Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 10

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)
replies: text: It was modified to read Western supplied because it said US supplied, which wasn't true either. As there were not many references, I found the best one I could find. That reference supported the fact that it was Western supplied, not just US. I had no knowledge of the Asian suppliers or even Arab suppliers. I see now how even after I modified it to read US to Western, that it still is ever so subtle inflammatory.Brian23 13:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Western supplied chemical weapons

message: These sentences do not correlate well: "At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda."
This makes the reader infer that Saddam's seizure of international oil interests in 1972 was a direct result of the 1973 energy crisis. Is this true? If so, it needs to be better worded and cited. Brian23 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncorrelated sentences

message: Put a picture that is more polite. 
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
: 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)

text: If fair use or copyright restrictions are an issue, maybe this picture from the US Library of Congress Country Studies collection can be used. According to the FAQ on that site, it's public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ζεύς (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 January 2007 (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)
replies: text: Where did you ever get the idea that Saddam wasn't Sunni or Muslim?  That's the strangest thing that I've read all day.  Brian1975 06:50, 4 January 2007 (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: 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:  See the article on patronyms to understand fully why he should not be addressed by his father's name.  In Iraq, he should informally be called Saddam, and formally called Mister Saddam, since Hussein is his father's name, and is not a surname.  Brian1975 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

text: Yes, this should be taken into account by anyone in wikipedia and one should be aware that the naming system in their part of the world need not be universal. Even in my case, my first name is my name and my last name is my fathers name and not my name.--Rocksea 09:15, 1 January 2007 (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)

text: Saddam is not a lawyer but he studied law when he was in Egypt (for 3 years it looks like). That doesn't make him a lawyer, but he knows more than someone watching Judge Judy. ==Taxico 06:09, 1 January 2007 (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: The Execution Timing shows how little Bush understand or care about the feeling of Arabs and Muslims, before the End of the holly Hajj pilgrimage and on the 1st day of Eid Adha, even Arabs those whom hated Saddam, Found Bush timing to order the release of Saddam for execution by the Iraqi shiats  is Wrong and offended many, thank Bush, Now more people hate us Americans for his stupid actions.
the 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)
replies: text: If I remember from the news at the time, they were "Satisfied" with the sentencing. If you take my word for it.81.156.123.153 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's their official low-key response. For their real reaction... well, what's the Persian equivalent of "YEE-HAH!" ? Wahkeenah 18:51, 5 January 2007 (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)
replies: text:  Okay.. got your point there.. Maybe if this article is opened again you can place there that the death sentence happened when he was 22 years old making this article more reliable.. ^_^ Thanks for the info.. Besciamella 15:05, 1 January 2007 (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)
replies: text: Honestly, does it matter one whit?  The verifiable facts are that he's dead and that he died on 30 Dec 2006.  The only reliable source for minute details of the event is a grainy, poorly produced cell phone video that lacked any timestamp display.  Nothing else is verifiable.  I'd suggest taking both times away; they're not relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.181.153 (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it really doesn't matter if we have it down to the minute; we just need to state one time and state it consistently.  As I pointed out, the times still differ in the article.  We need to state one consistent reliable time throughout the article.  I suggest that for the time we state something along the lines of "at approximately 6:00 AM local time (03:00 UTC)" and just go with the round hour as an estimate.  Agree or disagree? Bradkoch2007 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The time on the picture says 11:52. Is that the "live" time, from whichever time zone? Or was that the time on a re-broadcast? Wahkeenah 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know that I would worry about getting the time down to the minute. Most would probably feel that stating the date would be enough. Going further, saying 'around' the 'whatever oclock' hour would be fine. Its not like whatever time given was absolute anyway. It was probably just some guy looking at his watch or a programmed camcorder. I'd use local time with the UTC offset. Caper13 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue might be important because of the question someone raised about whether the holiday had officially begun yet or not. What do you know about that subject? Wahkeenah 04:20, 4 January 2007 (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: 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)
replies: text: -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:20, 2 January 2007 (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)

text: To 67.8.238.211, I guess you are also from that divine fate believers. You must learn about the region first so you can understand that more than half a million civilian deaths have another reason instead of just being the God's big plan or the divine fate. Deliogul 13:39, 1 January 2007 (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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
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)

text: The evidence is fairly strong that it happened (is it really contested that it did?) and regardless of whether a connection can be proved or not it was done under his rule so he is responsible for it.Prezen 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Iran/Iraq War section

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...

message: This article is a primary example of why Wikipedia is seen as an unreliable or "not a real" encyclopedia. A neutral point of view is not obtained by adding and meshing two extreme positions or really even through consensus. Consensus is a great way to get people to agree to a middle ground for matters of opinion. But an encyclopedia is not meant to be a treaty or a document that reaches a consensus of opinions. Encyclopedias are supposed to present facts without ANY point of view, not with both. 
For example, was the most important part of the Iraq-Iran war Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand? Is the most important part of Saddam's trial a state propaganda photo of his execution? Clearly there are political forces at work in this article.
Apparently a lot of people along the line seemed to forget that neutral point of view means a lack of a point of view rather than a balance between positive and negative opinions on a subject. Someone needs to clear this article up, because it is clear politics is at work. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.28.162 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 December 2006
Agreed, it's a mess.  But it's better than it was. --weblady 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who better to fix this article than those who see a problem. See your talk page for more. Veracious Rey  talk↔contribs 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I will help clean it up as well. I was the one who had it sprotected to stop the IP vandalism and POV pushing edits, and I do notice the recent improvement that some good editors have been making to correct the excesses that flowed into the article over the last couple of days. Caper13 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: People shouldn't come here and say extreme things after watching Fox News but I accept that we can't go further than a dog fight. Still, I am a rational man and I'm waiting for constructive ideas. Deliogul 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the video of Saddam's lawful execution should not be part of the article, however your description of it as a murder displays a POV problem. Caper13 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because a supporter of Saddam calls it murder, does not make it so. Caper13 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol. And your calling it murder is NPOV I suppose. Caper13 05:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By that definition, all capital punishment is murder. That's a fair question to debate, but not on this page. And there is a valid reason to provide access to a video of Saddam's death; namely, to enable those who come to this page to decide for themselves if Saddam was really killed or not. The before-and-after game-playing being done by the official sources leaves the door open to the possibility of the execution having been faked. The cellphone video makes that possibility rather less likely. Wahkeenah 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your helpful suggestions and positive contribution!  --ElKevbo 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Seriously though, nearly everything that needs adding is already said time and again on this page already. I'm sure I could sum it up with ardent use of copy and paste functions, but that would be rather pointless. 193.95.195.40 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is why Wikipedia is seen as unreliable 

message: I have protected this page because I noticed people kept changing the video references to get hits from Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hqduong (talk • contribs) 
The video needs to be translated before it can be distributed. We need to make note that "it is believed" that it's a Shi'te deathsquad that did this, and that US handed him over to Al Sadr's men. How do I know this? On MSNBC they were saying that they were cheering for that "Al Sadr" guy, and he's widely seen as a terrorist. Crud3w4re 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Just following up on a topic from the archives about Saddam's last words. My wife is Iraqi and has translated his last words from the video. He was reciting the Islamic "shahada" (confession of faith). He repeated the phrase twice but was unable to complete the second time.
"I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger. I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad ..."
Regards, Kevan
220.233.30.13 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that we already have that. dposse 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I understand Iraqi Arabic and one of the man said "Go to hell..." but Saddam continued to recite the Shahadah, but was cut off the second time. -- WiiVolve 09:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam's last words 

message: We must not archive live discussions. The NPOV tag is discussed in several sections and as it remains in place the relevant discussions must not be removed, SqueakBox 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I have the news that Saddam Hussein's body was buried in his hometown tomb.  Here is this link if you want to know more about it, okay? --Angeldeb82 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial 

message: One of his quotes hit me the hardest. I can't remember it, and can't find it on google. It is roughly, "The worst thing is man to forget God's place." It was on during the night of his death, a news report. --69.67.229.171 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: The first paragraph of this section is clearly political, has nothing to do with Saddam himself, and doesn't even start with a complete sentence. Anyone care to rewrite?
66.42.214.188 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 invasion section needs major revision 

message: This language seems inaccurate:
:In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of Communism and radical Islamism. Saddam was integral to U.S. policy in the region, a policy which sought to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union. 
While it's true that the U.S. supported any Arab leader opposed to Communism, to say Saddam, in particular, was "integral" is plainly incorrect.  For one thing, until the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iran was the United States' primary ally in the region (and Iraq hostile to Iran).  It was only after 1979 that Iraq became important to the U.S., and, by that time, Iraq was already part of the Soviet "camp".  (As evidence of this, consider that, from the Iran-Iraq War until the present, the bulk of Iraqi military equipment has been Russian and French.  By contrast, during the Iran-Iraq War, most Iranian military equipment was American.)  In addition, while anti-Communist, the Ba'ath Party (in both Iraq and Syria) has never had strong ties to the U.S., preferring instead the Soviet Union because of the U.S. alliance with Israel. The comparison with Syria is apropos -- the Syrian Ba'athists are also anti-Communist and anti-radical Islamist, but also historically allied with Russia.  This pattern is repeated with most Arab nationalist movements.  Indeed, until the 1990s, it could be argued that the United States preferred radical Sunni Islam to either Communism or Arab nationalism, as evidenced by its support for the Saud family and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Epstein's Mother 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saddam as integral to U.S. policy

message: For clarity's sake, I'm starting a new section.  This is a continuation of the previous section.
SqueakBox, here are the two paragraphs that, in your opinion, violate WP:NPOV:
:Saddam tried to build Iraq into a regional power. Under Saddam, Iraq fought Iran (1980–1988) and invaded Kuwait in 1990 leading to the Gulf War in 1991. Suspicion among US and UK government members (in a political climate affected by 9/11) that Saddam was attempting to build weapons of mass destruction ultimately led to his downfall. Saddam's government collapsed as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States, and he was captured by American forces on December 13 2003. On November 5 2006, he was convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraq Special Tribunal and was sentenced to death by hanging.Saddam Hussein sentenced to death, BBC World Service, November 11, 2006.
:On December 26, Saddam's appeal was rejected and the death sentence upheld. He was hanged in front of lawyers, officials, and a doctor at approximately 06:00 Baghdad time (03:00 UTC) on December 30, 2006, according to Iraqi television.
Those paragraphs offer no opinions whatsoever -- they simply state the objective facts about what happened.
You have attempted to insert the following parenthetical comments:
*"...in a trial many considered fundamentally unfair..."
*"...in what has been described as "a criminal act of cowardice orchestrated by American overlords..."
In both cases, you are injecting controversial opinions into an article lead that otherwise lacks opinion of any sort. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these particular parts are ok for the lead. But I was rather surprised that the trial section had very little on the criticism by many usually neutral NGOs about the fairness (or lack of same) of the trial and the verdict. The fact that Sadam was a murderous dictator does in no way imply that we should skim over these details. --Stephan Schulz 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is appropriate to mention the criticism of the trial in this article but as the trial has its own article any mention in this article should be very brief.  --ElKevbo 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Review 

message: The statement "Suspicion among US and UK government members (in a political climate affected by 9/11) that Saddam was attempting to build weapons of mass destruction ultimately led to his downfall" grossly distorts the political intentions of the administrations of United States of America and Great Britain. It is a proven fact that George W. Bush and other members of his administration claimed before the UN Security Council that they had evidence (not just suspicions) of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, which all turned out to be entirely false. If the evidence was intentionally created to justify an attack on a sovereign country (which by the way violates the Geneva Conventions) or if the overstatement of questionable evidence was plain stupidity of some fanatics would need to be investigate by an independent international tribunal. I demand that the words "suspicion among" are immediately replaced with the word "False claims of the" or at least "Claims of the" to be historically correct and to avoid the downplaying of the roles of the US and GB government in a war, that has cost not only the lives of 3000 US soldiers but an estimate amount of over 300.000 Iraqis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.196.168 (talk • contribs).
:No. Your "demands" would be entirely POV and unneccasary. The sentence is worded correctly. dposse 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like "demands", but I agree with 70* that "suspicions" is problematic. We won't know about the real thoughts of the people involved for a long time, and possibly never will. "Claims", on the other hand, is verifiable and reasonably neutral. --Stephan Schulz 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then we better add a section that will state that no foreign intelligence services - notably French, German and Russian ones - ever questioned the intelligence presented. If anything, they confirmed it. Therefore if the evidence was intentionally created, it was done by the Iraqs government, on Saddams orders. POV, I know, but so is the ridiculus writing above. 213.250.63.93 12:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, how quickly people forget about all the trouble Saddam caused. Saddam drew a great deal of suspicion upon himself, and as you say, many governments were convinced he had them. For 12 years he defied UN rules that he had signed off on. The intelligence was faulty as it turns out, and again as you suggest, Saddam himself probably believed he had the WMD's. So the invasion was on false pretenses that Saddam himself encouraged. Countries have the right to defend themselves. I'm guessing Iran shed no tears over Saddam's fall, as he waged war on them for 8 years. Ironically, similar action against Iran may be needed someday. Also, of the several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths, how many were a result of Saddam grabbing every adult male he could find and putting them in the front lines as cannon fodder, as pawns? He was willing to see as many Iraqis die as necessary, in order to stay in power. Both in 1990-91 and in 2003 he grossly misjudged the strength of his adversaries and the lack of strength of his military. His end was inevitable, one way or another. Wahkeenah 12:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question that Saddam was an unpleasant dictator out for what he could get, and with little or no regard to the cost to others. But that does not justify the inclusion of unverified speculation and plain wrong claims. It may excuse some of the actions of others, but  it does not eliminate them. It's in the nature of intelligence services that they primarily work outside the public eye. And do you have a source that any of these services supported the intelligence about WMDs? As for the rest of your comment: Can you provide some context? What several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths are you talking about? If it is the Lancet studies, I suggest you read them, or at least their abstracts, in full. --Stephan Schulz 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going by recollections of news reports at the time of these events. Saddam has somehow become a sympathic figure, as people have forgotten how murderous his regime was. His one big mistake was invading Kuwait. Until then, he had the US fooled into thinking he was an ally. From that point on, he was a thorn in many countries' sides. There is a tendency for leftists now to claim that the US and UK "lied" about WMD's. I think it's more a case of believing what they wanted to believe. And FYI, I agree with your conclusion that "claims" is a good middle-road position to take. There is no evidence that anyone "lied". If anything, Saddam's own people probably lied to him, to tell him what he wanted to hear. Such is the nature of dictatorships, and often leads to their destruction. Also FYI, I don't think the term "dictator" needs to be in the article, although it does appear in the articles of both Hitler and Stalin, the latter supposedly being a man that Saddam admired, which says a lot by itself. Wahkeenah 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Guys, valid points - all of them. But the problem here is that we can NEVER know the truth about anything - whether the government indeed knew he was harbouring weapons or not ETC; whether there is a link to al-qaeda ETC. we cannot profess to that, but we can say that the government SAYS or SAID Saddam was harbouring weapons. Here we would not be professing as to whether he did or did not. 'suspicion' connotes some sort of knowledge - the use of the sentence above suggests that governments did not know for sure whether Saddam had weapons or not - BUT, in reality, the governments may have know that he (saddam) in actuality had no WMD because......[insert CIA intelligence reasons here]. You don't know wheter they ACTUALLY 'suspicious'. But we do know that the governments 'said' they were suspicious etc. --ToyotaPanasonic 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a clip the other day of Cheney saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT" that Iraq has WMD's and thus is a threat to the region. Publicly, it was not "suspicion" it was "certainty". It was also, apparently, incorrect (assuming they weren't transported to Syria or stashed elsewhere). It reminds me of a Will Rogers saying: The trouble isn't what people don't know; it's what they know "for sure" and which ain't so. Wahkeenah 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Suspicion among US and UK government members

message: Excerpts from Associated Press Article "Saddam's defense team to boycott trial"
by JAMAL HALABY, September 24, 2006:'''
"In a sudden move Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki approved a request by the Iraqi High Tribunal, the country's supreme court, to remove the top judge. Abdullah al-Amiri was removed after angering Kurds by declaring 10 days ago that Saddam was 'not a dictator.'"
"He was replaced by Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa, who presided over a turbulent session Wednesday in which he threw the former Iraqi president out of court, and his lawyers stormed out in protest."
Could these details be added to Trial section in summarized form?
Jfrascencio 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a clear evidence which shows the corruption in the trial and therefore should be added to the article. With respect, Deliogul 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's added to the article at all, there can be no mention of this supposed "corruption" that you speak of, Deliogul, since there is no evidence of that at all. All this infomation proves is that the former judge had opinions, and the trial wasn't a smooth one. dposse 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam "not dictator", judge removed 

message: The long paragraph that begins "As a sign of his consolidation of power..." appears twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.118.78 (talk • contribs).
:Thanks!  It was removed about 30 minutes ago. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I figured someone must have moved that paragraph down at some point and forgot to delete the first one, so I got rid of it. A Runyon 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated Paragraph 

message: I removed the sentence which said Saddam kept Iraq unified, supported with a quote by an Iraqi Saddam supporter. Rather, this link explains how the Kurdistan Iraq region has been semi-autonomous since the Gulf War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202173_pf.html. After the current invasion, the north of Iraq is its own country in everything but title. Iraqi Kurdistan has its own president: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/07/kurds.reject/index.html (aside from the president of Iraq as a whole, who is also a Kurd). Although Iraq was and remains a technically unified state, the fact is that in practice, the Kurdish region operates independently and largely has since 1991. More precise language is called for, and a more reliable citation than a single quote from a highly biased Sunni sheik. -- Kevin Browning 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A line needs to be drawn before and after 1991, the point at which the UN drew their own lines and began to de facto separate the country into 3 parts. Saddam could be compared to Tito of Yugoslavia, who suppressed the ethnic factions during his 4-decades rule, and once he was gone, it began to crumble. Wahkeenah 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marshall Tito was known as a Benevolent Father. People honored and adored him. Saddam is much different, so the comparison just isn't there.Brian23 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Saddam was also a benevolent father, as Stalin unquestionably was. I think the comparison with Tito is very good, the only real difference being saddam fel out with the West and didnt have Soviet backing to help him out, SqueakBox 15:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq was not a unified state. 

message: I added a linked statement about the 2003 invasion being an international effort, albeit led by the U.S., but this was removed. This is an entirely true statement which clarifies the nature of the conflict. Why was this removed? -- Kevin Browning 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with your edit. It is factual and NPOV. Caper13 06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree; I don't understand why that would have been removed. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Int'l coalition. 

message: I the second paragraf in the beginning of the article it says that Saddam was vicepresident under his cousin, General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr. In the section Government positions held by Saddam Hussein it says Vice-President of the Republic of Iraq 1968 - 1979 but in the section Rise to power it says deputy to the president and Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. This source  which the article also has reference to says that Saddam Hussein was the vice-president of Iraq from 1969 to 1979 (not 1968!). In the second paragraf it also write about a controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces but I dont find anything about it another other place in the article. 
Anyone here which know what really was Saddams title and role in the time from 1968 to 1979?
Lennart.larsen 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Saddam vicepresident? 

message: Is it verified that Western oil companies had a monopoly on oil extraction in Iraq prior to 1972. I have access to an admittedly, unreliable source, that claims a Soviet oil company was involved from 1969 and on? Prezen 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet oil company? There wasn't a private sector in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Western monopoly was obvious. You know after WW I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and lost Iraq, Syria etc. French and British captured those territories (actually created these countries) and they controlled the reserves until Arab nationalists gained the power to rule Iraq. Deliogul 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There definitely were Soviet companies in the Soviet economy, state-owned ones. The Soviet oil company was named INO. I'm not contesting dominance of Western oil companies, just asking for a source for monopoly. And the Iraqi nationalists took power in 1958, not 1972. Prezen 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My last post didn't say that Arab nationalist took the power in 1972 :) but never mind. Here is a link for you . Deliogul 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and you didn't mention the fact that the "Western" oil companies owned the extraction rights prior to WWI either. Anyway the link is not that useful for my purpose, namely to confirm that Soviet oil companies also had extraction rights in 1972. :) Prezen 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopoly 

message: Since this topic is filled with all the opposing statements and accounts, in majority created by the differing sources of television and newspapers, would it not be healthy to dedicate a separate "controversy section" to this article?
-Because I think the arguments we have on the discussion boards here on "who's neutral" is first and foremost caused by our sources being in opposition to onanother, and not merely which country and/or interests we hold loyalty onto.
Should we create a controversy section, it should be able to contain all the various versions of how the story goes, i.e U.S intentions and just how fair the man's trial was.
-Ambient 80.202.115.227 17:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. There is already an article on the Saddam trial. If you have comments on the fairness of the trial, it is more appropriate to put it there. As for the legitimacy of UN Resolution 1441 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, Saddam's biography is not the place to debate it. Caper13 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The trial and invasion sure. Those were mere examples. The issues are of course also those of the man himself which are also in high controversy, as the label for this discussion should suggest. Many articles have a dedicated controversy section. I will still claim the Saddam article should be nominated for one aswell. Ambient 80.202.115.227 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A 'Controversy' Section?

message: The lead paragraph of this article is terrible. It is changing rapidly and at the moment is in total chaos in that fails every aspect set out in WP:LEAD! It should be a summery of ALL the details in the article. frummer 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So exactly what remedies are you proposing?  --ElKevbo 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a bash at it but would like input from a native editor, if there is one. frummer 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "native" editor???  --ElKevbo 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MAJOR CONCERN!

message: Please dont archive live discusions. We have a pov tag, we have talk about this tag that is unfinished and to archive said live items is not allowed according to wikipedia policy, SqueakBox 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive and POV

message: This is getting ridiculous. Every time I add something critical of Saddam (and there's a lot to criticize), someone removes it. I added a statement about how he oppressed the Iraq Turkmen, with a link explaining how (he outlawed their language) and it was taken out. I would really like an explanation for why no one in charge here is keeping this article from becoming a tribute to Saddam. I doubt I'll get it, but I'm going to keep editing this article until it's halfway truthful. -- Kevin Browning 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppression of Turkmen. 

message: To whomever removed these two edits, please talk about it with me here.
1. The preferred usage is Shi'a with the apostrophe. This is the form used in the Wiki article on the sect.
2. When the countries of the United States and United Kingdom are first mentioned, those full titles should be used instead of the abbreviations. This removes any possible uncertainty. -- Kevin Browning 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style issue: Shia v. Shi'a and using full names on first usage. 

message: I would rather suggest substituting the photo on the top of the bibilography with a more appropriate photo for Sadam as a president of Iraq. After all, Sadam was for 30 years a handsome president without a beard, and only ended his life after capture for the last three years in this shape 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.97.254 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 January 2007
===Death===
Shouldn't his death come after discussing his marriages and family?
Obadiaha 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline photo 

message: Shouldn't his death come after discussing his marriages and family?
Obadiaha 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: Needs to be added to External Links section of article.
Obituary, NY Times, December 30, 2006 Saddam Hussein, Defiant Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence and Fear, Dies 68.228.70.223 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be neutral and unbiased, I do not believe it should be included. There is biased misinformation in the article. 69.136.109.146 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an example? I read the whole article, and found it fairly good and neutral. --Stephan Schulz 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Brutal Tyrant"? "Despot Known as Saddam"? Would it be neutral to include an article on for example Sharon with the phrase "Butcher of Beirut" or "Zionist Nazi"? Remember that there are different perspectives. The devil to one person may be a hero on the side of good to another. However, the actual truth is people are just human capable of both the good and the bad. 69.136.109.146 07:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam's Obituary, NY Times 

message: Do we allow foreign language sources to be linked to as citations? Given that this is English Wikipedia, I didnt think so, but thought I'd ask before I rolled them back. Caper13 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always best to have an English source, but sometimes, certain information is only available in another language. Pepsidrinka 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. We do allow foreign language sources, although we prefer equal-quality English ones if they are available. WP:V does not mean everybody has to be able to verify every source personally. For many topics English sources are not available or not of equal quality. --Stephan Schulz 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case though, we are not dealing with some obscure subject. If a source for a well covered topic like this is only available in Russian, (nothing against our friends the Russians), then that is not only a varifiability issue for language reasons, but also an indication that the story or facts contained within might not be true. (not a respected journal, just one guy reporting it, etc). If it was a foreign language source talking about some (to them) local issues, or some arcane subject not widely covered, then I'd be with you, but this isnt the case. Caper13 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there very well may be something reported in Arabic in the Arab press that for one reason or another, the foreign press does/will not translate/report.  If something is reported only in Russian about Saddam, then I agree with you, it probably isn't true. Pepsidrinka 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever references we use, it needs to be verifiable by a vast number of people. Unfortunately or fortunately, English is debatedly the most-well known langugage. I'm not trying to discourage foreign links, but how can we trust a translation? I could say I speak swahili and you would never know if the translation was right or not. That's what I am concerned about.Brian23 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most languages are known by a "vast number of people" - Arabic is e.g. spoken by about 300 million people natively. If you have any doubt about a translation, find a speaker (e.g. via :Category:User_ar or by hiring a professional off-wiki) and have him check it. Verifiability does not mean instant verifiability by everybody all the time. Most readers will e.g. not be able to verify anything about most advanced scientific topics. Learning about computational learning theory is probably harder for many than learning enough Arabic to get a basic understanding of a text.  --Stephan Schulz 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen is absolutely right, sources only need to be understood by those capable of understanding them, some of the articles here are completely unintelligible to the layperson but golddust to the student, eg Regular expression. Bit sad if we cant find an Arabic speaker to translate, though, shows how off NPOOCV we are likely to be. I normally stick to Spanish bios but dont speak any Arabic, SqueakBox 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are meant to assume good faith, saying that a translator may be lying to us is not a reasonable line of argument, as if it is followed then the integrity of all of WIkipedia is brought into question. Plebmonk 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And with a mainstream language like Arabic we should be able to scrape together at least a couple of speakers, there'll be someone who comes along and checks it eventually, SqueakBox 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, why don't we write the entire article in Arabic? I mean.. someone will eventually come along and fix it right? It's english wikipedia, not arabic wikipedia. Brian23 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is why we write it in English. Duh! But, surprise, not all human knowledge is available in English, and so we use non-English  sources. All is fine. --Stephan Schulz 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...SpeakBox stated: "otherwise it would just be the encyclopedia of everything in English which is absolutley NOT what the founder Jimbo Wales said, he wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English". So Jimbo Wales wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English so foreign sources in the English language are in, foreign sources not in the English language out.Brian23 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To solve the contradiction, disambiguate the parse tree: Jimbo Wales said, he wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English. "Written in English" modifies "encyclopedia", not "everything". And that is inexact, too, of course. It describes the English Wikepedia, only. Anyways, the official policy is to allow foreign language sources if no equivalent English sources are available. If you are unhappy with this, take it up at WP:V talk. --Stephan Schulz 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom line is that a vast majority of the sources should be English. We should keep the foreign-language sources to a minimum. There are plenty of English-based sources on the article subject. The link you provided even states that since this is English wikipedia, English sources SHOULD be used. Seeing as this is a controversial subject, we should prefer English language over other languages as this article is read by mostly English speaking and capable people. For instance, we can quote Iranian News.. they have an English version. From what I have read, if there is an alternative English translation on the sourced site, use it. Brian23 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with minimizing foreign language sources, but that is a secondary goal. If there are no equivalent English sources, we should use foreign language sources. The lack of an English language source should not exclude any material from Wikipedia, the lack of any  reliable source should. Of course, if there is an official translation we can reference, much better. And, axis of evil or not, do you really expect NPOV material on Saddam from an Iranian news source? --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Language Sources 

message: From wiki/Suddam_Hussein execution section: "to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations across the country".
From Anita Chang, an Associated Press writer: "to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations across the country"
Can we please not just copy and paste from Anitas article. This lazy bit of plagiarism was copied then pasted by user User:BiancaOfHell. JayKeaton 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution 

message: The claim that Saddam is a dicator is part of a demonizing campaign that began during the 1990s. All presidents of nations that the U.S. has gone to war with were called dictators even if they were democratically elected such as Slobadan Milosevic.
Actually, Iraq was Ruling Council type government under Saddam and power was through this Ruling Council. Saddam did not have absolute power if the members of the Ruling Council opposed him.
I have U.S. based sources from 1988 that always reffered to Saddam as President of Iraq and lists Iraq as a Republic. It is only just before the 1990 war did Saddam become known as a dictator and Iraq began to be considered a dictatorship.
A chief judge in Saddam's trial even stated that "Saddam was not a dictator."
121
I have valid sources for everything I stated above. 
Jfrascencio 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then provide the sources. The original language in the article was that he was generally considered a dictator, anyway. -- Kevin Browning 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source from a book documenting the year 1988. Since it is a print material, I can not provide a link. Any source from before 1990 will always list Saddam as a president, not a dictator. The last sentence, I provided the source here. I think it could be easily verified that Milosevic was democratically elected. Jfrascencio 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theories are nice. Now it would be interesting if someone could find some evidence that he ever was actually overruled by the "ruling council". Wahkeenah 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictator Claim Dispute 

message: In the past few hours this article has been constantly vandalised. It's rediculous how childish people behave on such articles about men with such low and evil reputation. Now the man is dead just leave it there, and start looking proper to the future, a future for Iraq and the rest of the world. Amlder20 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are stupid. That's a fact. There's nothing we can do except to protect our work. dposse 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page either needs monitoring or should be locked for a while

message: I have a few comments that I hope will be taken into consideration concerning information listed about Saddam Hussein's father and relationship to Imam Al-Kazim:
1/  The name indicated (Abd Al-Majid) of Saddam's father is not a solid fact as it is widely known that Saddam was the ilegitimate son of a premarital relationship between his mother and a person who was later to be called Abd Al-majid.
2/  Saddam is in no way related to Imam Al-Kazim as this only came to surface after the Gulf war of 1991 when Saddam decalred himself to be the descendent of prophet Mohammad and fabricated a false tree showing his descent from the prophet.  At the same period he had ordered the true descendents of the prophet to show their family trees or face persecution.  This was also at the time when he realized that religion could prolong and enforce his grip over the whole country of Iraq as well as draw support from many parts of the arab world.
3/  It is truely the feeling of being less than others (i.e. being an iligitimate son of a premarital relationship) that forced Saddam to make such a false proclemation of being the descendent of Imam Al-Kazim.
4/  Imam Al-Kazim is the 7th imam for the Shia, and I'm not sure where did that info of him being a sunni imam come from.  Yes, he is well respected by both Sunnis and Shias, but he is definetly not considered to be an imam by the sunnis.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.225 (talk • contribs) 
:We need reliable sources to verify your claims. If you want this infomation to be included/taken out, then please give us sources. dposse 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth information 

message: The emphasis on childhood and pre-presidential life are very valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.156.212 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you. dposse 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Article!