Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 4

message: * Can someone clarify on this discussion page why the article was protected. Was the reason for that the disagreement about the proper name format? (doesn't sound like a big deal to me) Or was it something that is already moved to discussion archive? (If yes, what was that, why was it moved and does the page still needs to be protected?) Paranoid 12:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it locked?

message: Who said "Saddam Hussein was captured Saturday, December 13, at about 8:30 p.m. local in a cellar in the town of Adwar, which is about 15 kilometers south of Tikrit." ?
 Is this worth adding with attribution?
:An attribution can't hurt. I'll go ahead and add one. 172 09:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  After  "... We got him!" 

message: "Tensions with Kuwait"  calims that Iraq+Kuwait=20% of World reserves, while The Gulf War claims 20% of Persian Gulf reserves.
Which is correct? Rich Farmbrough 12:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saddam article is correct. For a reference on Kuwait, see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ku.html. For one on Iraq, see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/oil_4-24-03.html. BTW, would it be helpful to add these links to the notes section? 172 01:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: But is there an academic dispute? Is anyone making a serious case that Hussein is his surname? If not, it is only those who falsely make that assumption who may think the use of the short form Saddam is inappropriate. And for those, I agree we should have a note explaining it. We currently have a footnote linked to the name right at the beginning. If this is not prominent enough, I suppose we could move it up. Gzornenplatz 01:33, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
----
Hi Lir, let me know why my edits ((mention which Bush and who he is)) were reverted. Jay 19:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much oil? 

message: Can anyone locate some images taken today that we can use here? Kingturtle 20:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: added one. Paranoid 21:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated saddam hussein images 

message: I am not sure we should include that image in that section. It is degrading to Saddam Hussein and we do not appear to include images of other people taken during their time in prison (check out Nuremberg Trials, for example, Alfred Rosenberg). I think the image should be removed. Paranoid 20:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (though not strongly).  That photo was circulated far and wide and was a major news item, and it seems quite appropriate in the "capture" section.  It's not even horribly unflattering. VV 21:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VeryVerily's right. Of course these pictures belong in this article. After all, this is a biographical entry and Saddam Hussein himself is the one in detention. This is the culmination of his life as a political leader, and these visuals are just as important as, say, the picture of Saddam talking with his Bakr. 172 22:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both to some extent. The photo was a major news item (though only because the US military chose to release it and not some other pic - this photo has "psyops" written all over it). But the photo is clearly as POV as an image can be. It tells us "Saddam is a broken man, the mighty US army defeated him, nobody likes him anymore". But this is extremely biased and so is inappropriate. Saddam was not convicted of anything yet. He still remains the last popularly elected leader of Iraq. He is defiant, he probably has enormous control over the process by means of the compromising information on Bush and his cronies. Saddam's tale is far from over and so the image is a misleading piece of official American propaganda. 172, why don't you think that something else was (or will be) a culmination? May be Saddam will force Bush to resign? :) And let me repeat that in other Wikipedia articles such images were not included. If we don't include the photo of Rosenberg's with his brains splattered over the walls (wouldn't that be the culmination of his racially superior Aryan life), there is no reason to include the photo of unshaved Saddam. Paranoid 22:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay, I should've called it the most recent chapter of his career. :)Anyway, I see your point; we'll need to strike a balance between properly illustrating every chapter of his political life and avoiding U.S. propaganda. I didn't see anything wrong with the pics of him in custody right now, but I'd like the input of other users. 172 22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I fail to see how a picture can be any more degrading than the facts spelled out in the text of the article. Besides, the image is perhaps the most famous single picture of Saddam in existence; if for no other reason, it belongs in the article for the purposes of documenting changes in the perceptions of the man. Any POV that might be inherent in the picture can be negated by an explanation of its full context in the caption or article text. We shouldn't ignore the propangda, but rather defuse and explain it. -- Seth Ilys 22:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate if those who support inclusion of that pic would explain what is so special about Saddam Hussein article that warrants it. Why don't we include screenshots from Paris Hilton video in the article about her? The image was a major news item too as well as the culmination of her life as a celebrity. I'd like an explanation why not include it, but include Saddam's pic. Let me repeat, I am not saying that there are no reasons to include it (there are), I am just saying that doing so would be contrary to Wikipedia practices and NPOV policy. Paranoid 05:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pursuit and capture 

message: Why was the trial material deleted just now? --Gary D 01:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of Lir.  See below. VV 01:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial material 

message: When this dispute is settled, would someone please add this article to Category:US-Iraqi relations?  Thanks. --Beland 01:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add... 

message: I think we should mention Project Babylon here somewhere, since this is the man who commissioned it... -- EmperorBMA|話す 07:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Babylon 

message: Should this information be included in the section on the trial?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20040701/va_ne_al/sounds_of_silence_3
68.156.75.40 13:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And perhaps we need to get ready for a huge article specifically about the trial. Paranoid 14:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of trial procedings 

message: Using those images is a possible COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Stop this madness. --Cantus 05:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then. Add the exact source for EVERY photo flagged with a copyvio and then you can start uncommenting them in the article. --Cantus 05:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fair use here. Pics like Saddam/Rana, Saddam/Bakr, etc. were taken by regime photographers. There is no single source that can be found for them. Countless international media outlets have put them on file and have reproduced them countless times. 172 05:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that info into the Image's pages and then uncomment each in the article. --Cantus 05:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cantus, please, ordering people around is not going to help. This can be best addressed by deliberating on the talk page first, and opening the discussion up to more users. Not only is there no no practical need to make sweeping changes to the article without first deliberating on talk, doing so risks causing confusion and edit wars, which we both do not want. 172 05:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Guanaco was the one that started it after he didn't find copyright information. This needs to be clarified. WhisperToMe 06:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, for now can we all recognize the pics called into question released by/leaked from the old regime as fair use (Saddam and Rana, Saddam greeting the crowd in Baghdad, Saddam and Bakr, Saddam and Cuellar)? The pics that were recently added (and which I recently removed) seem to be the copyright problems (e.g., the mural of Saddam shooting the rifle). 172 06:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: 172, a portrait pic does not need to be a recent one. Saddam stoic.jpg is much more NPOV than your pic of Saddam sitting on a throne. The other pics of Saddam with the flag were not placed arbitrarily, and are not out of context. They were carefully placed in those categories, and even in chronological order. --Cantus 08:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: No, I'm trying to remove the picture of Saddam sitting on a throne, which contributes nothing to the section in which you keep on adding it. 172 08:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, it is related on how he ruled. He sat on a throne like a king and acted kingly. WhisperToMe 23:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Cantus, WhisperToMe:  I don't believe a portrait (that is, the opening picture) is the right place to express views on a person.  He may have acted kingly, but that can be said in the article.  The portrait is to show what he looks like; putting up an unflattering portrait is like calling him Saddam "Insane" Hussein.  So, I don't understand how a military uniform portrait is more NPOV.  I similarly resisted attempts to put in a portrait of Bush that made him look like a monkey and one of Pinochet that made him look like "Darth Vader" (as another user put it) - although many have strong feelings on those people as well.  However, I'm too confused by this edit war and what it's even about to get involved right now. VV 04:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with VV that this is silly. Should we replace the image on Dick Cheney with an old one of him speaking for Halliburton because of his facial expression? Guanaco 05:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: This article was protected by User:WhisperToMe just a few minutes ago. Why? I have no idea. There was no ongoing edit war AT ALL. Maybe he saw my BIG COMMENTS in the Summary and thought there was an edit war going on. Too bad he didn't bother to actually check the article history before wrongly protecting the article. --Cantus 23:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed like one to me. Calm down and work things out here first. WhisperToMe 23:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was absolutely no edit war going on at the moment. Things have already been worked out. See above Talk. Keep in mind this article was protected the last 5 days. Please unprotect. Thanks. --Cantus 23:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cantus, unlike the photos of Saddam meeting with Cuellar and his Baghdad walkabout during the 2003 Gulf War-- two important events that warrant mentioning in a biographical entry about Saddam, the image you find so "pleasing to the eye" contributes nothing to the article. Your capition states that he's wearing his familar green military fatigues, but this is the case regarding several of the photos already placed in the article. Please, give it a rest. 172 23:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize the George W. Bush article has 17 (!) images and a lot are not directly related to the surrounding text? Why can't we have one not-completely-explicitly-directly-related-to-the-surrounding-text image without you immediately removing it? --Cantus 02:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems with one article don't require us to create problems here. 172 04:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's a really lame argument. I expected better from you. --Cantus 06:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the picture should stay, unline in paper encyclopedias, images are easy to add and pleasing to the eye. They also make the text block smaller and thus easier to read. Saddam is on the photo, it should stay. -- Solitude 09:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest protection 

message: Seems like good info, but where then did the date of Apr. 28 1937 come from? I presume the date was remembered by the family even if not officially recorded, or otherwise chosen at random? Also, it might be a good idea to add a similar note to al-Bakr's article, since his birthdate actually is given as July 1. Everyking 10:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding birthdate footnote

message: 172 removed my addition of the following:
:Conflicting reports of Hussein's failing health circulated in different media during the last week of July 2004. Al Jazeera, The Times of India, and The Mirror report that he has suffered a stroke and that the International Red Cross has stated he had a brain scan to discover how badly the stroke affected Hussein. More recent reports  indicate that a possible prostate problem requiring X-rays was exaggerated. CBC in Canada reports that Muin Kassis, spokesperson for the Internation Red Cross, said on July 29th that there is no evidence to support claims of Hussein's failing health.
172's summary comment was "I don't know if this article should be a dumping ground for every news story that comes out in the tabloid media about Saddam Hussein".  I added this after removing an anon's link to the hoax being presented in many middle eastern press.  I found the hoax and its truth to be relevent to the trial as a means of gaining sympathy.  It seemed like a ploy by supporters to get public view on his side.
I really don't feel any need to fight for the paragraph I created but wanted to record this to prevent the anon user from continuing to create links to the hoax press releases. - Tεxτurε 18:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: However you guys work it out, this items seems sufficiently noteworthy to be included somewhere. --Gary D 18:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps on the page about the trial, to be kept (if found to be ture and significant) or later deleted (if found to be false or minor)? Andy Mabbett 18:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition and deletion of Saddam's health scam