Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 6

message: At 52KB this article is too long and must be split in 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Please put your proposals about how to split the article here. I hope to split the article, according to a consensus reached here, on Sunday. I am putting a note at the top of the article so readers can participate in the debate. Squiquifox 21:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to split this article, just as there is no need to split the numerous other articles that go above 32K. Mac users can simply copy the text and paste the first half of the article in (say) Saddam Hussein/temp sandbox 1 and the second half of the sandbox in (say) Saddam Hussein/temp sandbox 2 and ask another user to consolidate the changes and post his/her new version. 172 22:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed article split

message: According to wikipedia guidlines, contrasting viewpoints must be equally represented.
You know most people only read the summary, so it has to be finely balanced on its own.
If you spend half a paragraph, flashing in neon letters near the title, extolling the intoxicating effect and inspiration Saddam's brutality gave to the Palestinians (which hardly are worth mentioning since the man was not a palestinian, we are not discussing them here but Saddam and Iraq)  then you have to also mention the undisputed negative effect of his actions and policies on other nations of the world, and not 5 kilometers below this where (you hope?) no one will read. 
Either you discuss the effect on New York of all butterflies who flap their wings in Sumatra, or you don't. You can't just discuss the ones you adore and call it a neutral discussion. 
There is a vile insinuation that the Allied suspicion of saddam is baseless- because 
it is mentioned but not supported with evidence in the same section. that is also why the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor has to be mentioned there, because Allied suspicion was certainly not baseless. Saddam was (at some point during his rule) actively pursuing and using WMD's and there is no doubt of that. The only doubt is on whether the American response was justified but that discussion has no place here. You have to learn to accept neutrality even when its implications aren't to your liking.
And as to the other claims that this is already mentioned under "The Gulf war" well no, 
the israeli strike nor the existence of an Iraqi nuclear reactor are nought to be found anywhere there, in accordance with the wikipedia "thou shalt try to praise any enemies of zionism regardless of irrelevancy or the contents of their closet" act... not to mention that the French and Italians built it, that really is too much for the standard issue Liberal Horse (or rather, donkey?..) blinds to bear...
:I moved your reference to the Israeli strike to where you should've placed it in the first place (not in the intro)... I suggest that you take a course in writing. First, the introduction should be designed to attract the reader's attention and give the reader an idea of the article's focus. In the intro, it is sufficient to lay out the focus on Saddam's conflict with Israel and later with the West in general terms, and later in the article detail Saddam's particular actions... Please stop reinserting that paragraph in the intro; continuing to do so will be considered vandalism and may result in a block on your account. Second, do not screw up the order of the footnotes. (You kept inserting a fourteenth footnote following the fourth footnote.) If you add a footnote, add one to the number of every footnote following the new insertion. This may be tedious, as Wikipedia lacks a program for generating them automatically at this time, but you are responsible for this if you insist on adding one. 172 16:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 172 on the matter of the intro. A lead section should be kept reasonably concise. It's not a question of any POV, just organization. Everyking 16:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: it is not clear at all why the west is suspicious of Saddam. Nonsense. The intro mentions the Gulf War and the human rights situation, and makes no value judgments about his relationship to the Palestinians. 172 19:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing this out. I suspect that it was removed because an anon is getting a kick out replacing non-controversial matter-of-fact statements like the above with overtly emotive, deliberately provocative ones. I reverted the changes. Please keep an eye on this article in case the anon POV warrior returns. 172 19:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's purpose is to be NPOV. We are trying to show the facts to people. We aren't tryin' to skewer anyone. WhisperToMe 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli strike