Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"Burial" Question

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)

If it does not violate any copyright, that is fine. ~ UBeR 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vatican reaction

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)

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)

Feedback on appropriateness of a link (no, not an external one)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Yahoo! references

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)

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)
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)
OK, thanks. All of the Yahoo! links have been replaced, I believe. ~ UBeR 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What about his execution being illegal?

I heard on the BBC World Service that according to Iraqi Law it is illegal to execute anyone on any Muslim holy day. Does anyone else have any information about this?--70.243.108.229 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little unclear whether the holiday began at sunrise or at sunset on the 30th. Either way, theoretically they got the job done before the holiday began. Maybe an Islamic expert could weigh in on this. Wahkeenah 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well advocates for Saddam's death say he was killed before the holiday. In Islam, days start with the sunrise and ends with the sunset (from what's been explained to me). Sources range from being executed slightly before to slightly after 6 A.M. local time. Now, for Sunnis, the holiday began on the 30th (the day of the execution); for Shias it began on the day after (Sunday). So it definitely came before the Shia holidy, but the question is whether it came before the Sunni holiday. Some protest saying that it occured on their holy day, on which executions are bannished. Some protest that it even occurred so close to their holiday. Others simply say (as the Iraqi Prime Minister did) that it posed as a security threat to hold off the execution and that, in fact, it had occurred before the holiday began. ~ UBeR 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hence the persistent question of what the exact time of the execution was. Days go from sunrise to sunset? What happens to the nights? Which day are they a part of, the one preceding or the one after? Wahkeenah 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't a clue. My presumption is that after sunset, the night becomes the night of the preceding day. Makes most sense to make, anyway.
However, according to this Web site, sunrise came at least a full hour after the execution. ~ UBeR 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Muslim dates start at sunset. Muslim days start with the sunrise. Thus, the night of a date comes prior to the day of a date, as oppossed to Western culture (and I suppose every else), where the day is sandwiched between parts of the night on any particular date (i.e, midnight - sunrise - midday (noon) - sunset - midnight....). Anyhow, from what I understand, the Sunnis held Eid al-Adha on Saturday December 30, meaning the holiday began at sunset the night before (i.e., sunset on the 29th.) and the first day of Eid (it is 3-days long) ended on sunset on December 30. So, if Saddam was hung (hanged?) at ~6am December 30, it fell on the day of Eid. Pepsidrinka 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Then he was hanged on the holiday, hence the complaints. It sounds like the Muslim calendar works the same as the Jewish calendar, i.e. when a holiday is stated as being on a certain day, it actually begins on the previous evening. Wahkeenah 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
See the article on the Islamic calendar: The Islamic and Jewish weekdays begin at sunset Park3r 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Copycat deaths

There are reports of children seemingly mimicking the scenes of execution shown on television, resulting in their own deaths. In Houston, Texas, a ten year-old boy was found dead with a slipknot around his neck, shortly after watching a news item about the execution. The video also apparently influenced a nine year-old boy in Pakistan to hang himself from a ceiling fan with the aid of his sister. A fifteen year-old girl from Kolkata, India was reported to have hanged herself after becoming extremely depressed by watching Saddam's televised execution.

References: http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4443091.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070101/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanchildrensaddam_070101120149 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bengal_teenager_hangs_herself_over_Saddams_execution/articleshow/1052172.cms

I know the one story of the nine year-old was added under the media section then removed partly because someone thought it was "trivial". However now that three such incidents are being reported and widely discussed, it's surely looking less "trivial".

Problem is I don't see a suitable section for it. It would probably make most sense in a subsection of its own under a section of the reaction to the media coverage, or in a subsection under the world reaction. But that might be giving it too much importance. So I'm just going to note it here for reference in case anyone comes up with a solution. (Winnow 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

I didn't remove it, but I sort of agree with it. People hang themselves by the hundreds every year, if not more. I doubt Saddam was the sole reason for their suicides. ~ UBeR 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OR, whereas the claims are backed by reliable sources. Sfacets 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I concede. ~ UBeR 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this copycat section should be moved to "Copycat effect", which is a sparse article as it is. And the reference to the Saddam copycat hangings should be reduced to a one-sentence mention somewhere under Reaction, which links to the article Copycat effect. It is largely irrelevant to the political ramifications of Saddam's execution (especially 6-12 months from now), but is highly relevant to the Copycat effect article. 71.81.237.90 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we must watch for recentism that may seem very exciting to add at first, but unsubstantial in the long run. Currently I'm indifferent with what to do with that section. ~ UBeR 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC
I actually like recentism, because we can always rely on future editors of this page to modify the article. Two years from now they will certainly find it irrelevant and worth perhaps a one-sentence mention connecting to Copycat effect. But for now I think a number of people find it noteworthy. 71.81.237.90 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be irrelevant to the political ramifications of the execution, but I don't see how this article is solely about politics. However, I'd argue the copycat deaths are more relevant to the media coverage and censorship issues in general, as I hinted above by suggesting it go in an unprovided 'reaction to the media coverage' section (where I assume groups would complain about the lack of censorship). Since that section doesn't exist (for now), the suggestion to move it to copycat effect seems fair or just leave it here and wait to see if there is some reason to have more detail concerning the media coverage aspect. Winnow 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Uber user problem

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)

Time of Execution

Since some people are too lazy to look in the archive (random IP vandalizer), I'll renew the discussion. Executed at 06:00?[1][2] 06:05?[3] "Short after 06:00"?[4][5] 06:10?[6] 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)

Or mention that here are conflicting reports on the time of death, providing sources... Sfacets 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links & Spam?

Please remain civil. I reverted your edit because you removed (vandalised?) links:

Sfacets 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But please conscious of other edits you are removing when you doing reverts. As per WP:EL, links that are to be included and considered include: 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. And consider 1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. 2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. 3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. None of those links fit this. These can be incorporated into the article rather then being spammed in the External Links section. ~ UBeR 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam, few links like that, the exact nature of what happend, the facts should not be in general article but part of external links, now you will reply wiki is not a depository for links, of course not, but did you notice how some articles are, some are not? It's all about the situation and the person.

I am not going to argue, you are simply placing these links here, the links which should be on the main page, by pointing out my links, you are making a bigger idiot that you are, those links clearly point out to execution and are of importance and they deal with execution, i totally reject your childish claims and your vandalism. Civil? You are the one who started this. Ok, you can remove the word as he wished, but if you look in his last letter, he did point out he wanted to be a real martyr. So again, you have no point and waste my time.

You aren't getting my point. You're right, they may have some pretty interesting and valid points. What I'm saying, however, is that these links are not appropriate for the External Links section, as per Wikipedia's own External Links policy. These can very easily be incorporated into the text as a third party source rather than just being a random spammed link. ~ UBeR
What's wrong with you, spam, what spam, just because people in india wrote that, you have something against them because they are not americans or something?
and death was after 6...http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html
You have time on your hands to argue, so argue with yourself.
Ugh... No. I'm saying they're good sources (well at least two of them are). Almost half, if not more, of our sources in this article are foreign. And I know the Hindu times is used at least once or twice. They're good sources. They're not appropriate for the external links. Please read what I wrote. They can be incorporated into the text, rather than simply being placed in the EL section without context.
P.S. Please see above section for discussion on time of death. One blog won't cut it. ~ UBeR 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ask iraqi government, it's in the books 6:10. If you want to add execution link you can add cnn, after death footage is ok.
I don't know what you just said. However, for a discussion for the time of execution, please see above section. ~ UBeR 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You just want saddam to hang and others to see that disgusting image?
u may have a point, but videos were not allows, also wiki does not allow or any civilized site things and videos which spread violence, hatred, putting somebody down
I don't have an agenda other than to present the facts relevant to this article. As for the video, it's already been discussed. See the discussion. I can't help you other further than that, other than explaining official Wikipedia policies. ~ UBeR 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, the wiki does. Please read WP:CENSOR; anything is allowed as long as it's appropriate for that article, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. (Note: neutral point of view may not mean what you think it means. See the link if you have any questions at all.) I'm not positive what you mean by "videos were not allows", either. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free, accurate compendium of information, not to be the pope.
Any moral judgments you or others might make should not stop Wikipedia from being complete. Also note at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer that "Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics." If reading Wikipedia makes someone spread hatred, Wikipedia is not responsible for that. This is not to say that spreading violence is correct in all cases; but Wikipedia, as I said, is not here to judge whether things are morally acceptable or not. (Of course, in some cases, WP:OFFICE might need to be enforced; also, breaking of Federal laws on Wikipedia should not happen.) Note that this is redundant; see above discussion. GracenotesT § 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, it is a requirement that you remain civil, failing to do so violates the No Personal Attack policy.Sfacets 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're better off discussing this with said unsigned user above. It's a fact I don't know what he just said. That's exactly a reply to the content, not the editor. All my statements are coming from Wikipedia policy. If believe me saying Wikipedia is not censored as a personal attack, you're best off revising their policy page. ~ UBeR 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I protected it, due to excess reverting. I also removed the video links, due to excess tastelessness. Discuss... William M. Connolley 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I'd like to point you toward our previous discussion of the issue. Granted it was discussion on putting a "WARNING" disclaimer, no one even mentioned the validity and merit it contains and contributes to this article. All are in agreeance that the video is an important contribution. You may see the discussion at the following link: Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#Warnings.2C_Again. Officially, Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel this video is shocking, please see Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. For other discussion on whether this presents a historical and accurate description of the events of December 30th, please refer to Archive 1. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure I'm correct, which is why I left a note on WP:AN about this. If I'm wrong, some admin better at policy will correct me William M. Connolley 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as how virtually all news sources have posted the images/video of the first link you removed (video of noose going around his neck; nothing further), I would wholly assume it's suitable for Wikipedia. It's not censored. Please see the discussions. Your decision to leave it to the admins, I believe, is imprudent (see ElKevbo's comment below). ~ UBeR 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, uber simply says everything comes from wiki policy, twists few things in his way and then makes it look he is right, he removed saddam's last hours link, placed ugly site of execuition, insted of putting the cnn version, reverted important things and argues with everybody else, why is this guy here i do not know.

Please learn to sign your messages (with ~~~~); learn a bit of wiki syntax (blank lines not paragraph tags) and above all constructively discuss the article content rather than attacking others William M. Connolley 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... Honestly out of 1000 administratos, may be just may be 10 should be here. Attack others for trying to correct death to 6:10pm., whatever, fine, i attack others, but that still can never change the fact and official truth... This is killing my time, uber has personal agenda against something... I did everything what's right and on talk page but to no avail, this version should be as follows... Saddam died at 6:10, this guy kept on reverting and making things wrong... Iraq official death certificate is 6:10, died 6:05... http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/01/wld02.asp

Yes. That's one source: dailynews.lk (reuters). Thank you for that source. However, many different sources ([7][8][9][10]) say differently. I don't have an agenda other than to present the facts relevant to this article. So, please, remain civil. ~ UBeR 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So couldn't we write something like "the reported time of death differs"? Even in the sources provided by UBeR (thank you) the time is not stated exactly. but written "sometime after 6". Sfacets 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC) According to WP:EL, links should be tasteful, the video obviously isn't, and so the link to it must be removed. Sfacets 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's your own POV. That's fine. We had a discussion and the consensus, not just one person's opinion, is that it documents accurately historical events. ~ UBeR
According to WP:CENSOR, Wikipedia is not censored. I find the video relevant and tasteful, no less than a photo of a mushroom cloud is relevant to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reswobslc 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. I haven't followed this article with a microscope but I have been following it and I was under the impression that we had a pretty good consensus regarding the video. That some may want to edit war over the link is no indication of a lack of consensus and to assert otherwise is a logical fallacy.
There are clearly some other issues over which other editors are edit warring and I reserve judgment on those issues. But in the issue of the video I believe it is silly to bow to the wishes of a few whose POV wants to prevent us from linking to a video of significant historical significance and contemporary media interest. --ElKevbo 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just wait for the WP:AN input on this matter. Discussing is obviously getting us nowhere. Sfacets 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Administrators are welcome to give their input and their voices will count towards establishing consensus. But unless this is a matter of policy (and I vehemently deny that it is) then it's our right and obligation as editors to continue the conversation and work towards consensus. --ElKevbo 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, pay attention... Uber wrote... Time and place of execution Saddam was executed at approximately 06:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on December 30, 2006. Ok, if he wrote some time after, that is different, there are 100;s of sources that say it was after 6, what uber is inputting, is information that was correct only first day or in the first hours after execution, again are you challenging the official death by iraqi (puppet) government, it is legal and binding. Wiki is open place AND I DISAGREE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SHOW SOMEBODY'S DEATH, HOW WOULD YOU FEAL? Anybody can go on google video and find that, but when you are doing a research on saddam, why should you watch something ugly and horrific, what good does that bring, i mentioned many times in the past and i honestly am wating time here... wiki can not be uncivil, meaning spreading hate thru ugly hanging videos, where are your morals? There are many links which point out he died at 6:05, pronounced dead at 6:10!http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=5873023&nav=RmOibfFz

If you object to the link, don't click on it. It's that plain and simple. It's clearly labeled as what you'd expect to see. It's not like it says "Click here to see poignant moments of Saddam" or something. We're not tricking you into seeing this hanging. It says "Execution--Cell phone video of hanging, including final moments". It's your choice to click on that link or not, if you do click it, you know what to expect.. I'm not a fan of the content of the link, by the way, I think it's pretty ridiculous, but it exists, so I think it does have its proper place in the article. For an example, see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where it was decided to allow the photos to stay, even if it offends people. Metros232 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If the user can't even listen to an admin, I wonder if trying to engage in a discussion with him is futile? User, unless you can find a source of the Iraqi government's death certificate for Saddam, then your claim is unsourced. Already, I have presented multiple sources that differ from your statement. Thus, it is appropriate to say he died at approximately 06:00 local time. (See the approximate? It eliminates the problem of conflicting reports. All reports agree he died at approximately 06:00.)
Again, if you feel you are shocked by the video, then please refrain from watching it. The description factually described the video contents (i.e. "Execution . . . including final moments"). It is your POV that is a horrific video. The consensus, however, it that is historically and accurately depicts a landmark event in the history of Iraq. ~ UBeR 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"excess tastelessness" is given as the reason for deleting the videos, which basically throws away "Wikipedia is not censored." It is ugly and hateful. So? So are executions by of Garrote lynchings Hangings Execution by firing squad Guillotine Assassinations, all of which are illustrated. No one is forced to look. Edison 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The simple heart of the matter is that Wikipedia IS censored, because it contains policy that limits what we can or not put into an article. Sfacets 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trying to change the context of the policy. Your point is moot. Wikipedia's policy on censorship isn't about their guidelines on style and other blatant content. To clarify, here is what they state: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." The policy is in reference to your POV judgments that the video is "tasteless." In all, Wikipedia is not censored and the video demonstrates factual and historical proceedings in a NPOV. ~ UBeR 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:EL? Come back when you have. Sfacets 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Have you? ~ UBeR 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which version did you read? My version says only to include tasteful external links. Sfacets 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring the same points that have been repeated a million times, but you only do it this time with a personal attack. "What to link: 1. Is it accessible to the reader? 2. Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? 3. Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?" 1. Yes it's accessible per Wikipedia's accessibility policy. 2. It is in very proper context (it is useful, tasteful, informative, and factual, etc.). 3. The link functions. Your POV of the issue is outvoiced by the consensus of this article's editors. I'm sorry. Regards. ~ UBeR 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole debate is on whether the link is tasteful. Of course they have been repeated (perhaps not a million) many times. Perhaps it is your' POV opinions that it is tasteful? Sfacets 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets and William M. Connolley: WP:EL says to consider several things when adding an external link. One of these things is, "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" Links to online video of the execution of Saddam Hussein are proper in the context of the article. Is it useful in the context of the article? Yes, especially for researchers and those wanting to see what the controversy of this subject is about. Is it tasteful in the context of the article? Linking to video of the specific subject of the article can hardly be seen as less tasteful than the subject. Is it informative? Indisputably, the video contains tons of information about the subject of the article. Is it factual? It is an actual video of the fact Saddam Hussein was executed. I hope you will come to understand that in the context of an article about the execution of Saddam Hussein, linking to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein is proper. In another context, it might not be. Here it is. William M. Connolley: Removing the external links you do not like and then locking the article is disruptive. --Hab baH 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the article is not sposoring any one version. William M. Connolley was right in blocking the article for a period of time while the edit warring was at it's highest earlier. I don't care one way or the other, all I was doing is providing a link to WP:EL and pointing out a section to benefit the debate. Not allowing the debate to form à la UBeR is more disruptive. Sfacets 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, and remain civil. I have not disrupted or hindered the debate. I've stated the facts and allowed you present your opinion. I agree with Hab baH. Though the lock does not sponsor the current version, William M. Connolley did lock the article and remove the links afterward. Whether you consider that disruptive or not, that's what he did. ~ UBeR 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets: Locking an article and then removing the content you do not like has the effect of sponsoring the version of the article without the content. As explained above, WP:EL does not support removing the external links to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. The consensus of this debate has been to keep the links. It should be noted that prior discussion of the external links has implicitly supported the retention of the external links to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. Removing the links without discussion and locking the article is unnecessarily disruptive. --Hab baH 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: The official Wikipedia policy for protecting a page says: "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice." After protecting the page, you edited the protected page twice: (1) once to remove content you did not agree with and (2) once to add a protected page notice. Removing the content you did not agree with after the page was protected is a clear violation of the protecting page policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy for protecting a page says: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Please act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.--Hab baH 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive William M. Connolley had not been active on the article prior to the block. He decided to block it when it became apparent that there was overwhelming edit-warring going on, and removed the disputed content. He did nothing to contrary policy. Sfacets 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As stated in the policy (emphasis added): "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice." The removal of content after the page became protected (performing an edit) is explicitly contrary to the policy. The policy is sound because otherwise an editor can use the page protect feature in combination with a subsequent edit to endorse a particular view of what the page should be. In this case, the protecting editor, William M. Connolley, removed the video links due to his belief they represent excess tastelessness --Hab baH 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the protocol, I'd like to mention that I am against the inclsion of the video as well. 80.178.43.136 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing your reasons. --Hab baH 07:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, let me make it quite clear that I know its against policy to edit protected pages. But it happens, on occaision. Nonetheless, the page is protected now. I suggest you don't get hung up debating this point - it will do no good - but instead use the period of page protection to discuss the state of the article William M. Connolley 09:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"I know it's against policy but I did it anyway?" Poor show. We expect better from administrators. --ElKevbo 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, though: why are you not complaining about the other 3-4 edits made after protection? William M. Connolley 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Because I didn't notice them. I don't expect administrators to blatantly ignore and violate policies so it's not something for which I police articles. WTF? I'm taking this to one of the admin notice boards as this is completely unacceptable. --ElKevbo 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SADDAM, PRESIDENT?

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).

(edit conflict) Because that is what he was. Why do you think President and democracy have any connection? Why does his murderous tendencies not make him a President? He was the President and dictator is a weasel word that only creates strife on wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, MAYBE WE SHOULD REVIEW THE DEFINITION: PRESIDENT (noun) the chief official of a country that is a republic. A DICTATORSHIP IS NOT A REPUBLIC. HE TOOK OVER CONTROL OF IRAQ, HE DID NOT BOTHER WITH AN ELECTION.

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)

Also, PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT. Thank you. Sfacets 02:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

And remember the minefield that the word dictator presents. To some people Saddam is a hero, SqueakBox 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
I concur. ~ UBeR 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an issue. (1) it's not descriptive, as people have different ideas of what constitutes dictatorship (2) it invites edit warring over less obvious cases. Gazpacho 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Above all, the families of the countless victims of this dreadful man and his vast apparatus of terror must now feel a sense of justice done," writes Anne Yasmine Rassam, vice president of foreign policy and international women's issues for the Independent Women’s Forum. "Many of these families had given up hope that he will be made to pay for his crimes. … Now, for many Iraqis, and for many Arabs, this single act of disposing of their dictator has reassured them that the system of law and order, heretofore nearly non-existent, may actually begin to function: that criminals will pay for their crimes, even such exalted figures as presidents may one day pay for their acts of terror. As one Egyptian Saddam supporter, demonstrating against the execution in Cairo, said: 'It is unbelievable that they have actually executed their president.'" Asteriks 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's strictly editorializing and POV-pushing. It does not belong in the article. Wahkeenah 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein/Archive_4&oldid=1062695384"