Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 12

message: Mention of Hussein's snack preferences while incarcerated do not belong in this article.  I find them to be shockingly irrelevant, especially placed right before the section dealing with his execution.
:I suggest we move these, and any other similar items, to a Trivia section at the bottom of the article. MasterDirk 09:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheetos and fruitloops

message: Is there really not any portraits on Wikipedia from Saddam's time as president we could use? The first picture on a page is the first thing the reader will notice so we should take some care to make sure it's representative. Saddam's main claim to fame is as the ruler of Iraq for several decades, not being convicted at a trial. Fornadan (t) 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image uploaded at Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg was used as the portrait in this article most of the time between 2003 and 2006. Apparently the file was copied by Answers.com, and it can now be viewed  here. I uploaded that image myself a few years ago, arguing that the portrait should be a photo that was both recent and taken during his time as president. But the file was deleted because of the  copyright status of the photo. (In my view, the deletion was silly; in all seriousness, the Iraqi government is not going to sue Wikipedia over the rights to photos of Saddam released by the old regime and reproduced in countless publications and websites.) If you want to change the portrait, go ahead and re-upload Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg on Answers.com. (I don't feel like doing so myself. At the moment my tolerance for self-abuse isn't high enough to argue copyright law with the people who worked to get the image deleted earlier on the grounds that we ought to respect the ownership rights of a regime that was overthrown by an invasion more than three years ago.) 172 | Talk 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good detail. Saddam wasn't a courtroom guy. He was the leader of Iraq for some 25 years.  We need a proper image of him. This picture depicts him as a careless man with his dirty beard. Deliogul 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Internet is full of comedy pictures of Saddam. The only proper picture is the old image that we used in the article sometimes a go. Many websites are using that image. I don't understand why Wikipedia deleted it. Deliogul 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As much as I prefer to avoid yet another discussion about the portrait photo in this article, I feel compelled to address two misguided assumptions in the comments above. First, Wikipedia editors are engaged in 'policymaking.' For instance, in a discussion of the use of the Trang Bang photo  my comment "This picture is one of hundreds posted on Wikipedia of similar fair use status" reproduced already in countless numbers of publications and websites was noted on the Foundation mailing list  and even worked its way into a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia.  Second, common sense has a place in the "very strict rules." The last thing Wikipedia has to fear is a lawsuit over rights to photos of Saddam released by a regime that was overthrown in an invasion three years ago. 172 | Talk 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont recall seeing that the liklihood of a lawsuit was a factor in determining whether to violate copyright. Perhaps you can point it out. Caper13 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, paranoia about copyright infringement suits is the only reason for this constant deletion of images. I have had many an argument with editors about this, and it's always the issue. And the page on fair use, as unreadable as it is, makes it clear that fear of copyright infringement suits is the motivation for this policy. FYI, I don't disagree with the general policy, I just think that in many cases editors are worrying about nothing. The first rule of fair use is "do no harm (to the copyright holder)". That's the guideline that should matter. Wahkeenah 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The prevailing wiki policy is that a free image supercedes a fair use image, no matter how ugly the free image is. Just another step in "enhancing" this so-called encyclopedia. Maybe they're afraid Saddam's relatives will sue for copyright violation. Wahkeenah 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the image you try to include has not proper copyright information. It is decribed as "only non-commercial or educational use is permitted". Sorry, but that is incompatible with the English language Wikipedia policy and goals (other subprojects may have slightly different policies) unless we can make a fair use case. So far, none has been made. I don't think the existence of any free image necessarily precludes the fair use of all images of a subject if they illustrate other aspects of it. But neither "I found it on another Wikipedia" nor "the Iraqi gouvernment is not going to sue us" is a good reason for keeping the image. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make 99% of wikipedia images illegal, if we follow this logic. How do you determine that an image is "free" ? Why can't you use images intended for non-commercial use ?Max Thayer 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if your statistics would be correct, 99% of all Wikipedia images would be illegal. You determine if an image is free by finding out who created it and what happened to the copyright. Sufficiently old images have fallen out of copyright. Images produced by the US federal gouvernment are PD. Many images are created by Wikipedians and donated under a free license. Many other images are published under a free license as well. If we cannot determine the copyright status, we can at best use the image under fair use. This is not my idea, and this is not new, but official Wikipedia policy, as handed down by Jimbo. See WP:COPY and Wikipedia talk: Copyrights. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There. I added a public domain photo. I did all this because I thought using the "bearded Saddam" photo was somehow adding insult to injury; now I find myself using a flattering photo, and I don't even like the guy ! :) Max Thayer 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In happier times, as they say. If he were told then and there that he would eventually be hanged, it might have wiped off the smile. Now, to restate what I told one user on his own page: This wiki-philosophy, this obsession with "free" photos, regardless of quality, is why wikipedia's photo collection looks like somebody's scrapbook rather than looking "encyclopedic", which is ironic since being "encyclopedic" is another wiki-obsession. It undermines the credibility of wikipedia to be stuck with second-rate or third-rate photos. But it does serve as a reminder that "you get what you pay for". Wahkeenah 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture in infobox

message: He was overthrown on April 9th or was it his statue that was overthrown, should be say he was in power until puppet provision authority took over? Technically speaking he was president until that day. -- posted by 66.99.0.102 
*He's dead. You don't have to be afraid of him anymore. Wahkeenah 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt see anything wrong with Wahkeenah's response. The purpose of this article is not to try to create a moral equivalency between Saddam's dictatorship and a free society, it is to document reality. The purpose of this article is also not to give a propraganda platform for all of Saddam's statements. It is a place for an adademic and dispassionate summary of the man and his accomplishments (both good and bad). The POV pushing Wahkeenah was responding to, qualfied for a response like that. One does not have to be either a Bush supporter or an American to recognize that Iraq was not a free society under Saddam, (or for that matter even agree with all aspects of the Iraq war that removed him) or that Saddam maintained his power through the use of violence against opponents. Caper13 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Term in office

message: I'm getting kinda messed up here.  Sources say that Saddam was born at the end of April in 1937, and some say the 27th of April, while others say it's the 28th.  Which is more correct? --Angeldeb82 03:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday confusion 

message: This text is continually inserted into the article: "Sayyid (From the family of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W.)" without citation nor--as far as I can determine--factual basis. Please abstain from these uncited insertions. Prezen 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall reading somewhere that this was some sort of propaganda that Saddam came up with at some point during his rule, creating a fake family tree for political purposes. Reinsertion of this uncited information should be removed as vandalism and appropriate warnings given. Caper13 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I recognize that. I didn't point it out, but it was done covertly under the heading of a picture edit, by an editor who had previously inserted pro-Saddam POV material. Prezen 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad faith editing like that should absolutely be treated as vandalism. Caper13 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the text. Missed that it was still there. Prezen 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam a descendant of the Prophet? 

message: US perspective on this wikipedia article is overwhelming.
Avenger786 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know what the article looked like back in January, but the current version is a plain anti-American propaganda piece, that grossly sanitizes the history of Saddam's rule.  NCdave 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article offers US perspective mainly / only 

message: Issues surrounding the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein are clearly some of the most controversial issues of the modern era. It relates directly to Middle Eastern geo-politics and goes to the heart of issues such as Palestine-Israel, current tensions with Iran and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
Iraq is said to be a modern day Vietnam and certainly more contorversial due to the impact on the Holy Lands and the wider Muslim world in the Middle East. The artcile needs 'beefing up' and has been stripped of important content and neutred too much.
There needs to be a fair and balanced reflection of a number of issues these being:
* international coalition or US / UK coalition
* global condemnation of invasion, millions protest, biggest protests in history in opposition to war
* was he a secular leader or head of an Islamic state
* noticeable lack of reference in US involvement in the Iranian revolution and funding / military backing of Iraq or contentiously both sides
* no discussion about the religious reasons for the Iran-Iraq conflict in relation to the belief that Iran was an apostate state (twelvers) and the claimed supremancy of sunni Islam
* Halabja issue needs to be properly addressed as it was one of the key original reasons used to support the trial of Saddam Hussein although later dropped
* Kuwaiti invasion - there is overwhelming evidence relating to the slant drilling issue and much evidence to support the contention that Kuwait was not only administered from Iraq but that this was mandated by the West after WW2
* Western support of Iraq prior to Kuwaiti invasion is blatantly lacking. Commentary like this that is lacking gives the perception of BIAS in the Saddam Hussein article, although it may be unintentional it is a dangerous risk and feeds conspiracy theorists who would attack Western "revisionist" historical accounts.
* sanctions post Gulf War 1 - no comment of the deaths and food for oil program. Information needs to be offered up on the reasons for sanctions, the arms inspectorate who constantly contended that Iraq had complied (albeit begrudgingly) with the UN requirements to destroy its WMDs. 
* Little or no references to Hans Blix, involvement and comment, who is a crucial figure in the pre-Gulf War 2 history
* 9/11 commission report - clarified the lack of relationship with Al-Qaeda and needs to be cited
* removal of a leader of a sovereign state - as support for the Gulf War 2 and international condemnation as it is contrary to international law
Please leave your views.
Avenger786 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Avenger786's some points are really interesting. They can show us the way in our search to understand Hussein's fall from power. Take care, Deliogul 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is too light 

message: Can the translation from this think-tank be used for either the Sasddam article or his execution?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20070129&articleId=4620
Any other opinions?
74.101.98.235
Excellent article. I listened to the execution video with my own ears and Saddam clearly does say "the hell that is Iraq?" Why is this omitted by western media? The article provides good reasons. --Lft6771 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aside from the anaylsis, can the translation from this Think-tank be used for the Saddam Hussein article or his execution?

message: There was a quote in here involving Saddam's position on the U.S. administrations from Reagan to G. W. Bush, where did it go? I felt it was pretty pertinent to his views on the outside world. I can only guess that a Reagan-supporter, embarassed by what he said, took it out. Professor Ninja 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did Saddam's quote on Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes go? 

message: As you may know, I've uploaded the picture of Saddam's funeral used in the Execution of Saddam Hussein article a month ago.  I was given the go ahead by someone to post the picture onto the "Burial" section because the picture never violates the copyright law.  I've now posted that picture onto the "Execution" section of this article, as long as it doesn't do any harm or anything.  I hope you like this. --Angeldeb82 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial Picture 

message: The IPC is quoted in the article as having a monopoly on oil prospecting in Iraq in the early seventies. I believe this is wrong, since a) other Western companies (albeit owned by the same owners) operated in Iraq, and b) a Soviet oil company was also operating in Iraq since 1969. I suggest that this - possibly erroneous - factoid be commented until the "monopoly" can be properly cited. Prezen 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Iraq nationalized the IPC in 1972. The major shareholders were BP, CFP, Esso, and Mobil. While IPC's complete monopoly ended under Qasim, the company continued to dominate the country's petroleum industry. 172 | Talk 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the IPC was nationalized is not under question, nor subject to my proposal for change. It's the word monopoly that I question. Prezen 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread the sentence: "In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had [empahsis added] long held a monopoly on the country's oil." This sentence implies the IPC had at one time a monpolpy, but not specifically when it ended. It ended in the early 1960s. But the monpoply is is of historical significance, as it explained the continued dominance of the IPC of the country's oil sector throughout the 1960s. 172 | Talk 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the sentence ought to be changed to state correctly that the monopoly was a thing of the past, rather than the present fuzzy and misleading implication. Prezen 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Very interesting, when I now look at the article it says the following: On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. I don't understand where your argument is coming from? Prezen 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit trying to pick fights. We were talking about the intro, not text elsewhere on Wikipedia. The total monopoly formally ended in the early 1960s. The IPC was still dominant until the early 1970s. 172 | Talk 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopoly 

message: what is Mr 172 do can not be called more than vandalism to glorify saddam i want to ask why no one stoped him ? alot of informations was removed for the article and he added alot of without refernce information! --217.17.231.76 11:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, :User:172 has reintroduced a lot of propaganda that I removed a couple of weeks ago. I'm beginning to wonder at his motives. Prezen 12:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:NPA. I have had users sanctioned and even blocked for similar personal attacks. The material I upload here is sourced and accurate. Read the books cited in the article. 172 | Talk 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:User:172]] vandalism 

message: Prezen continues to manipulate the following sentence, changing "Kuwait" with "Iraq": On one hand, Kuwait, prior to this point, had been a virulent enemy of Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchy that had had the most friendly relations with the Soviets. The citation of LaFeber refers to Kuwait, not Iraq. LaFeber is a solid source and the claim is accurate. Tampering with cited content is illegitimate. 172 | Talk 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if this quote is correct, it is directly misleading since Kuwait was allied with the west, not the Soviets. You have also restored the following line "For a statement asserting the overriding importance of oil to U.S. national security and the U.S. economy" which is not supported by your source. I object to user 172's consistent attempts to enter pro-Iraqi propaganda into the article. Prezen 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cease the personal attacks, or I would be in the right in reporting you to the administrators' noticeboard. The sentence on Kuwait cites LaFeber. You have a source stating that LaFeber's discussion is "pro-Iraqi propaganda," cite it. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:No original research. I indeed restored the line stating, For a statement asserting the overriding importance of oil to U.S. national security and the U.S. economy. Your comment that the statement is not supported by the source is dubious at best. The source in question clearly states, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." Of course, that statement should be no revelation to anyone who has the least bit of a college-level background in either international relations or political economy. 172 | Talk 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maniputation of sourced, accurate information

message: "Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century, with atrocities committed on both sides. During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists. On March 16, 1988 Iraqi troops, on orders from Saddam to stop a Kurdish uprising, attacked the Kurdish town of Halabjah with a mix of poison gas and nerve agents killing 5,000 people, mostly women and children. (see Halabja poison gas attack) Dissenting opinions dispute the numbers and have said the incident was actually a battle in the Iran–Iraq war where chemical weapons were used on both sides and a significant portion of the fatalities were caused by the Iranian weapons."
How did the Iranian retain control of Halabja if it was the Iraqis who used chemicals? Also, what about the war of attrition between the U.S./U.K. and Iraq. It continued from 1991 to 2007, and it is still going. There were almost daily bombardment by U.S./U.K. warplanes over the no-fly zones during this period.
Why is it that one side get to state their position as official when many disagree. Saddam clearly said that he only knew of the Halabja incident from television. Where is the proof he ordered it. It was a fact that there was a battle in Halabja, news article from 1988 show this. History revisionism should be rejected. 
The first sentence may be false, because the U.S./U.K. had a 10 year+ war of attrition against Iraq. The destruction from this war of attrition definately exceeds what happended during the Iran-Iraq war.
Also, the facts are wrong. The Iranians take Halabja, then the Iraqis respond by trying to liberate it.
--Lft6771 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be fixed 

message: `abd means servant in Arabic and it is used in surnames, `abid has the meaning of black slaves in Arabic, so please do not vandalize this page with nonsense. azalea_pomp
:Also it is spelled عبد in arabic, or 3bd. That is an 'a' that does not appear in english, followed by a 'b' and a 'd'. --Lft6771 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is `abd not `abid

message: Based on CIA World Factbook and other sources, it seems that surname indexing should be based on Saddam but not Hussein.--Jusjih 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname indexing 

message: now qusay was on the right ( on saddams left) and uday on the other side. Tourskin 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  left and right 

message: The article totally lacks mentioning of the fact that Saddam continueously promoted his self image with giant photos, statues, paintings and so on, images that stood on the streets, roads and everywhere in Iraq.  John Hyams 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Iraqis did in fact support him and they willingly hung pictures of him. If you go to Iraq today, many Iraqis still have portraits and hang images of Saddam. How do you explain tributes to him that occurred after his death? His ghost was responsible for those? --Lft6771 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-image promotion 

message: Where can I find info about Saddam executing his political opponents? Why is it not in the article?  All I read about is the "modernization" programs he initiated. Where can I find info about the regime of tyranny and fear?...  John Hyams 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look under false propaganda from the demonization campaign against Iraqi regime to promote war. Search "incubator lie" to get to get started. --Lft6771 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: John, that sort of information is missing because this is intended to be a leftist (Lft6771-ist) propaganda piece, not a NPOV factual article. NCdave 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution of Political Opponents + Regime of Tyranny 

message: I've got bad news.  The burial picture that I posted is marked for speedy deletion, and I can't save it because the picture is from Reuters, and Wikipedia won't accept images like said picture for Fair Use.  So I'm gonna remove copies of it from both this article and the "Execution of Saddam Hussein" article.  In the meantime, I want you to find a picture of Saddam's grave that is similar to the picture shown in this link, only public domain, and not from Reuters or AP this time, okay?  Can you do that for me?  Thank you! --Angeldeb82 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent 

message: As a civil reminder, please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Editors should not doing reverts to one another like what is happening with this article. Morenooso 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I didn't know about this rule, sorry. But what can I do? A Saddam fan is deleting information that is supported by reliable sources. He says The Washington Post isn't a reliable source, but doesn't present his own sources ("these are facts", he says). What are you supposed to do in this case? Is there a place to make a complaint against him? Lizrael 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers often don't give sources, it's no reason to doubt a distinguished paper like The Washington Post. What are your sources? Do you have a reliable source that says Saddam was married to just one woman? Lizrael 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Krator's suggestion. I don't find the U.N. a more reliable source than the Post (need I remind you the oil-for-food scandal?Lizrael 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you doing?. I thought we agreed on a compromise, we deleted all the information you didn't like, except the one passage that's backed with a reliable source - The Washington Post. I will not hesitate to make a complaint against you to the admins, if you delete information that is backed by sources again. Wikipedia is not the place to push your political agenda. Lizrael 11:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-revert rule 

message: It is common knowledge that Saddam employed many virtually photo-indistinguishable look-alikes who actually made personal appearances and speeches in place of the real Saddam. If anyone has a good source for this info, please add it to the Saddam page. It is definitely encyclopaedic, and it would be a shame if this info was not included. This information is convenient to exclude, especially since no one questioned that the Saddam executed in the 'leaked' video was the real one... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Android8 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Lookalikes 

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

message: The entire article does not contain the word "dictator" which is sometimes used in the West to describe him. Can you please add a sentence in the intro paragraph saying who considers him a dictator, and who considers him something else. To present various points of view on his title.--Sonjaaa 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeated attempts have been made over several years to resolve the neutrality and original research problems that arise when using the term "dictator." They have all failed, and the preference is to avoid the term in general. User:172 can tell you more about the history if you're interested. Gazpacho 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictator?

message: How is it possible to write an article about Saddam and never use the word "genocide," and never mention the Marsh Arabs who he sought to exterminate?  Halabjah gets a brief mention, but with deceptive weasel words that cast false doubt upon a crime for which there is no doubt.  The Marsh Arabs are never even mentioned!  
How is it possible to write about Saddam and never mention that he was the most notorious eco-terrorist in the history of the world?  He intentionally dumped enormous amounts of crude oil in the Gulf, intentionally set hundreds of oil wells ablaze, and drained the most ecologically important marshlands in the region as part of his genocide of the Marsh Arabs.  Nobody has ever used intentional ecological destruction as an instrument of war and repression on the scale that Saddam did, but it isn't even mentioned in this sanitized history.
How is it possible to write about Saddam and not mention his support for terrorism, such as his standing offer of $30,000 USD payments to the families of suicide bombers?
How is it possible to write about Saddam and not mention the mass graves full of men, women and children who he had ordered murdered, graves which were found all over Iraq?     
All of that is proven fact, beyond dispute.  But it doesn't appear in this article.
Instead, this article contains dubious and weakly supported allegations of CIA connections, presented as fact.
The best estimates are that Saddam was directly responsible for about 2 million violent deaths during his ~20 years in power.  (Estimates vary, but all reputable sources agree that it was at least 1 million.)  Two million total works out to be an average of about 375 violent deaths per day, over 20 years.  Why isn't that mentioned in this article?
The anti-American POV slant of this article is absolutely outrageous!  NCdave 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing anti-American about this article. I also reject your emotional and baseless rhetoric. Disputed one sided misinformation from the propaganda campaign to promote war and justify war with Iraq should not be included to keep this article factual and neutral. The HRW is not credible because it is run by an individual with conflicts of interests to promote war. Furthermore, the information is unsubstantiated and not supported by any other source. -TruthSeeker777 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is not included because the article isn't neutral. Saddam fans have been deleting sections of this article for a couple of years now. Lizrael 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide 

message: Article says he was buried by his sons in 2006, but qusay and uday supposably died in 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klorkurou (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread. Gazpacho 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buried by his sons? 

message: trasported
under the section:
Incarceration and trial
Capture and incarceration
also, the words trial and incarceration should be capitalized as they are headings and subheadings.
24.20.128.17 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something preventing you from fixing them? This is a wiki, after all... --OuroborosCobra 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Errors 

message: The video link is no longer working. Please remove or find a different one.
I support the latter because that shit's hot. 
143.229.182.13 06:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial Video  

message: I was just wondering if anyone was aware that, in 2002, German scientist Dr. Dieter Buhmann conducted a study of 450 images of Saddam Hussein and concluded that the former Iraqi President utilised at least three body doubles? This was not the only revalation however, because he also found that the actual Saddam had only appeared in public once (September, 2001) in the previous 14 years. His findings were later broadcast on a German TV station. 
Also, is anyone aware that in April, 2004, the Russian Government pressurised the USA and Iraq to allow a meeting between Saddam and his first wife, Sajidah Talfah. Believe it or not, it happened. Saddam and Sajidah met in Qatar if I remember correctly (a very rare occurance as it was decided that Saddam must be kept in the Green Zone for security reasons). Anyway, eastern newspapers reported that Sajidah stormed out of the building in a fury and said "That is not my husband, but his double. I asked to see my husband." Guards at the scene assured her that it was Saddam and told her he may have changed significantly since the last time she saw him. She replied "Are you telling me I don't know my own husband. I've been living with him for over 25 years!" This is believed to be the last time she was seen publicly. The story made its way to America, but after Saddam Hussein's 'capture' had proven such a convenient and successful counter balance to the mounting guerrilla violence in Iraq, it was quickly swatted aside , probably as Ba'th Party propaganda.
:All of this is entirely speculative.  I have no reason to doubt that Saddam, himself, was executed.  Are you suggesting he'll send an e-greeting to Amerika of him on the beach with a brew and babe on each arm in the phuture?  This is just conspiracy-cruft.—oac old american century talk @ 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Alive? 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:PD-Old regime Iraq}}]]

message: An alternate spelling of Saddams given name used outside the United states is "Husayn".Ps6155 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hussein or Husayn?