Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 2

message: The main sources in this article are BBC, CNN, and Fox News all three of which have been known to Show bias in favour of either the Bush administration, or the war in Iraq in particular. A more varied, international and independant sources are required to balance the article, and help make it NPOV. Sfacets 13:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am putting your criticism under a new heading (NPOV issues 3), to separate it from the prior two discussions. This should aid in addressing it. --Hab baH 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox is about the only republican news source on here. Most of the news is coming from Aljazeera or other Iraqi sources. So long as the sources are reliable and tell facts, I'm not really seeing any issue with what's being said in this article. ~ UBeR 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC aren't biased towards the Bush administration /or/ the war in Iraq. Halo 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the links given above. Sfacets 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep adding the tag, but your allegations are unfounded. Please, post some controversies for Reuters, The New York Times, The Washing Post, and all the foreign sources listed as well. Until then, the tag is being removed. ~ UBeR 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been discussed, and no one agrees with you. Furthermore, what's stated in this article here is facts, not opinions. And so long as facts can be verified (click) then all is fine. Furthermore, the more reliable a source, the better. Facts cannot be biased (e.g. the fact that Saddam died by hanging cannot be biased). So please, read up on your NPOV. ~ UBeR
It hasn't been discussed, no consensus was reached. No, facts cannot be biased, but the reportage of these facvts can be. If you can find a more appropriate and targeted template, feel free to substitutre it, but untill then, there is bias. Sfacets 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read ANY of the links I just posted? Your allegations are unfounded. The fact that WIkipedia does not support you is reason enough. Please, read NPOV. I really don't think you understand the idea of the NPOV tag. Here, "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean 'a piece of information about which there is some dispute.' That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." So, please tell me where facts are not being stated or where opinions are not being attributed to a specific person? ~ UBeR 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the above sources certainly are not unbiased, in what way have they shown bias on the topic of the Execution of Saddam Hussein? I have to go in a little bit, but I was going to look later into the foundation for the claim of Saddam Hussein having been convicted of crimes against humanity, as the article on that topic indicates such a designation is defined by the Rome Statute and the Rome Statute specify the ICC is supposed to try such crimes, not a local Iraqi tribunal. But I have not yet found (or done a good enough job of sampling) articles to support a split between the usual U.S. voices and other voices. Have you found other areas of potential factual dispute or differing interpretation between the U.S./British news sources and non-U.S./British news sources on this topic?  Unless you can find some examples, I do not think the tag can be sustained. I personally would welcome any broader, more balanced sources that can be found. --Hab baH 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't get it. I am not talking about the bias by each individual news source, I am talking about the lack of varied sources, since most of the sources are the three I mentionned. The article needs more varied and international sources. I had earlier used  (as part of the Wikiproject against systematic bias), however this doesn't precisely address my concerns regarding the sources. You can tell just by reading the article that it uses a predominance of 'Western' sources. Sfacets 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's fine so long as what's being reported are unbiased facts. Wikipedia is verifiability. Every statement here is verifiable. There is no rule saying the minimum amount of Western sources may be used. I wouldn't care if all the sources were Nigerian sources, so long as what's being presented is fact. Again, your allegations are unfounded. ~ UBeR 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why did you oppose the other template? Sfacets 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep adding the false tag (I did not remove it myself, so you know). You here cannot even address what I have said, and that is the Wikipedia has not policy against factual representation so long is it is verifiable. What is "vandalism" is you putting up erroneous tags with no merit. I think you're lacking the understanding of what these tags imply. ~ UBeR 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it is I who am awaiting your response to my question. Vandalism is committing destructive edits to the article, which all that removing the template does, because it doesn't help address the issue. Sfacets 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We're here to discuss the NPOV tag on the main article, nothing more. Thus far, you have not come up with any valid reason that tag should be there. ~ UBeR 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views." You have not identified a point of view that conflicts with what is expressed here. You can add non-Western sources if you want, but that's not an NPOV issue. Gazpacho 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because you haven't identified "views" relevant to that sentence. Gazpacho 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again all significant published points of view are to be presented... Sfacets 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That wikiproject is a project, not a policy. In fact, no where in the project does it say to go around vandalizing pages with erroneous NPOV tags. Everything under the "what do section" is everything you've failed to do. The consensus here is that this article demonstrates a NPOV. ~ UBeR 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't know what you're saying. You've failed to explain any of your vandalizations for either the NPOV or the recentism tags. I havne't removed the tags, just waiting for you to do it once you realize you lack merit. ~ UBeR 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues 3

message: I honestly don't know enough to write it, but I think a background section with a quick summary of his trial, the sentence and the days leading upto his death would be a valuable addition to this article -Halo 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already links referencing to it. See the intro. This page is specifically about his execution. ~ UBeR 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Background" section

message: The statements by the international community is very long and mostly un-contributing. It is becoming too much of a Directory and a list, both something that Wikipedia is not! Pondering what to do with it. It's hurting the article, and make it overly large (length and file size). ~ UBeR 07:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. I did try to warn people this would happen. Obviously no one listened. Perhaps try to get some consensus, and then someone be bold and delete the majority of it. --Hopex 16:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's really necessary to delete any of the statements, but we should simply rewrite them in a more encyclopedic fasion. For example, we can summarize the reactions of European countries relatively easily, since most of them (if not all) have stated their disagreement with the death penalty. There is certainly a way to make that paragraph into a very useful one, but I don't think that we should needlessly remove information, since I do think it's useful to know exactly what the official reactions were, especially from a historical point of view. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are original and verifiable content, and most times what appears as simple "innocent" words in these quotes is scrutinized by FA ministers and staffs (therefore has apparently some importance). I propose we group the statements e.g. by EU members etc, and then we create a separate article (e.g. World statements on execution of Saddam Hussein) with all the exact quotes, to which we provide a link. Thoughts? NikoSilver 17:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think the content should stay and also that it should be moved to a separate article, like International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test. --Amit 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Something like the one at 2006 North Korean nuclear test would be good. Hut 8.5 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The reaction is sufficiently close to the topic to be part of it. I disagree that it "takes the focus away from the main point" since it is greatly part of the main point. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 17:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a strong opinion either way. As long as there is a hyperlink it makes little difference.--Lance talk 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As the one who started this hullabaloo, I agree a new daughter article should be created for world reactions and a substantial summation be placed in this article with a link to the new article. I will add a "laundry" tag to the world reactions here until the issue is sorted out. --Jayzel 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I see it's already been tagged. Regards, --Jayzel 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone knows how to transfer the quotes (perhaps a few can stay if they are contributing to the article or may be impacted by the execution [i.e. US, European Union, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.]?), could they do so please. Thanks. ~ UBeR 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It still looks very large. ~ UBeR 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm still working on it.  Compare the "disapproval - oppose death penalty" section with the paragraph above it, as an example of what we should do. --Aude (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that summary looks good. We could move the quotes to Wikiquote, people willing. ~ UBeR 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have finished my first pass through all the quotes, summarizing them.  Further copyedits and summarization may be needed to synthesize the material more.  I'm working to transwiki the quotes. --Aude (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Marvelous. ~ UBeR 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's much better. Good work -Halo 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please copyedit and improve.  I need to spend time to cleanup the transwiki page. --Aude (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another suggestion is to add some U.S. reaction besides Bush.  Obviously, there is wide ranging opinion in the U.S., aside from his.  I can try and do this later, if no one else does. --Aude (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, you have to be careful otherwise it could become non-neutral. Human rights organisations are listed below with their reaction to it -Halo 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if a certain person represents their country with substantiation (i.e. president, prime minister, king, etc.) it should be allowed. Non-representatives I think should be left out. ~ UBeR 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's reality though, but care can be exercised to keep it neutral.  The implications of this on certain countries (e.g., the U.S., Turkey, and Iran) are more substantial, and discussion of political factions and opinions I think is warranted.  It should be brief, but included. I may also spend time looking at Arabic language sources (courtesy Google translation)  Anyway, might not get to all this until tomorrow.   --Aude (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. The page looks a little messy though. ~ UBeR 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Reaction" editing/splitting

message: No where in this article is the full version of the leaked video (recorded by a cellphone) posted?
Here is the full video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=863ce7d4a3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.232.216 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Link

message: I believe the external links should be reverted to the pre-edit ones with descriptions as currently they are unnoted.
See edit by Ender78 on external links. JayGannon 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone is spamming its own website i think. Check:  88.224.151.58 contributions Pipe752 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have rebuked the spammer on his/her talk page, and he/she responded by saying that the execution links were "out of order."  This made no sense to me, and I informed him/her that he/she should not be deleting other links and replacing them with just one.  
Emmz89 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people like to see streaming videos too. Alas, having both would be the answer, yes? Which is currently the case. ~ UBeR 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur. Current format is reasonable. Basically, we should seek to have one source for the edited, and one flash- and one non- source for the unedited. IMHO, of course, which is why I wanted to talk this out in here before we both violated 3RR. :) Ender78 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: This section has been merged into a previously existing  section. --Amit 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting "Reaction" into a new article

message: I think personally that some poeple may find the images are a bit overbearing. For example the man one where Saddam is seen with the noose around his neck; I think it is way too graphic, particularly given that young children, religious people, and those opposed to the death penalty may be offended by this. Ahadland 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Young children won't be looking up this article. Religious people are well used to images of man's cruelty. Those opposed to the death penalty are offended by the very notion of the death penalty. What about the value of a straight representation of fact?--Shtove 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been addressed already. Please read the discussion page. Wikipedia is not censored. ~ UBeR 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly don't be sanctimonious about this.  Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, to be specific.  But we make decisions every day to "censor" ourselves (if you insist on using the most inflammatory and inaccurate term), in the name of many good things, such as the good taste to not shock our readers without a warning.  It's a reasonable comment that the noose picture is too graphic.  I'm not certain whether I agree or not, myself.  Tempshill 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images should have a warning

message: Saddam was never in US hands after his execution.  According to the sources cited, number 15, he was handed over for burial by the Iraqi Government to the local governor.
:The U.S. transported him. Sorry for the confusion. ~ UBeR 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BURIAL HANDOVER

message: :This article is specifically about the execution. The trail is already linked to in the intro. Second, the current section of the trial is overly long (un-needed information), notwithstanding my first sentence. The execution proceeding is pretty irrelevant to this article, other than what was already mention previously (that he was sentenced to death by the Iraqi courts). It is also in the "see also" section, where it belongs. ~ UBeR 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's relevant, I mean years from now when people read this article they will want to know something about the trial. If they are too lazy to click on the link and read the whole entire article on his trial; they can read the short summary in this one. Pseudoanonymous 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes for a more rounded article that stands alone better than it would otherwise. It adds context to the article. -Halo 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, it will take days, possibly weeks, before we can reliably say how much content for what point. Reorganizing can take place then. Peter Grey 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede. ~ UBeR 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial

message: I followed this link  to skynews website but couldn't find anything about Mr Al-Rubiae saying that Saddam shouted "Down with Persians" for several times. I even searched the web with google but the result was not valuable. Could anyone help me to find the source? or otherwise omit that from the article. --81.90.154.4 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen to the video. He says it at about 2:30. ~ UBeR 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: persians

message: This new redo of the world statements is too busy. This version looked much cleaner and easier to follow with it being seperated by region then country. Johp78 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#.22Reaction.22_editing.2Fsplitting ~ UBeR 23:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Johp78 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World Reaction

message: UBeR, can you please explain why you do not believe this article should not be consistent with the main Saddam Hussein article in its description of the trial?  Both articles present a brief summary of the trial and link to the main trial article so why should those two summaries differ?  --ElKevbo 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The reason being is that the article of Saddam Hussein is that of Saddam Hussein's. This article, Execution of Saddam Hussein, is specifically for his execution and what is relevant to the execution itself. The minor little details in the article at Saddam Hussein are appropriate for that article. Minor factoids within and throughout the trial are insignificant and irrelevant for this article. Furthermore, Just because something shows up in Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean it should automatically be placed here, word for word. The current description on the page is correct and explanatory. ~ UBeR 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unconvinced by your arguments as your viewpoint is too narrow and limited.  It's terribly unprofessional and illogical for us to have summaries of articles that significantly differ from one another.  The difficulties and challenges of the trial are playing a very large role in the reactions described in this article and I think it's perfectly logical to have a brief description of them in the summary of the trial.  --ElKevbo 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not a professional, so that makes sense; neither is Wikipedia. At any rate, what isn't logical is having identical content in articles that are not identical. Should we talk about the Gulf War, his youth, marriage, etc. simply because it appears in Saddam Hussein? I think not. That is simply illogical. What is professional, however, is not simply copying unsourced information from article to another. What you consider "significantly different" is actually just a more adjusted, more precise, and more attuned summary appropriate for what this article is. ~ UBeR 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia and its editors should strive to be professional and I'm disappointed that you do not share that belief.  I remain unconvinced by your assertions and I hope that others will weigh in as it's obviously a bit difficult to speak of "consensus" when only two editors have expressed an opinion.  --ElKevbo 08:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with UBeR - only parts relevant to the article need to be included as an overview to the leadup to his execution. -Halo 08:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Uber too. 68.200.224.78 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency between articles

message: This seems to be a very subjective statement.  Without sources backing it up, I think it should be removed.  I removed it once, but the editor put it back, citing WP:V.  janejellyroll 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is known to have drunken alchohol and if you've seen the video  it is very apparent. I think it deserves a mention. frummer 09:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources?  janejellyroll 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would i need sources for the fact that he appears to have a beard in the execution video too? If i did have a source does it have to be from US prison service or the hangman himself? I inserted that it appeared in the video that he was drunk. He had all the symptoms, furthermore its actually a good custom to let the executed to be intoxicated. I will reinsert a more toned-down version so as to please WP:V which by the way is also in my favour in that we can draw conclusions from apparent possibilities. We present the facts, which may include what people speculate, (even if its unsrouced providing its obvious) and the reader decides. Plz discuss. frummer 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you would need reliable sources that are easily verifiable.  If you edit Wikipedia with your own perception of how Saddam appeared, you are doing what is called original research, even if you are correct. It is not allowed in Wikipedia. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the article should not make any claim whatsoever about him being intoxicated unless a reliable source can be found. It is obvious to everyone that he has a beard. If he was drinking, it is not at all obvious or unambiguous. He looked to me like he was feeling tired and defeated, resigned to his fate. He could be perfectly sober, and simply did not get a good night's sleep. But that doesn't belong in the article, either, unless we could cite someone who knows for sure. Wahkeenah 12:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Would i need sources for the fact that he appears to have a beard in the execution video too?" No, because he does have a beard in the video. Can you say with absolute certainty that he is drunk in the video?  "WP:V which by the way is also in my favour in that we can draw conclusions from apparent possibilities" WP:V makes no mention of anything of the sort. What it does say is that Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. --Richmeistertalk 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the statement that Saddam "appeared drunk" in the video

message: A commentator in the Jerusalem Post suggested that:
Moreover, televised scenes of the execution show that guards called out words of support for Shi'ite leader Muqtada Alsadr and the Shi'ite cleric Muhammed Baqer Alsader, who was executed by Saddam in 1980, suggesting that the execution was seen as a Shi'ite revenge and just another part of the ongoing struggle between Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq. As such, it would add fuel to the fire of sectarian violence and hinder the future unity of the divided country.
--Lance talk 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shi'ite revenge?

message: Where should the reaction of the first chief judge who presided over Saddam Hussein's trial for crimes against humanity go?  He is not a politician (Iraqi judges are appointed).  But he doesn't quite seem to go under Populace, or just general Iraqis.  The article is here: Former Saddam judge says execution violates Iraqi law. --Hab baH 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an interesting reaction to add to the article.  Put it under "Politician" - the term doesn't imply there's an election.  Karl Rove is an unelected politician.  Tempshill 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tempshill.  I added it there. --Hab baH 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Chief Trial Judge Reaction?

message: I once again removed the warnings from the external links. There's nothing wrong with clearly explaining what is in each video, but Wikipedia is not in the position to tell people what is inappropriate content for some readers. Like I said, in the same manner we don't need some kind of warning about images in the penis article, we do not need a warning about videos that are clearly labeled as showing an execution. Readers ought to know what to expect given the description, and should decide on their own whether they feel they're up to viewing the content therein. -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had constant spamming of the video links section, so I moved the videos under a subheading. I have reverted the External links section to that version, as it existed before the warning was added. --Hab baH 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, what kind of logic is this? Do I have to prove that watching the video of the death of a human being can be strong content is NPOV???? It is called common sense - watching someone die is strong content. That's simple logic. Wikipedia is not censured, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be considerate. Baristarim 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again (see below), it violates WP:NPOV to place a "warning" of your opinion as to what follows the link. The videos are labeled as videos of the execution. In fact, they are under a subheading: "Video of Execution". This description amply communicates to any viewer who visits this article, titled "Execution of Saddam Hussein", that a video of an execution follows. It is a factual description and allows that someone who does not want to see a video of an execution knows what follows the links and, thus, would not be expected to click on the links.  On the other hand, someone who does want to see a video of the execution would be expected to click one of the links. I do not like the described content of the videos, but that cannot justify putting my opinion in the article. --Hab baH 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The warning has been removed.  Please see the discussions above.  Inserting the warning is a violation of WP:NPOV and it is a very subjective endeavor.  Personally, I plan never to watch the videos, other than a few second of footage at the start of the cell phone video I have already seen.  The gruesome photo of Saddam Hussein's body with neck twisted, previously included in the article, is evidence enough of what occurred. --Hab baH 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, what kind of logic is this? Do I have to prove that watching the video of the death of a human being can be strong content is NPOV???? It is called common sense - watching someone die is strong content. That's simple logic. Period. Baristarim 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read tariqabjotu's comment. There is no need to put a warning in front of a link called "execution of a person." That alone is warning enough for those who deem it "strong content." ~ UBeR
This kind of thing should not be sugarcoated or censored. It's a grim reality of war, like showing the coffins with the U.S. flags on them. People are sheltered from these realities, and that's the way the various governments want it. This is not a new complaint. When Matthew Brady publicly displayed his photos of the dead of Antietam, there was a major outcry over it... officially because it was too grim, but actually because of fears it would undercut the warhawks' propaganda efforts. This video should be shown everywhere. It's a message to would-be dictators: This could be your fate, too. Take the sword, die by the sword. Wahkeenah 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody has suggested "censorship" or "sugarcoating" the external link.  Warnings are totally appropriate.  Many people will be affected adversely by watching such strong content, and it's responsible for us to use warnings to accommodate this.  Tempshill 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd consider it informative in the sense that it both confirms Saddam's death by hanging, which is bound to be disputed, and adds the dimension of the role of technology in journalism and historical documentation. It's not simply graphic violence, at least, not any more so that any historical account of an execution. It's a primary source regarding Saddam's hanging. Personal Robot Jesus 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally disagree with you Ryan.  Since when does a warning equate to censorship? --ElectricEye (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The current link reads: "Execution — Cell phone video of hanging, including final moments." If you fail to understand those implications, little else can be done. I am against anything that may deter a person who is obliged and rightfully allowed to see a video he so chooses to view. So long as the description is factual (i.e. says it involves his "final moments"), there is no need for a subjective point of view (i.e. "disturbing"), which would violate Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. ~ UBeR 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 83.255.71.22: Many of those are actually discussing warnings rather than including warnings about content. Those articles that are including warnings about content are violating WP:NPOV. I find it hard to believe anyone would visit this article, titled Execution of Saddam Hussein, make their way to the bottom of the article and click a link right below the heading "Video of Execution" and not expect to see a video of an execution. Why would someone be shocked to see something they are clearly expecting to see if they are reading the text of the link and the text surrounding the link? If they are not reading the text of the link and the text surrounding the link, then a warning is not going to be read and so does not accomplish its goal of communicating the editor's opinion about the link. --Hab baH 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it is entirely subjective as to whether or not, in an editor's opinion, the content on the other side of the link is deserving of a warning.  Tagging expressive content, i.e., pictures, prose, poetry, videos, etc., with a tag that says "warning: I find the content at the link objectionable and you might, too" is not a factual matter.  It is a matter of opinion.  The content may be objectionable to you, but it may not be objectionable to another person.  On the other hand, the factual description of "video of execution" is not subject to opinion.  The videos are of an execution, as described.  It is not a matter of opinion.  So, yes, the warning is POV and a violation of the Wikipedia policy of NPOV.  I hope I have answered your questions.  I do not understand your sentence, "when such a warning can even be referenced to television media?"  Also how is this discussion a violation of WP:POINT? --Hab baH 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings, Again

message: The article mentions somebody shouting "Go to hell, inshalla!" and in a yahoo news article ("Fallen tyrant" taunted in Saddam video; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061231/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_taunts_dc) it is mentioned that Saddam replied by saying: "The hell that is Iraq?".
I think these words are significant of his view of what has happened to his country since his capture.
The description can be found in the sixth paragraph of the linked article.
Should Saddam's reply be added to the main article? Eeo 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added. Thanks. ~ UBeR 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Hell That is Iraq?"

message: Should this still be considered a current event? Most news outlets have very little more to say about it. Most of the new stuff is criticizing the manner/environment in which he was executed. ~ UBeR
:I'd say no. I'll go remove the tag now. timrem 01:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Event

message: This article suffers from recentism, meaning that alot of edits focus on the short term rather than long term. An example is the importance given to trivial matters (see above sections). Sfacets 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above what? You can never cite any specific reasons for your vandalism of pages. ~ UBeR 03:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree with you - I wouldn't call mentioning the last meal necessarily trivial, as it works in context of his last few moments. Several other pages dealing with executed people discuss "last meals" and they don't suffer from recentism (see Last meal), and also summarises his last moments. I would be interested in some specific examples of Recentism too - there doesn't seem anything overly trivial mentioned. Unless you can mention some examples, I think the template should be removed -Halo 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious and cultural rituals, such as the last meal, should indeed be included.  This may be meaningless or seem "trivial" to people in western cultures, but is significant in Arab cultures;  Hence, it's something that Al Arabiya (and some other sources) talk about quite a bit.  It's important, as you have said before, for the article to represent more than just a western/U.S. viewpoint and sources.  Please provide other specific examples you think are problematic.  Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --Aude (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the chicken example came way after you put the tag up, so you're going to have to come up with a better reason. I, too, agree the tag should be removed. You cannot put up tags without reasons, or at least not with a discussion that holds merit. To say Saddam's execution lacks prevalence in the long run, and this is an insignificant news story would be wholly imprudent. ~ UBeR 19:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism