Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 4

message: I have a question: I have uploaded the picture of Saddam's funeral two days ago, so do you think it's okay if I post that picture onto the "Burial" section? --Angeldeb82 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does not violate any copyright, that is fine. ~ UBeR 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Burial" Question

message: The article states that a vatican spokesman expressed "disapproval" of the execution - but the citation at fn.72 doesn't show this. Catholic teaching, as far as I know, is that the death sentence is justifiable but should be used sparingly. Anyone got a better citation? It would be interesting, given JPII's condemnation of the coalition invasion.--Shtove 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I also disapprove of all executions, I'm not sure the Vatican's reaction is important here?  In fact, we're speaking of an entirely different religion, where the word of the Pope holds no sway.  I can see cause for mention in that this is a world event, not a local one, but still, I just don't think the Vatican's reaction to the execution of Saddam Hussein is very relivant.  FireWeed 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican reaction

message: I noticed a somewhat problematic edit earlier. It was grammatically awkward and unusually selective (specifically, selecting Britain). 195.158.69.190 made this edit, which I disagreed with. My rationale was spread over two edits, which you can see here. I removed the text, and added a link to Multinational force in Iraq (to address the concern that the soldier in Iraq were not just Americans). 66.99.0.193 removed that link in this edit. Since he or she appeared to remove it for a reason (I hope), and I do not want to go against another's unexplained and non-obvious will, I would like a smidget of consensus before adding the link to that page back. GracenotesT § 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to stay away from political debates and such issues, and have been uninvolved with any Iraq-related articles (aside from this page).  Has there been discussion of this on other pages?  The "Multinational" force page has a tag on top.  It might be helpful to look at a handful of news articles from a truly worldwide sample of sources and see how they describe things.  What does Al Jazeera say?  What do American sources say?  Reliable sources in other, less involved places? --Aude (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for answering. I don't think that this is a political issue; plus, I'm apathetic indifferent enough to be NPOV on nearly everything. I am familiar with RS, and this isn't the issue either. (Always worth mentioning it, though, in case I wasn't.) The IP I mentioned above was confused by what "US-led" meant. The article I linked to, the "Multinational" one, clarifies it denotatively. As to the worldwide tag -- it was added here. I don't believe that it any longer applies -- in fact, I don't believe that the issue was even discussed on the talk page. Since Multinational force in Iraq equates "US-led" with the whole force that was active in Iraq, I thought that it might be useful to link to this article, to clarify what "US-led" implies. (Yes, the statement is unsourced in the "Multinational" article, but this was enough to assuage my qualms about the statement's veracity.) GracenotesT § 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that user from that IP switched it with his vandalism. It has since been reverted to reflect your edits. ~ UBeR 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, how selfish of me, I didn't even look at the other changes that the IP made. I wouldn't exactly call it vandalism... it's more non-constructive (and possibly POV-pushing). I would have changed it back myself; I simply didn't want to get into an edit war with that IP. Hence this request for a bit of consensus. GracenotesT § 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on appropriateness of a link (no, not an external one)

message: I don't have time at the moment ... but there are several references that link to Associated Press news stories on Yahoo!  Those Yahoo! links tend to disappear fairly quickly.  We should try to find other sources which have the same AP stories and link to those instead. --Aude (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't under the impression they deleted articles at Yahoo! But if they do, by all means, they should be replaced with identical articles from elsewhere. ~ UBeR 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A note: a search on Google with the article title in quotes will do the trick for finding an identical article, it appears to me. Or a search on Yahoo, if you must :) GracenotesT § 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. All of the Yahoo! links have been replaced, I believe. ~ UBeR 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahoo! references

message: Warning this guy keeps on inventing his rules and gives his own definitions,reverting lots of links, clearly has his own agenda, many users like this use some wikified excuse but that is empty.. The execution should not be here (the link to video), the death of the kid, clearly he watched the video, he asked father what happend, he was angry at something... Saddam's last words and the other link clearly links and explans execution, so current version should stay.
It is clear that this guy keeps on screwign around this particular site 100 times per day. Not only that, but keeps on reverting time of death and official time saddam died 6:05.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html
:Thank you for you blog source, but please see below and discuss (although this has already been discussed before...) ~ UBeR 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uber user problem

message: Since some people are too lazy to look in the archive (random IP vandalizer), I'll renew the discussion. Executed at 06:00?  06:05? "Short after 06:00"? 06:10? Best to leave it at approximately 06:00, so as not to place a very specific and contradicting time. ~ UBeR 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time of Execution

message: WHY IS SADDAM REFERED TO AS THE "PRESIDENT" OF IRAQ? HE WAS NEVER ELECTED, HE WAS SELF APPOINTED. HE WAS A DICTATOR AND A MURDERER!!! NOTHING LESS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.197.130.215 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOT#OR, number 5. He is generally referred to as president, and Wikipedia does not go against convention regarding there sorts of issues. GracenotesT § 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remain civil. Saddam was indeed a dictator. That much is pretty much given. A president can basically be broken down into the definition of "one who presides." Did Saddam preside over Iraq? Yes. Overall, the point is moot. ~ UBeR 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Even that shouldn't be an issue. One can be a benelovant dictator. So, there really should be no issue about calling Saddam a dictator, either. "Dictator" is not a POV term. "Tyrant" is. -- Ch'marr 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. ~ UBeR 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SADDAM, PRESIDENT?