Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 5

message: First of all THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA... I can say Julius the Emperor died around 5 BC, what good does that give me... THIS MUST BE EXACT AND WHAT THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT SAID NOT WHAT the above vandal demands Uber. ALso, explanation of hanging or explanation of some other death... Are you trying to put words into my mouth? I am not disputing them, you can explain all you want and even show the video, but as long as there is no name to it, as simple as that, again there are cnn videos which show somewhat, thus that is acceptable, not illegal video, remember this is illegal, some jerk took that video and made it public, now Saddam's cult will grow even more, martyred on holy day of sacrifice and again, it's ugly and well, read what I wrote if you have any sense at all...
Also do not judge others so you are not to be judged some day by God, there are many worse dicators than Saddam, us works with saudi arabia, but if you convert somebody to christianity you are dead, so where is justice here, under saddam, iraq was most liberal amonth islamic countries, christians were doing well and other religions. But video is ugly and only promotes hate. That should not be under external links or on this page.
More evidence of his death, here's a live blog (at that time)...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html
:Of all the sources to cite, please do not use a blog. In addition, I would suggest ignoring the 66.99.3.18 until he or she reads the above comments and actually responds to them, rather than spewing forth more and more commentary. GracenotesT § 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You guys have it all mixed up

message: Its good to see the page editors agreeing on this. When the page is unprotected, you'll be free to add the links back. However, the edit wars weren't about this, and whatever they were about still needs to be sorted out William M. Connolley 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the only thing that is still being argued about is the time of the execution. However, I would like to clear up this issue first, in an organized manner, so that we don't have to be concerned with arguing about it anymore. Also, the caution tag issue needs some resolution. GracenotesT § 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion 1

message: :and if you want to know who first released it: it was the head of security in Iraq.
:Latif Yahia, who  acted as a body double for Saddam's son Uday received the controversial camera phone footage in an email from the head of security in Iraq. "Two hours after the execution I received an email from him saying: 'This is the footage of your dad being hanged, ha, ha, ha." 
:I will leave it to you (i.e. any editor) to add this information to the article - ClemMcGann 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to "Who released the video"

message: OK, I'm going to unprotect it and see what happens - there is an assertion that all we disagree on is the time; lets see.
But please, no edit warring which I will interpret very liberally - in fact, you might like to stick to WP:1RR on this for a while William M. Connolley 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Saddam was only convicted of a single (mass) killing, for which he was sentanced to death and executed.  However, he stood accused of a GREAT MANY other crimes against humanity, for which he was never convicted - probably because this would be unnecessary as it would only lead to redundant and impossible to carry out sentances.  However, I feel the article should mention the other mass crimes he was accused of.  While I stand against the death penalty, it must be noted that if ever there was a candidate for it's use, Saddam was exactly that.  I feel the article currently gives the impression the man was executed for this one crime alone, which while technically true, is functionally wrong.  FireWeed 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the trial section it says: "Saddam Hussein and eleven senior Ba'athist officials were handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide." ~ UBeR 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and this is exactly what I mean.  We're told Saddam is responsible for as many as half a million of his own peoples' deaths.  He was sentanced for 142 of them, but if that's all he was guilty of, there never woulf have been an intervention.  142 summary executions ( mass murder ) is less brutal than what's going on today in Azerbijan.  Genocide in particular seems like very important context.  You're right that it's mentioned, but perhaps it should be "above the fold?"  FireWeed 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right. It'd be appropriate to note the significance of the crimes he was accused of (genocide, etc.) in the trail portion. Mostly because this is about the execution of the Saddam. It'd be more appropriate to go into depth about the accusations in Saddam Hussein article. But because this is mostly about his execution, I don't think we shouldn't get too bent over his genocide mentions. ~ UBeR 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: From a to x, at least. But we're not CNN. Stop POV pushing. If you feel the video is illegal because they didn't have cameras 3 years ago (?), feel free to contact Wikipedia administrators (see WP:OFFICE). ~ UBeR 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You really don't know what you're saying. Please read the discussions we've already had on this topic. I've explained it so many times over. At least make an attempt to understand what's being said. And please, stop removing/changing stuff just because YOU feel like it spreads hate or whatever. You're the only person here who thinks so. To make Wikipedia reflect ONLY YOUR views is incorrect. ~ UBeR 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh. ~ UBeR 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please notice that mister or miss "rediculous," making these silly arguments and not signing them, is someone else.  Just because it's being posted under a section I created ( about the depth of Saddam's crimes ), please don't associate them with me.  FireWeed 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realize that. He is IP: 66.99.3.118 / 64.107.0.68. He's been asked by an admin to sign his posts, but he doesn't listen. ~ UBeR 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crimes against humanity

message: So, youtube and google have two different versions of the mobile phone video of the hanging.
* The video on you tube. Advantages are that it has a transcript of the conversation, and doesn't feature superimposed writing on the video.
* The video on google. Has "Anwarweb.net" superimposed on the video.
I think the youtube version is better, and switched to the youtube version on the main page, but was reverted. So thought I'd bring the discussion here. Fishies Plaice 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which version of the video to use?

message: Uber and 64... put warning under video, if it has to stay here. Also 64 has a point, i put back important links!added warning under execution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.125.116.198 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, this is currently debated, so any changes you make now may have to yield to final consensus. (See above for a straw poll: feel free to cast your opinion.) Thank you very much for being bold. GracenotesT § 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the current consensus is and has been no warning. ~ UBeR 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly isn't any consensus on the issue - "hotly contested" would be a better way to describe it.  However, the text surrounding the link to the video hasn't changed for several days, so the issue may have died down.  FireWeed 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Ok, this guy has a way with words and keeps on pointing to something on talk page, God knows what, but I added few simple words and I can live with that now, somebody did it yesterday. Viewer discretion advised. Also important links which have been here, which administrator stefans himself reverted to, have been under attack. I do not see anything wrong with that, especially saddam's last hours, again, I am calling on administrators to ban uber from screwing up this site. Ok, this guy has a way with words and keeps on pointing to something on talk page, God knows what, but I added few simple words and I can leave with that now, somebody did it yesterday. Viewer discretion advised.  For example sfacets reversed a good website that uber reversed...
(cur) (last)  21:52, 4 January 2007 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 98501627 by UBeR (talk) The Times of India is spam?) 
There are other contles examples and I suggest good administrators start doing something for a change.
 OK, SO NO WARNINGS AT ALL ABOUT VIDEOS? OK, YOU WANT LITTLE GIRL OR BOY TO LOOK AT THAT AND WONDER WHAT'S THE DEAL?
Somebody mentioned Saddam, the president? Hmmm. what can I say, he was elected sure, but, well who cares now. But is it possible he received 99% of votes? Well, in sunni area for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.68 (talk • contribs) 15:45, January 6, 2007
:First off, Sfacets isn't an administrator. He undid my revision because he was unclear why I edited the links. He then came to the discussion page and discussed it with me. That is exactly how it is done. I explained my edits. Please try to understand Wikipedia policy so that you may understand my edits. Thank you.
:If you are looking for discussions about the "viewer discretion" tags, please refer to "Warning Regarding Execution Video," "Warnings, Again" and "Straw poll about Video Inclusion." Thank you. ~ UBeR 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are doing research, you probably read the article first. Put the information from the links into the article so that people may read the information. External links are mostly for stuff that cannot be incorporated into the text easily (in this example, the videos). Please use those links as sources for information, rather than have them laying unexplained in the External Links section. I also suggest reading Wikipedia's policy on External Links. Thanks! ~ UBeR 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Uber problems

message: I've requested this article be semi-protected due to (a) vandalism by anonymous editors and (b) disruption by an anonymous editor.  --ElKevbo 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've directly replied to all your comments. I do not want kids to view the video unless they want to! If they cant read and understand the current description of the video ("footage of hanging, including complete uncensored footage of death") then they certainly wouldn't understand Viewer discretion advised." ~ UBeR 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't feed the trolls.  --ElKevbo 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection requested

message: Is there perhaps a better and more encyclopedic caption we can have besides "Saddam Hussein in captivity"? dposse 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there is. What do you suggest? I originally added the picture as temporary until we could get a screenshot of Saddam in the gallows, which doesn't violate free use. ~ UBeR 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the same picture on the Saddam Hussein article has "Saddam Hussein, 2004". Perhaps a caption of "Saddam Hussein, during his trial in 2004" would work? dposse 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current caption is fine with me but if you think your proposed one is better then please change it.  --ElKevbo 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: picture caption

message: Just a wild guess here, but I'd say 70 % of the bickering on this page is about the execution video.  I wonder if it would make sense to move that to a seperate page, perhaps something like "Details of the Execution of Saddam Hussein?"  Even to me that sounds a bit silly, but it has been done in the past ( WalMart, Ann Coulter ) to prevent endless debate about what could be called a sub-topic from dominating the whole article.  I personally think an endless chain of links to links to more links is a royal pain in the arse, but if we can seperate the baby from the bath water, the heated debate here might be a good enough reason to do so?  FireWeed 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move video to a seperate page? 

message: CNN reports new video of the body after the execution is now on the internet. Gross.Edison 00:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video can be found here. Please note that some may find this content offensive and gross (gashed neck). Not sure how long htis will stay up... ~ UBeR 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, I don't know if this is necessary to include on the page. I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but it's pretty bloody. Thoughts anyone? Viperphantom 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's newsworthy. It also brings home the ugliness of killing. It's not that gross. Does anyone remember "Death on the Highway", from high school Driver Ed classes? This is tame by comparison. Wahkeenah 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahah, I do remember that video. I agree that it's newsworthy, just unsure if a link is needed. Viperphantom 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe Wikipedia has a weak policy against "currentism" or something to that affect, basically saying Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and that news-worthiness isn't a measure of encyclopedia-worthiness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireWeed (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're thinking of Wikipedia:Recentism.--Shtove 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Explain the difference between "newsworthy" and "notable" to us poor peons. Wahkeenah 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holy Roman Empire is notable today, but cerainly isn't news-worthy.  Another example would be the fall of the Soviet Union.  If you consider yourself a "peon" please change this with education.  FireWeed 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Larnin' are good. :) Wahkeenah 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, damn, there goes my periodical on Caesar's demise. :( 24.6.105.44 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could write about his salad days. Wahkeenah 06:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More video