. When you write “With the West encouraging racial divisions” this strikes me as paranoia.  You say you have a level 5 in Spanish.  If that is true you could understand poetry.  Here are the words of Octavio Paz, the main debunker in Latin America of stupid anti-West sentiments [P.S. Paz's words have been removed but can be seen in my talk page].
―Cesar Tort 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isnt locked. As soon as I put the tag on I have tried improving the article for NPOV. The media is far less pro Bush, even the US media, than wikipedia in this case. We need much more critiscism of this anti Saddam line. What about the criticisms of the trial? Of the hanging? Of the invasion? Just a deathly silence. if the article was pro saddam i would fight to get it poved in the other direction. I think is encouraging racial divisions, as the press are saying, the Sunni's see the hanging as a personal attack and racial tensions massacre people ebery day in Iraq. Nice poetry, vaya bien, SqueakBox 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate tag 

message: Just wondering if it would be relevant to have a section in this article dedicated to Saddam’s body doubles?  --D.Kurdistani 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussain's Body Doubles 

message: There is a huge amount of media coverage of the trial's unfairness. Attempting to censor this in wikipedia is appalling. Where are people coming from? Doers nobody here care about wikipedia, only editors who want to stitch up saddam? SqueakBox 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddam was convicted by a legitimate court according to Iraqi law. Thee opinions of some ProSaddam organization is just POV pushing. Are you suggesting that Saddam didnt commit the crimes he was found guilty of? Caper13 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Members of the judging team were all American puppets and you don't have to be a genius to know that. I am not from Iraq and I don't like Arabs but these can't change my opinions about the trial so we don't have to be pro-Saddam to talk about unfairness of his trial. Let me put it this way, Saddam rule caused deaths (like all other rules) but it wasn't the job of America to judge him. Deliogul 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like POV to me. 69.234.201.208 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of you, please, read the template at the top of this page. As for you, Squeakbox, find notable "media coverage of the trial's unfairness" and I will revert anyone who attempts to "censor" it for you.Bduddy 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trial before the SICT failed to satisfy international fair trial standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal. The appeal process was obviously conducted in haste and failed to rectify any of the flaws of the first trial. 
Amnesty International
AndyMcCarthyUK 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The trial satisfied Iraqi law. Those are the standards that are relevant. There is no such thing as a commonly agreed upon set of International Fair Trial Standards. What is put forward as these standards is simply one group's opinions of the way they think things ought to have been done and their view is POV. Saddam was tried for crimes committed in Iraq, by an Iraqi judge under Iraqi law. Though it isnt relevant, while his trial wasnt perfect...and no trial is (which is why that whole argument is a canard...unless the trial was perfect, it is tainted) much of the violence against witnesses which you cite, was committed by groups SUPPORTING Saddam. Iraq is a sovereign state and no outside group has authority over its judicial system to dictate the terms by which a criminal who committed crimes in Iraq, will be tried. Most of the complaints are nitpicking by those seeking to discredit the result.
Caper13 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhm, that's the way it works. If you don't like it, go to Iraq and become a citizen and vote. Works the same way there as it does here. If you don't like a political party, you make a campaign against them. This is not the place to debate whether or not the Shiites are allies of America. 67.8.238.211 13:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barzani and Talabani are not Shiite, they are Kurdish. Barzani is the warlord of a powerful Kurdish clan and Talabani is the leader of the Kurdish nationalists. Please, you don't even know who is who! "If you don't like it, go to Iraq and become a citizen and vote" come on what is this! Occupation forces are ruling the country and Iraqi people have no power to say something against it since there is no democracy. Iraq is in, somewhat, a civil war. There are no peace birds and happy people voting for their future. Please come back to reality. Deliogul 13:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you rot in hell with Saddam and the rest of his cronies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.8.238.211 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of trial

message: I cant belive on this article regarding Saddam that it's seen ok for people to type biased reports coming from there own political beliefs. This is supposedly supposed to be a netural report, yet it has rubbish information saying Tony Blair and George Bush are war criminals and should be punished in the hauge for there illegal occupation of Iraq, which of course is totally debatable.
Is this is a unbiased netrual encyclopedia for people to read and learn off, or a propoganda web site for muslims and other people who dispise the Western world to vent there anger on ??
Please whoever is in charge of moderating Wiki, please sort this article out as it's very offensive and not at all eduacational to anybody doing any research on Saddam's life.
Neil Of Cardiff 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neil, click the edit button and change it yourself. This is a wiki which anyone can edit, so it's possible that there are mistakes. --Majorly (Talk) 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a war criminal is a strange thing because you can't be one before you loose the war. Believe me, Bush would become a war criminal (and directly be hanged) if Iraq would invade America. Saddam was officially the president of Iraq and there is not a divine fate or the justice of democracy in this situation. Deliogul 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  What the heck are you guys talking about? First off Neil, I dont see the section you are refering too, where does it say Bush and Blair are War Criminals? I will gladly erase it like I have erased other non facts w/o citations. And Deliogul? What the heck are you talking about? Iraq invading America? Would the UN approve this liek they did the Iraq war? Plese keep your POV off of Wikipedia -peterp
If you had come on 10 mins ago Pete you would of seen the paragraph so dont call me a liar. It was on there as thats why I made this comment, So dont call me a liar as I am not in the habbit of making such things up. Also I am not going to get involved in a political debate with you, this is neither the time or the place. I have just checked the article and thankfully it's been removed so obviously I'm not the only one who though it was wrong to to type such biased garbage. So now I am happy anyway.
Neil Of Cardiff 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Neil, one of the down sides of a wiki is that individuals intent on vandalism or point-of-view pushing can take advantage of the very system that allows us to accumulate a depth of knowledge that makes such good articles. In high traffic articles such as this, such vandalism will not last long (indeed, probably less than a a minute). Thanks for pointing it out, but in future it would be a great help if you could revert such editing yourself. Rockpocket 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Neil, Next time just erase wrong info. At least we are both now happy! Wrong info or non cited info like you pointed out should be removed and I thank you for pointing it out... 66.31.222.89 peterp
Of course Iraq can't invade America! I was just thinking but enough is enough. People come and say he was a dictator. He was one but we don't even call Stalin a dictator here (his dictatorial rule is in the article but his occupation was being the generaly secretary of the communist party) so we must call Saddam the fifth president of Iraq. Also, it is not the legality of something which makes it good. Whatever UN and you people say, entering a country by force and causing the deaths of thousands is no good but whatever. I'm just angry because of that guy who thinks the execution was the divine fate and it was according to the God's plan. Now, this is unrealistic. Not what I wrote... Deliogul 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Peterp, please calm your butt down. In my eyes, Bush and Blair ARE war criminals. And secondly, Iraq had been excluded from the UN before the time the US had attacked him. -- WiiVolve 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, this is NPOV. Stop making suppositions. If we are going to say that, then the Former Soviet Union leaders are war criminals for attacking Afghanistan.. just because some people die, doesn't make them war criminals. Get over yourself and let's get back to the subject at hand.67.8.238.211 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Saddam's hanging is just another case of a nation's people getting revenge on the guy who oppressed them for many years, as with the French Revolution, Benito Mussolini, the Ceauşescus and so on. In the end, Saddam got what he gave to countless others. Whether it made good strategic sense to overthrow him is another question altogether. Wahkeenah 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The conspiracies section seems to onnly be about his execution. Perhaps it should be moved to the actuall article about the execution? Ilikefood 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  conspiracies section 

message: Some 'clever' person changed 'Saddam' to 'Bush' around in the artice, and I also spotted some nonsense about a sexy general.. 89.10.26.141 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like it's been dealt with. If, however, it hasn't yet, it will soon will be. dposse 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: As approximately one-third of the introduction is about events that unfolded in the last two months, and as the events of one day are described at roughly the same length as the events of twelve years, extra vigilance is required to ensure that the latest news stories are not given undue weight.  Saddam's execution deserves about one sentence in the lead: we do need paragraphs about Saddam's emotions, statements, or appeals in the moments leading up to his death.  While such things make for great news stories, they have only a minor place, if any, in ecyclopedic articles.  Remember, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and clearly Saddam's brutal rule, rise to power, and foreign relations comprise a larger chunk of the article than his execution.  This article should not become a news wire; that is what Wikinews is for. -- WGee 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since his death is a recent event, it's logical that wikipedians would want to have that infomation at the top. It's also very logical that the recent events would get more attention, since the Media covered them more closely than the death of a United States President. However, when things cool down, all of the infomation should be placed in the proper sections. Yes, i said all the infomation. While we do have the requirement that this article be NPOV, what he said before he died is relevant. He was, after all, a leader of a country. We do need the infomation about the appeals, his emotions, and his finals words because that's history. If there's one thing that Wikipedia is for, it's for writing about history. dposse 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News wire? 

message: The intro as it stands right now is overlong and turning into a debate. Basically there is too much information that really cannot be made NPOV without going into an indepth discussion. Just look at the second paragraph--it's ridiculous. The intro should give just the plain facts and leave all that controversial debate to the body of the article.
I will try to rewrite the intro into something more like that of Slobodan Milošević, another controversial figure where the intro smartly avoids going into points that are best left to indepth discussion. Notice that article's intro gives adequate context without jumping into things like "He was and remains a popular hero..." followed by a sentence like "However, he is hated by many Iraqis for the murder of their relatives and loved ones..." Just a no-nonsense summary of what happened. KeL 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro text is getting out of hand

message: Is it just me or is the trial section (a) way too long (particularly for a topic about which there is a dedicated sub-article) and (b) very poorly written as it consists entirely of bullet points followed by dates and descriptions of events?  Would anyone object if I (or someone else) tried to shorten it to its essentials while leaving the details to the appropriate sub-article?  --ElKevbo 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. If you are willing, go ahead and do so. The section should not be a timeline, but rather in parenthetical form. Pepsidrinka 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial section also "out of hand"

message: "Film footage has been aired on American television up to the time of the noose being wrapped round his neck, however the full execution can be viewed on the Internet."
We aren't advertising his execution, are we? Someone who reads this will immediately go off to YouTube or Google Videos and look for it. I strongly suggest that we remove the last phrase "...however the full execution can be viewed on the Internet."
-- WiiVolve 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there was video at all isnt even notable. Why do we need to mention it. This is not the evening news. We are writing an encyclopedia article. Caper13 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the fact that there is video is very notable. They made the video for the Iraqi people, to prove to them that he died. That's notable, considering the climate in Iraq. dposse 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's a difference between the footage on worldwide media, and the leaked cell phone. While I'm sure it's tame compared to other snuff (Not that I would know), this doesn't seem like appropriate material for Wikipedia to be linking to. PlayItBogart 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what wiki guideline? Wahkeenah 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution 

message: There is almost no mention of the crimes committed under Saddams regime.
Evidence? Also, please sign your entries. The most that can be said is "assumed by some" or in different words, we need more evidence. Crud3w4re 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes 

message: This section needs to be divided into sub-sections, i.e. heading 4s. The war section is too long, and there must be a pointing to the Kurdish massacre, for which Saddam was executed. Someone is repeatingly deleting these headings. John Hyams 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I restored the headings as the were stable for several years. See the note I posted on your talk page.  172 | Talk 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Iran/Iraq War section

message: John Hyams 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who DELETED the section "Execution of political opponents"??

message: Why is his name written as Hadhrat Saddam (A.S.) in the youth section?? Lennart.larsen 09:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone did a rollback, they reverted back to the version that had all the honorifics in the youth section. Pepsidrinka 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadhrat Saddam (A.S.)  ?? 

message: can someone help translate this video http://www.alrafdean-news.net/Dec,2006/Shaaaheed_IRAQ_Sdaaam.3gp? might be useful to have it in the article traanscribed or separate but linked --F3rn4nd0 BLA BLA BLA 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation?

message: In beginning of article, there is profanity that I can edit out, because the page is closed to editing. Would someone with the ability to edit this page please remove the part in the beginning about him being a "PIECE OF S***" even though he really is. Unfortunately, it presents a bias point of view, even though it's just saying it like it is...
71.205.110.217 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDILISM in Article 

message: While the description was accurate, it was vague, and not precise; "hanged" is a more precise term describing what happened to Saddam, and, besides, not everyone understands leetspeak. That reversion probably should count as one of a good-faith edit, rather than one of vandalism, but a necessary revert all the same. oh yeah, and Saddam suxxed big time oops, personal opinion inserted! 68.36.214.143 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noting that Saddam was "pwned" is not necessarily vandalism...