Talk:Saddam Hussein
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Saddam_Hussein".

This article has lots and lots of half truths. It is not fare (Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC))


content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saddam Hussein article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
This is not a forum for general discussion of views on politics or personal points of view.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.
How about a nice cup of tea?
Good article Saddam Hussein was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is part of the "20th Century post-colonial leaders" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.

Higher numbers refer to more recent archives.
Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3
Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6
Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9
Archive 10 • Archive 11Archive 12

  • Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming contains the collected discussion on the naming of Saddam Hussein. Please do not attempt to change the use of Saddam's name in this article without reading and understanding the archived discussion. Thank you. The archive includes the following issues:
  • "Saddam" vs "Hussein" vs "Saddam Hussein" as the short form of the name in the article.
  • Whether there should be some form of disclaimer regards which is "correct" on the article
  • Transliterations: Husayn vs Hussain

Does anyone else feel sad that this guy is no longer with us? I know he was a terrible guy and all that but he was still a human being and no person deserves capital punishment. I guess the only reason I say this is because he has very little to no sympathizers. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.70.12 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Lawyers shot

During the course of the trial, seven of the people who worked as lawyers for Saddam were shot. Four of them were killed. This should be worth a mention in the article, since it's blatant proof for biased circus, whereas none of the lawyers for prosecution were threatened or harmed in any way. For the sake of history. Jei (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this curious and shocking info.84.51.86.42 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chair

Hey in regards to the picture of Saddam sitting on a chair; the chair is referred to as a throne. It is not a throne, but rather a chair. By calling the chair a throne this article is misrepresenting Saddam as a monarchist.

In regard to the Iran-Iraq War the article asserts, "The pretext for hostilities with Iran was this territorial dispute, but the war was more likely an attempt by Saddam, supported by both the United States and the Soviet Union, to have Iraq form a bulwark against the expansion of radical Iranian-style revolution." No evidence for this assertion is cited and, so far as I know, none exists. It should be labled as an unsupported speculation rather than presented as fact. Will O'Neil 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


where is the discussion old pages? there should be imho. I mind the unsupported remark in the sub : modernisation, about 'carrot and stick ' tactics. There is no doubt at all political manouvre consists of carrot and stick tactics, but this small chapter only mentions carrots, so it seems a bit on the look for nasty things to say about S. where there are not..(prejudiced or partial in effect)77.248.56.242 11:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Conventional wisdom says that both of those rationales have since been discredited by U.S. intelligence agencies for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though at least 800 WMD shells (according to Newsweek) were found and hundreds of members of Saddam's inner circle and regime have been found in cooperation with al-Qaeda since 2002 (see [www.regimeofterror.com])[citation needed]."

Why is this here? Tcaudilllg 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Who is "regimeofterror.com"? How is this a credible account of the WMD issue? I charge bias. Tcaudilllg 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Even my grandmother has such old fashion chairs and she isn't a Queen :) Deliogul 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I organised this under a heading for simplicity's sake, hope that is okay. SGGH speak! 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone else called it a throne, and I concurred (it's certainly looks golden and luxurious) - sorry, I don't remember any more. 172 removed the picture of Saddam sitting on it from the "Secular leadership" section of the page rather than move the picture to the appropriate place, and then did not answer this question. I would be pleased to reupload the picture with "sitting on a golden chair" or similar replacing "on his throne", if only we could find the right place in the article, whether that be "Secular leadership" or another section. I got the picture from http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/gifs/saddam.jpg, as displayed by Saddam Hussein. It or a similar picture may have been using Template:PD-Old regime Iraq - I don't remember. What suggestions do you have as to what name to use for the picture and where in the article to place it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming response, I restored it in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, where is your WP:RS that asserts the caption of the image? I checked this and the caption does not mention the date the picture was taken in. Imad marie (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I based the date on the flag's use and the fall of Baghdad. Per Flag of Iraq#1991.E2.80.932004, the pictured flag was used starting on 13 January 1991. Per Saddam Hussein#2003_invasion_of_Iraq, Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. I harmonized the date formats. I don't think it's reasonable to assume the picture was taken much before 13 January 1991 (perhaps a few days earlier as a publicity shot for the flag in anticipation of the Gulf War), and I don't think it's reasonable to assume he had sufficient resources, good health, and black hair to have it taken after the fall of Baghdad. I regret that I haven't had the time to research the dates in more detail.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, first you need to find the RS that asserts the information. Second, the caption has to go along with the context its being put in. Saying: "A smiling Saddam Hussein sitting easily on a golden chair " is definitely not related to the context of "Gulf war" it's being put in. Imad marie (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "Saddam Hussein with his flag of Iraq that flew during the Gulf War[1]"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I believe it's also worth mentioning that Saddam changed the flag during the war. Imad marie (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed how? Got a WP:RS?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a fact, do we need a reference? anyway it is cited in the same references you have provided. Imad marie (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought he changed the flag before the start of the Gulf War, based on the language "an attempt to garner support from the Islamic world in the period immediately preceding the first Gulf War" at [2], but now I see that you're right, he changed it on 13 January 1991, five months and 11 days into a war that started 2 August 1990. Thanks for the clarification!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for the iraq war

"The rationale for the Iraq War the U.S. gave was because of failure to abide the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, an alleged Iraqi weapons programs, and supposed links to al-Qaeda. Pre-invasion intelligence from both the U.S. & British intelligence services reportedly validated these concerns. Conflicting reports have subsequently been produced regarding these pre-invasion studies by U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though at least 800 WMD shells (according to Newsweek) were found and hundreds of members of Saddam's inner circle and regime have been found in cooperation with al-Qaeda since 2002 (see [www.regimeofterror.com])[citation needed]." Since when does wikipedia accept a personal opinion citing a personal blog as proof? Its a little embarrassing that this slipped into a semi-protected article.

I can't find this that you refer to in the article anymore, but if it still exists please message me and I'll removing anything uncited or poorly cited that I find. SGGH speak! 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image sources

Many of the images used in this article as tagged with (the deprecated tag) {{PD}}, and the reasoning given is that the image comes from "Iraqi News Agency". As no verifiable source information was added, many of these image have been tagged as no-source. Also, I'm not sure that images from "Iraqi News Agency" automatically qualify as fair use. --Abu badali (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it does fall under {{PD-Iraq}}. --Ipatrol (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

British Tabloid and Saddam

Why was this paragraph removed: "A British tabloid named The Sun posted a picture of Saddam wearing white briefs on the front cover of a newspaper. Other photographs inside the paper show Saddam washing his trousers, shuffling, and sleeping. The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photos [3]." ?

This is a clearly notable incident since it caused a major controversy regarding who released the pictures and how well Saddam was treated in prison.

More likely how poorly he was treated in prison. One must check the logs to see that this page has probably been edited many times by American Government stooges70.19.23.83 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no article about Saddam's incarceration, so I do not see why this should not be included. WhisperToMe 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MisInfromations

There are clear spots of Information and knowledge mishandling in some parts of this article outlined below, Could someone please correct them:

A.In section Iran Iraq War Its written " Iraq and Iran entered into open warfare on September 22, 1980. " CLARIFICATION: It is completely wrong, the truth is Iraq ATTACKED Iran on that date. REF[4] Final Ruling. B.In section Iran Iraq War Its Written "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" CLARIFICATION: The sentence implies that if it was the fault of Iran that Iraq was bogged down in a war of attrition which is completely laughable as Iran was only defending its territorial integrity and Iraq was the agressor party responsible for the whole fiasco and humanitarian disaster which had been caused by it. Furthermore absolutley NO source is cited for the last part of the sentence regarding atrocities comitted by Iran though Iraq is well known for its atrocities under Saddam. Please Cite sources for atrocities comitted by Iran or Clear the sentence. C.In section Iran Iraq War Its written (Halabja Massacre)" 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." CLARIFICATION: Another attempt to make Saddam alittle more benign has been made by making the anouncement that Iran had used the chemical weapons against unarmed civilians which is not true and to say the least is an attempted black propagada on a hijacked issue on this website which again needs and I have to say this again needs to cite its authentic sources. Iran never used chemical or biological weapons against Iraq or anyone else in fact it was Iranian Media which covered this atrocity comitted by Iraqis as alittle research would elaborate. If it was not for Iran the world would have never known about Halabja and all the civilans murdered by WMDs provided and financed by USA and European countries. No American and European media covered the event as their respective Gov. were neck deep in the atrocity along with Saddam. These same media outlets with the help of their respective Gov.s tried to put blame on Iran but were unsuccessful as UN investigation clarified matter. REF: 1.See items 6, 7, and 8 of the UN Secretary General's report to the UN Security Council on Dec 9, 1991 2.[5] 3.[6] 4.[7] 5.[8] 6.[9] 7.[10] 8.[11] 9.[12] 10.[ http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=39470 11.[13] 12.[ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068535/site/newsweek 13.[14] 14.[15] 15.[16] 16.[17] 17. "On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement" 18. According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians. 19. Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004, MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6450-5 p.153 20. Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004, MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6450-5 p.156 21.Understanding Iran. 2003, ISBN 1-59257-141-7 p.190 22. UNO and current Gov. of Iraq along with US and coalition have not been able to find a single shred of evidence regarding the use of WMD by Iran against Iraq. No Victims No Documents No materials No nothing. 23.[18] 24.[ http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/uscorpsiniraq.html 25.[19] 26.[20] 27.[21] 28.[22]

In light of these sources cited on no other website other than wikipedia itself there remains littel doubt that USA and Iraq under Saddam were the monsters attacking Iran and using WMDs against Unarmed civilians including children babies and pregnant women with no regret at all. Furthermore it is also a fact that Iranians were victims of these barbaric acts. Since an encyclopedia must reflect truth not mere propaganda of those involved in this atrocity against whole humanity therefore its hoped that humainst truth warriors will tend to the article more turthfully and reflect the whole truth not just a whitewash of the more tolerable facts to certain powers. For example the whole article doesnot include the fact regarding the extrajudicial disappearances of people during his rule neither there is any mention of the fact that he took part in terminating whole villages and shifting all the inhabitants to unmarked mass graves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplerelationship (talk • contribs) 21:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but if you are going to criticse this articles supposed lack of a neutral point of view you might want to examine your own lack of neutrality and your bias first. SGGH speak! 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Which Bias? I dont see any. Everything I have said is completely backedup with citations and sources. Further research would be enlightening. And ofcourse the truth is always bitter. Specially if you have been involved with it on a negative side directly or indirectly. All I am asking here is SOURCES AND CITATIONS so that we can get the PROPAGANDA out of this article. I dont see any bias in that. No offense but it seems you are afraid of a rational discussion backed up by truth, citations and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplerelationship (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not afraid of anything, and I have no thoughts one way or the other. I am merely pointing out that you are asking for a neutral point of view while having a point of view of your own "little doubt that USA and Iraq under Saddam were the monsters attacking Iran and using WMDs against Unarmed civilians including children babies and pregnant women with no regret at all" words like "monsters" and such accusations are hardly NPOV, while the events may have taken place, using such anti-Saddam and the UU language is a way of adding your own point of view, and that is what I was refering to. Also "atrocity against whole humanity therefore its hoped that humainst truth warriors will tend to the article more turthfully and reflect the whole truth not just a whitewash of the more tolerable facts to certain powers", not the most neutral statement ever written. I apologise if what I said upset you, unfortunately that is a drawback of trying to maintain 100% objectivity or as near as possible. SGGH speak! 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This image

Could we expand the caption on the article page to include anyone else who is int he photo who is notable? (if there are any) and also in the image caption highlight which one Saddam is for those of us who can't tell? SGGH speak! 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1993 June 26 U.S. attack on Iraq

At a couple of points in its history, this article has indicated that the U.S. attacked Iraq's intelligence headquarters on 1993 June 26 in retaliation for repeated violations of the no-fly zones. That's understandable, but I think it's incorrect. I've found no evidence to support the claim and a lengthy newspaper article about motivations for the attack that doesn't mention the no-fly zones.[1] I took the liberty of altering this article to include the citation and to remove the suggestion that the 1993 June 26 attack was a response to violation of no-fly zones. John G Bullock 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith (1993-06-27). "U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush". Washington Post. Retrieved on 2007-08-07.
I have put the above reflist in so your citation will work :) SGGH speak! 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[23] This is my own personal autographed ace of spades card. You'll have to scroll down to the lower right hand corner to see the pic. I got it 48 hours after his capture. I was rotating with three othr Ranger medics and got one signed for a buddy of mine too. We sat in a room with him on 8 hour shifts. Anyway, don't know how toi add it.

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Wow, if I didn't know any better, from reading this article, I would have thought Saddam was a wonderful progressive leader who brought Iraq from the Dark Ages into a modern world of freedom and progress where, as the authors so carefully point out, women have rights and Iraqi social welfare is the best in the Middle East. The only problem is that I know that Saddam was a brutal dictator with absolute power over his country, enforced by a vast network of secret police. How come this is all conveniently left out. Where is the discussion of mass graves of Iraqis? Of thousands tortured and murdered in prisons and mass graves? Even the gassing of the Kurds was painted as a "battle" between Iraq and Iran rather than genocide and blatant disregard for human life and rights. I will not change anything - but this article is ridicously biased in favor of Saddam. I did not think one could be pro-Saddam in light of what we know about his regime. But apparently, anything is possible when biases are involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.15 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess Saddam was fine for Sunni/nationalist Arabs but the most interesting thing about this debate is that we discussed it even before he was hanged, again on this page, and I'm sure you can find it in the archives. Deliogul 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm shocked reading this article as well. It's whitewashed beyond comprehension. Can you imagine an article on Hitler only speaking about his accomplishments and unification of the German people, then casually mentioning things like "Germany had disagreements with other nations"??? 67.167.189.167 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also shocked/facinated by the omission of this ruler's sadism from this article. Even if the story of people being thrown in plastics shredders is false there are plenty more which aren't. Also there were his two sons, one of which murdered someone at a party with a steak knife. Plenty of the documents are now available from his regime. For example, there is a prison in the north, near Kirkuk, where 10,500 prisoners died. Executions weren't done there; they all died by torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Saddam's most famous quote!

In August 2002, saddam said:

‘Please come, I have killed enough people, somebody do the world a big favor and kill me’

Saddam is Dead, I hope everyone who supports him die the same way he died, so that the world might become a better place. I hope anyone who supports saddam that God sends them a dictator 10 times worse than saddam and shove it in their behind...................... I am an Iraqi, I will betray Saddam and his alikes, he betrayed the Iraqi people since day one, I hope he burns in hell along with his former and current supporters hahahahaha

What a famous sentence which everybody now knows all around the world. Why isn't this mentioned in this article?

Please put it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.25.71 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This or that way, Iraqis betrayed him and supported a foreign invasion force. Even the wildest dictator can't predict such a thing, at least at this extreme degree. I guess Saddam felt like Stalin when he realized that he is under the attack of Germany. Therefore, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was just a piece of paper and the crowds supporting Saddam were just sound waves which lost in the depths of the universe. Deliogul 22:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the use of the paragraph above. It simply states an opinion, and though perhaps a pretty piece of poetry, it appears to me that it does not belong here. 5:58 PM, October 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.126 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That quote sucks. It is simply a less refined version of what Churchill said 50 years ago: "We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We will never surrender."

Hyperion395 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG

Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Unfortunately, I believe that there is a gap in the information in this article and some of it incorrect. According to the Washington Post, Saddam Hussein became an "assassination in training" in 1957, but fails his attempted assassination of the prime minister Abdul Kassem, and flees to Syria and then Egypt, where he attends an Egyptian law school (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/saddam.htm). The article does not mention any of this information, and claims that Saddam Hussein attended an Iraqi law school. It also says, in the "Rise to Power" section, that "Saddam returned to Iraq," without ever mentioning he left the country. It seems like another article is required between "Youth" and "Rise to Power" to explain why Saddam left the country and his whereabouts when he did so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.126 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the entire section on Saddam's alleged connections to the CIA should be erased, as it is just Leftist propaganda. The Ba'ath Party was Socialist and Pro-Soviet. Communist? No. But from Day 1 of their power Soviet Advisors were present, as well as Soviet equipment. Remember the famous incident of 1966 where the Iraqi Christian pilot defected to Israel with a MiG, I believe a MiG-19. Ba'athist Iraq was a Soviet Client State and Socialist (even if not Communist in the strictest sense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoUticensis (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the statement by George H. W. Bush re "What is at stake is more than one small country it is a big idea a new world order . . ." the article states it was made on March 6, 1991. This is untrue. All you need to do is check your sources! It was made on January 29, 1991 in his state of the union address. see http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3429 for instance. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.125.67 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indexing by Saddam or by Hussein

A recent editor has changed the DEFAULTSORT to "Saddam Hussein" rather than "Hussein, Saddam", with an edit summary that it is based on a comment to index it that way. I have not followed this article, and may just be behind on recent events. But this seems odd to me. Of course, it may also, unbeknownst to me, be the standard way of indexing Arabic names - I doubt it however, seeing that his sons were named Hussein, not Saddam, indicating that Hussein is indeed the name to index. However, before I do any reverting, I'll see what everybody says about this. I'll also ask the editor in question to comment on this discussion. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He was sorted by his given name until a couple of months ago when you changed it.[24] I'm no expert on Arabic names but it seems natural that since our article uses Saddam to refer to the man that we should also index him that way. Hussein is a patronym; his father was named Hussein 'Abid al-Majid. His sons were named Qusay Saddam Hussein and Uday Saddam Hussein, carrying both the name of their father and their grandfather. I see that our articles are at Qusay Hussein and Uday Hussein. I have no idea if that reflects what they were actually called in Iraq or if it is some sort of Western media convention. In any case Western media usually did refer to Saddam Hussein with his given name rather than his patronym. For other presidents sorted by given name rather than patronym we have e.g. Isaias Afewerki and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir. Haukur 08:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Way Too Little NPOV In Intro, Huge Editing To It Is Now Necessary

In the intro, there is only very brief mention of the amount of murders during Saddam's harsh, brutal and near-fascist regime, and when it is given a tiny amount of coverage here only one incident is mentioned and even that is presented in toned-town form. Only the most relevant information should be displayed in the intro and this is indeed very relevant. Plenty sources can be cited that this blood-thirsty and vicious tyrant's murders go above and beyond what the intro mentions, and so I believe clean-up is now essential. If - and only if - someone disputes this, I will put my editing on hold. But if nobody disputes it after a while, I will change it to fit to everyone's liking. 172.216.221.176 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to be cautious about it. This is after all about him, not his regime, and if you're going to take the line that he's blood-thirsty and vicious, it sounds like you're planning more than a clean-up. The article needs to have an accurate account of the person's life, and he personally did many things while he was alive besides preside over the widely reported actions of his police/military. 81.96.164.105 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
These edits need to be made: please make them. We need more than a cleanup here. Despite what the user above me says, this article is deficient in discussing Saddam's regime, which because he was a dictator, belongs in this article. We need extensive discussion of the horrors he inflicted on his own people throughout his time in power: to leave these out is to actively seek to make Saddam appear less brutal. Accurate documentation of the murders, arrests and activities of the secret police (including the use of torture) is needed. It is not in dispute that he was a vicious tyrant. That's not a "line", that's a fact.58.160.66.242 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a little "pamphlet for the kiddies". WP is not censored for anyone. I'm obviously not going to directly say that he's blood-thirsty and vicious, I'm merely asserting that the more despicable aspects of his regime should be reported as well as the other parts! You're absolutely right that it should be a neutral account of his life, that is why I'm asking for ALL the information to be covered, not just SOME! there are plenty of sources for this, and all "accurate" information is conviniently left out! Let's have the truth, then...172.189.155.111 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

Footnote 47 to The Guardian is broken. I don't know if anybody knows of an alternative? DoyleyTalk 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Raisin Bran versus Fruit Loops

I don't understand why my proposed language regarding Saddam's preferred foods while incarcerated keeps getting deleted? The article which forms the basis of it is one of the more interesting ones I've seen regarding his incarceration, giving some insight into his living conditions during that period and his personal interactions with U.S. military personnel.Spirogyra 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been added and removed several times now, so per WP:CONSENSUS, it should be discussed here. For my part, this seems to be rather trivial material, and certainly not encyclopedic, therefore I'd prefer to not see it in the article. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is incredibly trivial. What is next, listing his favorite brand of socks? --OuroborosCobra 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know what "encyclopedic" means. I suppose it means "I don't like it." Is the issue that he was eating "Fruit Loops" and "Raisin Bran" which sounds to some readers juvenile? Would it be better if it said he was served "grapefruits and tea," which wouldn't sound so "silly"? The significance of this information is not necessarily what his favorite cereal was, but that it reveals something about his condition and treatment while incarcerated. Clearly they were feeding him those Kellogg's individual serving cereal boxes for breakfast, and you can imagine something of what transpired in his cell -- how he would probably curse Fruit Loops, and the American tastes that support it, every time they put it in his cell. Yet at the same time, he developed a love for Doritos, another similarly tacky American snack. The contradiction is fabulous and it reveals something of his desperation that he was reduced to gorging on Doritos, something he would have never ever touched during his time as President of Iraq. I had omitted some information I had previously included about marriage advice he was giving to guards. I actually thought that information was interesting, since it showed how he was developing personal relationships with guards and it also revealed how he viewed himself as an expert in all things, including matters of love, but I thought some PC thinkers might have found his comments sexist and so that might be why it was being deleted. Personally, I'd put that back in, but that's just me. These are details that make his story *interesting*. Spirogyra 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can come up with something written, say, by a psychology professor agreeing with you that this gives any insight beyond that he just happened to like one cereal over another, that is almost entirely original research in an attempt to give something trivial notoriety. I must ask what would be next, noting that he wears Fruit of the Loom underwear, but uses deodorant made in North Korea, thus giving us some other deep insight into his psyche? I seriously, seriously doubt anything was being deleted because of "PC", but most likely because it didn't come off as anything but trivial. I don't think we have his conversations with his Imam either, or what he said to his mother on his 5th birthday. --OuroborosCobra 08:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. You can't clutter articles with trivialities like favourite food. However I do agree that there is a little interest in the fact that he seems to have asked for Western-style snacks. But since we don't know what he normally ate or what choice he had, or how often he actually did eat those things, it's not substantial enough to go in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually think this paragraph adds some level of being human to him. Even Hitler is not just a monster. This portion is what eventually led me to stop believing blindly that the coalition forces, specifically the usa, did not lie to justify the invasion. Though I agree that this fact is not encyclopedic, I wish for a way to keep it. Monsters are human, too.74.67.17.22 (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What cereal he ate did that? You need to go back to logic classes... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.ioffer.com/i/74224721?store=1== Saddam capture ==

I think Wikipedia shouldn't simply be a rehash of aggregated CNN and Fox News exerpts from over the years and should actually include less favourable media information. The fact that there were dates growing from the palms around Saddam's "spiderhole" when he was supposedly captured on December 13 (a time when Bush was focused on re-election) has become yesterday's news by now and is common knowledge. As are the many facial inconsistencies (notably the eyes and teeth) between the captured Saddam and the real one. I hate to say it but the newer slim-toned Saddam with the ovular headshape and the mysterious never-before seen-mole above his left eye was a fake. Anyway here are two very interesting links. The first one is unique because its probably been banned from television and the second one is nothing short of shocking if you listen closely. Below that is what should give this legitimacy from a mainstream standpoint. Also if you google Dieter Buhmann you can find tons of information regarding the reality of Saddam's doubles.

I'm not asking for Wikipedia to be a cosy little corner of cyberspace for conspiracy theorists to dwell in, but I do expect it to present an accurate overview of world events. That of course, would be a little more difficult.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SffdvpNGQBs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nSG-f-rdC3w

According to Yahoo, a respected mainstream news provider, the body double theory has "credence" -

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070412/139/6egz2.html

I wouldn't have called Yahoo a respected mainstream news provider. And while you say that Wikipedia has rehased CNN and Fox, you have just given us a rehash of sensationalist news stories about conspiracies, and told us that we should take those news stories as fact over CNN's and Fox's. I'm not being hostile, I'm just pointing out how weak some news stories and sensationalism can appear. Credit can be given to the body double theory, because one does exist, and I believe it is given in the article. However "the reality of Saddam's double" in his trials, well... reality is your opinion isn't it. :) SGGH speak! 11:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And the line that no double was used, and the real Saddam was tried and executed is also someone's opinion. If there are objective reasons to call this into question, such as the mole feature mentioned, then until that's looked at and discounted scientifically, the matter is open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes its all good. As long as the matter is open and we're not too quick to dismiss scientifically backed ideas as conspiracy theories (which I know can get annoying), then all is fine. I should probably have included the now fairly well known report regarding Saddam's wife from the Russian newspaper Pravda and other several other news outlets. What I sometimes get unhappy with is not the fact that our mainstream news media do not believe these reports, but that it pretends they do not exist. This particular report I had to find via detailed searches on google, whereas it should have made headlines when it was published in April 2004. Here is the link -

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/12494_saddam.html

--80.175.110.17 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased

Why are the editors of this article so silent about the genocidal crimes and htared of Saddam towards Iranians? It is very biased. And of course Al-Jazeera ommits his last racist remarks towards Iranians. Of course. Al Jazeera is itself an Anti-Iraniast Pan-Arabist source. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Omitted/fabricated information

Among other issues, this post neglects to mention that Saddam spent years as a torturer prior to assuming leadership. This is crucial to his later leadership methods, which routinely involved torture and extensive use of secret police. But I guess since the article doesn't mention THAT either, the writer didn't think it would be a problem.

The section on infrastructure seems to be mostly fabricated. There is extensive evidence that Saddam rerouted most of the power to Baghdad, and failed to maintain or build infrastructure outside of the city. Furthermore, it is blatantly false that he "modernised" the economy, since they had no economy to speak of despite being rich in natural resources.

This article is incredibly biased and needs to be completely rewritten.58.160.66.242 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA involvement in 1963 assasination

I believe "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963." Should be changed to "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963, aided by the CIA." Since they didn't have a chance without the CIA's help. I think it should be shown somewhere in this article that the CIA had an essential role in Saddam's rise to power.

source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,817834,00.html "A few years later, Quasim was overthrown in a CIA-assisted coup." I'm having trouble finding a news article more specifically concerned with the 1963 events. But CIA's involvement is Historical fact, backed up by CIA officials.

I think the coup is important in Saddam's life because: 1) He participated in a failed assasination attempt earlyer (some say he was the gunman, he himself admits to having kept the weapons) 2) That's the major turning point in Iraqui history that lead to him taking power.

I'd rather let someone else do the editing, as there may be more to discuss regarding this issue. --140.77.129.149 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for a CIA link except that they certainly had eyes on the ground. Saddam was certainly no western tool as he had strong communist links with Russia and had nationalized Iraq's oil assets shortly after seizing power. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is horribly, horribly, BIASED!!! FIX!!!

Jesus Christ, it is nauseating to find such an bias, non-NPOV, article like this on Wikipedia. The ammount of half truths, misconceptions, and weasel words on this page is ridiculous.

Who wrote this ...? A triumvirate of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore ...? I'm not a republican supporter but this article doesn't even seem to attempt to present a neutral point of view, making it read hard for me to take Wikipedia seriously at the moment. Looking only at the introduction..., there is absolutely no mention of Saddams cruelty and tyranny, zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilians he directly perpetuated the death of, no trace of the the proven geonocide, chemical attacks and nuclear weapons research he was involved with. Why? Why? Why?

The best part about the intro is that it's wrapped up with this nice, little piece of garbage "his execution aroused controversies and protests all around the world." Gee, that about defines weasel words. His execution obviously aroused controversies and protests all around the world... events with worldwide repercussions seem to have that effect. This closing sentence gives the impression that the execution was widely condemned all over the world... which it very well might have been. However the execution was also celebrated all over the world, and was probably found acceptable by a huge, silent, majority of global spectators.

Apparently the people who have the ability to edit this article would rather pervert knowledge in the interest of their own political agenda rather than providing objective information in the spirit of Wikipedia. Way to go guys keep it up.

Hyperion395 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the man himself, not how he ruled a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.136.78 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One could easily make the arguement that it is your above statement that is "horribly horribly BIASED". One must always be aware that, if one sees something to be biased, ones own position may be equally biased in the other direction. Your statement "addams cruelty and tyranny, zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilians he directly perpetuated the death of, no trace of the the proven geonocide, chemical attacks and nuclear weapons research he was involved with. Why? Why? Why?" is probably more POV than most of this article. SGGH speak! 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only a heavily biased article but has also been heavily edited by conspiracy theorists and anti-western ragtags. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very interesting opinion, 81.208.106.64. Would you perhaps be willing to provide factual evidence? 75.189.132.215 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How many hundreds of thousands did the Americans kill (directly or indirectly) in their recent invasion? 84.9.33.11 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, roughly 1.2 million less than the regime itself did. @@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.45.206 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since far more than that fled the country after the invasion, they couldn't be killed there. Lars T. (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Video

I am doing a long term study on death, suicide, and other death related things, so could somebody give me a link to an uncut version of any videos relating to his death? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Jimmy666 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)