Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 3

What Happened to the Link to the Cell Phone Video?
It appears to have disappeared. The video is already out. Don't try to censor it. Censorship sucks. Give people all the information.
 * See the discussion below titled "protected." Some admin thought it prudent to remove perfectly valid links. ~ UBeR 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcc5zJcCNFM

Censorship really sucks !!

And the streaming link with full audio - guards arguing with Saddam and shouting slogans... while he is praying : - Saddam's Hanging Full Streaming Video - Unedited Uncut with Full Audio

Warning Regarding Execution Video
I removed the Warning: Graphic Content bit from before the video of the execution, and instead prefaced each link with whether the footage is from before, during, or after the execution. It is understandable that some readers may not want to watch video of the actual execution, but there's no need to be condescending. The link clearly indicates that the footage includes the execution; adding a warning is merely superfluous (Hmm... the link says man being executed... I wonder if I might see footage of someone being killed...). That would be like putting a warning at the top of the Penis article saying that pictures of penises may follow; that ought to be a given. Additionally, viewing the video, I don't even see what's so graphic about it; there is a significant portion of the main event that is hidden from view. I've seen far more disgusting things on the Discovery Health Channel and the evening news. --  tariq abjotu  04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many kids died
If you recall, 2 weeks ago I simply wanted grisly in the video, as cnn reported, but nothing, now we have over 15 kids who hung themselves,i am not saying because of wiki BUT HEY, YOU NEVER KNOW... So, I did what was appropriate, now, I hope you are all happy and can live in peace with your pathetic selves, especially uber who has clear agenda here, sure, nice guy and all, nice reply, but this is sophisticated vandalism, not to mention his approach and of course there are others like him...so, if this is trolling, again, shows how many smart people run this place... like metros who is complete zero,.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.142 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Personally I like the version better when it looked like:
 * Saddam Hussein before execution — (Reuters) video footage of the executioners placing the noose around the neck of Saddam Hussein.
 * Saddam Hussein's execution (after) — (CNN) video footage moments after the execution.
 * Amateur footage of execution - Cell phone video footage of Saddam's hanging, including his final moments.
 * Looked a lot cleaner, and actually explained a lot more clearly. ~ UBeR 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works too. I was worried that might not have been clear enough for some people, but perhaps it might be. --  tariq abjotu  05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course this is wrong. If you rent a porno or a snuff film ( like Tarrintino's "Hostel" ) they come with warnings that the content is severely graphic and should only be viewed by people who understand this.  That's the way of the world - something potentially dangerous or disturbing is labelled as such, even when that label seems redundant.  Please notice that CNN et al did NOT show the video, and it's very likely that a reader of a global encyclopedia might expect similar self censorship.  While it's true that Wikipedia is uncensored, a casual reader who lands here from a Google search isn't likely to know the deep inner workings and policies of this site.  Regardless of what one thinks of Saddam, or how warrented his death may seem, it's still a very disturbing thing to watch a man die.  In reality - this isn't Law and Order.  FireWeed 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a major newsoutlet nor is it a feature film. Our duty is not to mimic other sources in their decisions. ~ UBeR 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The full "amateur" video has not been shown on most mainstream media, wikipedia users might be fooled to believe that they are watching the cut-media-friendy version. It is also wierd because most porn links on wikipedia has a note or warning but an actual death does not. Death is a VERY serious subject for most individuals 83.255.71.22 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you, why you need a warning before a video titled as Execution Video. Just added a the streaming version of the video with full clear audio - where you can listen to guards shouting the slogan while Saddam was reciting his last prayers which ofcourse never ended. And who says that this video is pirated ?? of course not..the guy shooting clearly stood over the dark hole and pointed his cellphone to get views of the swinging body - and must be to everyones knowledge and view in that room.

And here is the link should wiki decide to remove it : http://www.hotclips.mobi/view_video.php?viewkey=8b1a652ea7fd72d942da Nikita mehta 13:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings, Again
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. --  tariq abjotu  18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You said "Wikipedia is not in the position to tell people what is inappropriate content for some readers," but you fail to realize Wikipedia doesn't tell people whether or not they're part of this group some readers . That's left up to the reader to decide.  As the news world almost universally does not make this video available, Wikipedia is doing so outside the norm, and a warning is valid.  FireWeed 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia never was the norm. Wikipedia is not CNN. Wikipedia is not FOX News. They contain obligations and are restrained for certain and obvious reasons. ~ UBeR 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Hostel was described ( including on the box ) as a torture movie, however all of the violence in the movie was implied, not shown. A video titled "execution of Saddam" that shows rather than implies the man's death ( ie camera does not pan 180 degrees ) deserves a warning.  FireWeed 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So says you. Others disagree with you, however. Please note we are not a feature film. We're an online encyclopedia. Your argument that "everyone else does so should we," is little more than a logical fallacy. ~ UBeR 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Describing my arguement as such would be a logical fallacy; of course I'm not saying Wikipedia's purpose should be to become a feature film.  But that doesn't change the fact that most people are used to violence being hidden from the camera, even when its described or hinted at.  That enough people will expect the same, by convention, here, and a small amount of text describing the content of the video is warrented for this reason.  The only logical fallacy I see is the arguement against any such text that the video does in fact show a man's death is that people who seek out this video will be disuaded from watching it because of this accompanying text.  Nothing could be further from the truth, however, there will be some who click the link for historical and geopolitical significance and expect to see a wide shot of the entire chamber with little detail of the actual death, or the camera pan to the witnesses.  We write these articles in English for exactly the same reason - to be able to communicate effectively.  FireWeed 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop representing your opinion, and your idealistic notions as facts. It is those advocating against the warning who are pushing their point of view and injecting their ideals of Wiki culture as original research. Every reputable media outlet that has aired this footage has labeled it with "warning:graphic content". It is Wikipedia that is censoring the warning and representing in a false light content from reputable published sources, which all concur that the content is graphic. Reputable sourced did not describe it as video of an execution -- they described it as graphic. The later suggests a well-recognized impact likely to be realized by many unsuspecting viewers. It refers to the predictable effect, not to the details of the content. Only Wikipedia claims that it is not graphic, and that readers don't deserve full access to the explanations of Wikipedia's sources in the content of Wikipedia's mash-up of other more reputable sources. Either accurately represent your sources or quit pretending to be a tertiary source that does not synthesize original research. You're fooling yourself.  You haven't fooled the rest of us. Of course, you've already dug in your heels -- you are now not part of a figurative mob, but part of an actual lynch mob, so I don't leave my comment here with the intent of changing your mind. I leave my comment with the intent of exposing  the lynch mob.  DeathOfReason 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. CNN, FOX, BBC, etc. are censored, and for obvious reasons. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not a major news outlet. Yes, sources, like CNN, say the video is graphic. Well, there's your source. But now you have to say something like: "CNN reports that this video is graphic," or "it's reported this video contains graphic content," with accordance to Wikipedia's three official content policies (no origial research, verifiability, and NPOV). Wikipedia may contain information you may not agree with, but that's something Wikipedia makes clear in their content disclaimer. ~ UBeR 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the video warning. The simple title "video of execution" is a red flag, and that amateur video is not too pretty either. I am cool with the video, but I can imagine a lot of people who might be affected adversely by watching it. Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be considerate :) Baristarim 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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


 * In a perfect world that should be warning enough, however with the amount of pretend death that's regularly seen, and not shown, it's not a perfect world. Remember "Wolf Creek?"  Half the violence in that movie was implied but not shown, and this is what many viewers are used to.  The lone survivor wakes up crucified to the wall, but we don't see him get strung up.  In fact this is true in much of the horror genre, and certainly the news.  People are used to video being self censored, for the camera to pan away from the victim at the last moment.  On the other hand, there have been shown execution videos where a lethal injection was used, that were considerably less upsetting to the viewer.  For these reasons it's a mistake to expect discretion from all viewers;  most aren't used to having to excersize it.  FireWeed 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not seen that movie. But please be aware that Wikipedia is not a feature film. We're an online encyclopedia. Your argument that "films do it, so Wikipedia should do it" is a weak one. Your assumptions that the public doesn't know how to exercise discretion is unfounded. ~ UBeR 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Only a well informed public is able to exercise discretion, and I simply can't understand your argument that an encyclopedia should avoid informing the public? FireWeed 18:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Failure to inform the public is censorship. The question is, is the labeling of the video currently sufficient so that anyone can understand it, short of those who couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Wahkeenah 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Those in favor of such warnings should review the What Wikipedia is not policy, paying special attention to the fact that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. ⟳ ausa کui × 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with you Ryan. Since when does a warning equate to censorship? -- Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Should all these (almost 3000) warning also be removed? . Should all explicit/strong/sexual content warnings be removed? Also Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse has a WARNING: Some links contain explicit material. Readd warnings, as I also said above, the "amateur" video has not been shown in full on most mainstream media and some wikipedia users might be shocked to see the full video. 83.255.71.22 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * In America, when shown a prisoner's "final moments" in reality from a reputable source, one usually sees the last meal and prayer, not the actual death. FireWeed 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The fact that you "find it hard to believe anyone would ..." is all well and good, but pushing your opinion, your belief that a viewer will expect to find grim violence, while probably correct 80 % of the time, is no less a POV on the emotional state of the reader. FireWeed 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the warning a violation of NPOV? Do you mean that the warning is POV? How can it be POV when such a warning can even be referenced to television media? To me this discussion is a violation of WP:POINT. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 09:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Sujay85 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)::In the Reactions section,please make mention of the violent protests & rallies in India;a few of which were anti-government and were held in its provinces of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh(by SP activists) and West Bengal(by CPI-M activists.12 people have died as a result of these rallies. Outlook-PTI news Article Jan 4,2007

Comment: Personally,I despise the manner in which these protests were conducted (It's silly to protest after the execution,even more sillier when the protests are violent) in addition to the unjust execution and trial of Saddam Hussein.Only terrorists and US defense contractors have reason to rejoice over his death.His 'martyrdom' will be abused by fundamentalists and Iraqi insurgents to further ruin lives of Iraqis and Americans alike;in the meantime contracters like Halliburton makes Cold War level profits.911 Deception


 * Putting a warning or a caution or a statement that it's "graphic" does no harm, it does not stop anyone from looking at it. Nor is it POV, because "snuff films" by nearly universal definition are considered to be graphic. Failing to make it clear what's going on hides information from the reader. Thus, failing to post such a warning is the real censorship. Wahkeenah 08:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, if the videos at the end of the article show the entire execution (Don't ask me to check!) shouldn't there be something that says "Warning:Graphic Content" or whatever?12.216.254.30 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the above comment from a duplicate section titled "Video Warnings?" --Hab baH 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Ip's vandalizing this article
May I make it here? Pipe752 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

193.238.48.194 Keeps putting F#cking US or Bush

218.186.8.10 Keeps spamming the external links

82.17.65.109 put "lol" on democracy

Pipe752 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "lol" on democracy? lol.--Shtove 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 64.107.220.181 ~ UBeR 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Taliban World Leaders?
A Talibani reaction was moved to the World Political Leader section. It seems a little rocky to be categorizing a Taliban member as a world political leader. Also I don't think putting him under Palestine is correct at all. ~ UBeR 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I moved it along with the Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia reaction. Though, these had been grouped by general sentiment.  The section needs to be fleshed out more. --Aude (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about the Taliban.Why is the Taliban's sentence is put in the support paragraph.Judjing from their sentence,it looks like the Taliban opposes the execution.Dimts 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. It's corrected now. --Aude (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister Maliki ratifying the death sentence
Since my previous comment on this issue was deleted and I think that the question might be relevant to the article I restate it:

Does anyone know, why Prime Minister Maliki ratified the death sentence? According to article 70 of the Iraqi constitution this seems to be the prerogative of Iraq's president Talabani. Gugganij 10:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe your comment was moved to the archive, or perhaps it was indeed deleted. Anyway, the reason, I quote, is as follows: "here was one final hurdle: Would President Jalal Talabani, a Sunni Kurd who opposes the death penalty, object to the execution? A phone call later Friday between al-Maliki and the president ended with a decision that Talabani's signature was not needed. No explanation for the decision was given." Perhaps it should be included? ~ UBeR 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is an interesting aspect. Gugganij 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal video
Is there any way we can get in trouble under US law for linking to the mobile phone footage, which apparently was taken illegally? . I'm guessing not, but it seemed like it would be safer to mention. -- Pakaran 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe so. Mostly because this video is not "illegal" in the United States. I do not believe it was "illegal" in Iraq, only that there are investigations into who recorded/released the video. Perhaps there may be prosecution against the filmer (in Iraq), then again perhaps not. ~ UBeR 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that's what I suspected. If anything, it seems more likely that the filmer will shortly be unemployed.  I just thought it was worth mentioning.  -- Pakaran 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the person who (allegedly) filmed the video, and two others, have been arrested. However, I'm not sure what bearing that has?  Ostensibly, Saddam was acting within the law (that he himself created) when he had the 142 people killed.  He's learned the hard way this was an illegal law that allowed him to murder a village.  Any laws that prohibit distrobution of the video are far more likely to target sites hosting it than those pointing to the resource.  FireWeed 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they were arrested for either caring cell phones into the execution chambers, which they did not allow, or either for conspiring to create tensions between Shias and Sunnis. ~ UBeR 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the names of those who filmed? The video seems to be brewing up tons of controversy, however. ~ UBeR 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) A better question than "who leaked it" is "who allowed it to be filmed in the first place?" Did nobody in the witness gallery notice this one guy aiming his cellphone at Saddam during the entire sequence of events? I still think this was done on purpose, as a way for al-Jazeera to prove to everyone that Saddam was dead, which cannot be determined for sure from the "official" videos and photos, which are sanitized for the sensitive viewing public. One interesting side aspect is where you can see flashes of a photographer's camera bulb from time to time. I'm assuming those were "official" photos, but we'll see what turns up in Time and Newsweek and so on. Wahkeenah 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently they caught the guy. ~ UBeR 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that, on USAToday.com. They aren't saying for sure, but a name has been bandied about. The official video is silent and shows only the preliminaries. I think this bootleg video is an important piece of journalism, because it shows it like it was. It tells the truth about it, grim as it may be. I don't speak Arabic, but the last word spoken by Saddam was clearly discernible as "Muhammed", just before the loud "clunk" of the trap being sprung. Just more ugliness in this whole ugly situation. Wahkeenah 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be silly if the links to the video were illegal. But then again, the filmer did the world a favor and showing what the news channels refused to do: show Saddam actually getting strung up with his own method of execution. If I were to meet the filmer, I would thank him. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hanging can hardly be called Saddam's "own method." I'm sure you've heard of the Wild West - do you know what they did to people who stole horses?  FireWeed 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some cable news outlets are also now saying that those being arrested are being scapegoated. Imagine that. Wahkeenah 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do have one opinion regarding the removal of the execution link: Wikipedia is not censored.  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 Wikipedia's existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. (Opinion stolen from WP:CENSOR) Reswobslc 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for whether the cell phone video is illegal in the United States... well, it most certainly is not. Otherwise it wouldn't have been aired by the news stations.  Certainly the news stations removed the actual hanging portion of the video in order to not offend their viewers, but if there were some legal concern as to whether the video could not be showed, the news stations wouldn't be showing any portion of it for that same reason.  There is absolutely no reason why the link to the video shouldn't stay. Reswobslc 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be responsible under US law but editors must obey the laws of the country in which they find themselves, SqueakBox 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is true. However, the video does not violate any U.S. laws. ~ UBeR 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Criticism into Reaction
Based upon the section headings, the article is too biased against the execution. We already have a "Reactions" section and some of the reactions are crtitical. Therefore, a seperate "Criticisms" section is not needed. It should be merged back into Reactions so as not to favor POV against the execution. Johntex\talk 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it is not the same issue discussed above, I have moved your comment to a new section titled "Proposal to merge Criticism into Reaction". --Hab baH 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this as well. However, I feel there is a distinction between opposing the death of a political leader because you are against the death penalty and opposing the execution for the reasons listed in the "Criticism" section. ~ UBeR 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the reactions section should be structured to show these two branches of criticism? The talk page at least seems highly biased, by a few thick-skulled editors, who present the point of view that Uncle Sam is Evil and Saddam created a happy Iraq.  In fact I fear my support for a warning label with the video will associate me with those who show no sense.  FireWeed 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what do you have in mind? To some iraqis he was hero, to some a tyrant, we are not God to judge others, as far as video, well, little passage that says grisly, what's wrong, no pov, for sure. Criticism should be under same paragraph.

Long drop?
Someone had posted that this was a "long drop" hanging, then someone else removed it on the grounds of "original research". Maybe so, but according to the definition, the long drop is 6 feet or more, and since the video clearly shows that Saddam dropped at least the length of his height, and apparently more, that would seem to qualify. Maybe someone with more expertise on the fine art of hangings could weigh in. Wahkeenah 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it, but Wikipedia is verifiability. ~ UBeR 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but I heard on CNN that he dropped approximately 15 feet. --  T H  L  11:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly diagree. 15 feet would have decapitated anyone. The British executioners for example, when they still executed people by long drop hanging, used a Home Office issued "table of drops" with a range from about five to eight feet. Further argument: When Saddam Hussein was shown in the video standing on the platform with the noose round his neck, you could clearly see that the rope which came from the ceiling made a bend at round about the standing man's knees and then came back upwards to the noose. So the drop was no longer than twice the distance neck-knees, or about eight feet to eight feet six inches. Further details on hanging (in general) upon request. It's one of my research items. --Kauko56 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * His neck was at right angles and there was blood - not far off too long a drop?--Shtove 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That also squares with where the "underground" video was taken. It was at ground level looking up, and concludes with a ground-level zoom-in on the "guest of honor". So 6 to 8 feet is verifiably the distance, which qualifies as "long-drop", right? And not that it's worth an edit war, which it isn't. He's dead either way. Wahkeenah 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is very much a matter of opinion or expertise in the subject of hangings. That is why I removed it as WP:OR.  Previous discussion is here.  --Hab baH 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he dropped at least the length of his own height, that is indisputable, not original research, because anyone can verify it by looking at the video; along with the fact that he's clearly unconscious and his neck twisted, just seconds later. The question is simply whether that adds up to a "long drop" hanging or not. Wahkeenah 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only did he fall below the trapdoor level (=more than his own height) but his neck clearly broke immediately, as seen in the phone video. That's indisputably a long drop. No guesswork is required, and it's not original research to state the obvious. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is clearly nitpicking, however I do feel that the verifiability policy is not violated when the reader (or in the case the viewer) can clearly verify for themselves using their powers of observation. This is known as the scientific method and is the basis for human learning.  While the particular type of hanging is really inconsequential, in an encyclopedia article on the death of Saddam Hussein, you could make a strong case for including the actual method of death.  FireWeed 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking means caviling: quibbling over insignificant details; I disagree, if an important person dies, everybody will look into every single detail and more. His hanging was normal procedure. And I think hanging exists, since when, 5th century bs. First mention of hanging I can recall is when Judas hanged himself.
 * That reminds me of the old joke citing an unrelated biblical quote supposedly following that one up; "Go thereofore and do likewise." :) Wahkeenah 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hab baH: I still do not understand which statement you qualify as "matter of opinion or expertise". There is indeed a recognized definition of what qualifies as "long drop". Everyone who saw the relevant videos or stills is able to see that the method of execution used in Saddam Hussein's case falls under this definition. Open to opinion or expertise is only whether this method kills instantly, by which mechanics, whether it is humane, painless or whatever.
 * The "long drop" method was introduced into British execution practice by William Marwood (successor to William Calcraft). Calcraft used a rope of about three feet length and did not aim at breaking the neck of the delinquent. Marwood started to use drops of much more length with exactly that objective in mind, as did all his successors: Berry, the Billingtons, Ellis, the Pierrepoints... In all and every literature on the history of judicial hanging in Britain and the US I found one recurrent use of the term "long drop" hanging: "A hanging with a drop of five feet and more intended to break the delinquent's neck and, by this injury, either kill him instantly or send him into deep unconsciousness so that he does not consciously experience the subsequent strangulation".
 * If you need any "original research" on the validity of this definition, you have to go to the library and read the (auto)biographies of Calcraft, Berry, Ellis, Pierrepoint (which I did already for you). And I simply do not understand what "original research" you need in order to prove that the execution of Saddam Hussein did follow the method as described above. Since we do not have a medical (post mortem) report, I agree that any statement on his cause of death, or duration of suffering, must be evaluated as speculation. That the method to dispatch him was the one known as "long drop hanging", however, is beyond dispute, and your qualification of this statement as WP:OR is arbitrary, to put it mildly. --Kauko56 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that if someone asked me what method of hanging was employed in the execution of Saddam Hussein, I would have to respond that some editors on Wikipedia watched the video and concluded the method was long drop hanging means that original research has taken place. You have analyzed the video and synthesized this analysis with a chosen technical definition of long drop hanging to draw your original conclusion.  I appreciate your interpretation of the contents of the video, particularly in light of your area of research interest.  It may very well be correct.  But it is also original research.  Accordingly, at this stage it does not pass WP:V.  If this seems arbitrary, that may be because the burden of evidence is on the editor or editors who wish to add an edit.  Adding "long drop" hanging to the article and citing the video as the source does not pass this hurdle.  Another editor cannot verify that that primary source shows a long drop hanging just by watching it.  They have to be supplied with another source showing the definition of a long drop hanging.  The necessity of synthesizing the information between these two sources to draw the conclusion that the video shows a long drop hanging is why this is original research.  If the edit is left with just the video as a source, it is unverifiable.  Fortunately, since this is not the subject of an edit war, I do not expect the material to be reinserted into the article.  But if it is, please note that the original reason it caught my attention was that it added more detail than necessary to the article's intro paragraph, so I would object to its inclusion there on separate grounds. --Hab baH 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely wrong when you say "with a chosen technical definition of long drop hanging." There is a single, agreed-on definition for the term long drop hanging, and there's an article about it on this very encyclopedia.  Saying "with a chosen technical definition of" doesn't change the fact that there's a single accepted definition.  FireWeed 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, it would be valid to observe that he was dropped 6 or more feet (assuming that was his height), but to specifically define it as a long-drop hanging would be a stretch? (Pardon the ironic metaphor). Wahkeenah 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would pose problems of verifiability to add your interpretation of the video to the article and cite the video as a source. Once you have to look up Saddam's height and use that as a source in concert with the video to draw your conclusion he dropped six or more feet, you have performed original research by synthesizing information from the two sources. --Hab baH 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, Mr. Technical, would it be safe to say he was dropped at least his own height? Wahkeenah 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hab baH - the phone-camera images aren't sufficient to draw the technical conclusions about the long-drop method. Maybe that was the method intended by the executioner (whatever, it was a cocked-up ceremony). But the images are patchy at best, and WP shouldn't infer measurements from them.--Shtove 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this would qualify as OR; this is obviously verifiable (look at the video) and long drop hanging should at least have a note somewhere in Wikipedia, if not its own article. As it is a descriptive noun, and I can't see possibly disputing it (as it is very verifiable from the video itself), I think it is quite justified to put it in as a long drop. Titanium Dragon 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the end, I think it's fairly trivial information, but that's just me. But it still stands, Wikipedia is verifiability. ~ UBeR 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And too trivial to care about, in the end. Wahkeenah 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wahkeenah: I would appreciate it if you would cross out the name calling in your earlier post. Titanium Dragon: To conclude the hanging was of the long drop method, you have to interpret what you see in the video. This means looking to a second source to provide the technical definition of long drop hanging.  If you already know what a long drop hanging is and can recognize it in the video, you have expertise in the subject matter.  Your expertise in interpreting the subject matter does not provide verifiability to other editors.  Just because you assert the video shows long drop hanging is not convincing.  Since a second source is needed to verify the claim a long drop hanging did indeed occur, and neither source independently verifies the claim (unless you are an expert), you are conducting original research by synthesizing the information from the two sources to draw the conclusion you wish to include in the article.  So, yes, I do dispute the claim the hanging was of a long drop method because I cannot verify it without doing original research.  --Hab baH 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean the term "Mr. Technical", consider it a compliment. :) Wahkeenah 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the context of the post, it could be considered a taunt. I am not going to look up the rules, but hope that you would consider how including such a term in future posts may incline others to be less responsive. --Hab baH 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding of the OR policy. Frankly, you have to interpret the video as a hanging too, but honestly, are we going to say "This video is described as showing a hanging?" No, that's just dumb. Its a long drop hanging, there's no need for more "interpretation", and it is an accurate description - and accuracy is important and adding in two extra words which are verifiable via the video is a good idea if it adds clarity. I think the real issue is whether it is notable or not; I don't know if it is. But it is certainly verifiable. Titanium Dragon 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hab baH. It's nice to see new uses show interest in defending Wikipedia policies. Please do take another look at the policy on original research. Here we have primary sources: two separate videos of the same event, both of which show that a long drop occurred; Saddam is shown climbing a gallows, falling a length greater than his height, and having his neck clearly broken immediately, rather than dropping a short distance and strangling slowly. The broken neck is also clearly seen in the later pictures taken of his corpse. This is not "a novel narrative or historical interpretation." It complies with the policy to "only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." This is a clear case of a "descriptive claim." We can see the whole thing. Reasonable, educated people are not unfamiliar with the basics of hanging; specialist knowledge is not required; we don't need to know the exact length or composition of the rope or the force applied, whether a wedge was used, or anything about the trapdoor mechanics.
 * Please be civil. To say anyone can now this is long drop hanging just by watching the video is a bit naïve. Hab Bah is correct; some people do not know the different types of hangings. You may; I'd suspect most don't. I didn't even know there were various names for the different types of hangings. ~ UBeR 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an article about long-drop hangings on this very encyclopedia! If you you suspect most don't know the meaning, then create a wiki-link to said article.  FireWeed 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not to be used as sources of information for other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia makes that clear. Again, just because someone can watch the video, it doesn't mean they automatically know that the hanging was a "long drop." Some people are ignorant of the different methods of hangings. Some may not know what exactly qualifies as a "long drop." Thus, it still stands that saying it was a long drop is unverifiable at the moment without a third party source saying it was indeed. ~ UBeR 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly not what I said and you know it. (1) I we're only allowed to use reliable sources the video wouldn't be here in the first place, (2) it's the video, not the Wikipedia article that shows evidence, the wiki article mearly provides context, and (3) your assumption that the public at large is "ignorant" and unable to read a definition is far more POV-pushing than any requests for a warning surrounding the video itself.  FireWeed 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how I interpreted it, so please don't tell me how I interpret things. Second, you're missing my, and other's, point that have been made several times throughout this discussion. You could link to the video, but frankly that doesn't quite cut it. To give an example, we could cite the video as sources for the entire Execution proceedings section to cite a source for what was being said in the gallows. Now obviously, without edited-in translations, most people wouldn't be able to infer what is being said. Why? Because most people don't know enough Arabic to translate what's being said. Likewise, most people probably don't know the different types of hangings. So instead of simply using the video as a source, we use third party sources, that are reliable, to explain information so that we can put into this article. ~ UBeR 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To this English speaker, there was only one verifiable word, and that was "Muhammad", the last word he spoke as they sprung the trap. Technically, a source for the transcript of that video should show the prophet's name vertically. Wahkeenah 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. We're only allowed to use reliable sources. There is a way around this, though, which is to point out that the height of the drop in the video suggests a long drop hanging, but that there has been no known official word on the matter. Wahkeenah 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, stating that this is a long-drop hanging is a rather unimportant point; all hangings are, at least in jurisdictions that aspire to due process. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, long drop hangins are designed to break the neck, whereas short ones are designed to produce asphyxiation. This is clearly the former. ˜˜˜˜
 * and this information is not readily verifiable. ~ UBeR 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article [[Nuremberg Trials says "“The death sentences were carried out by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop. [23] [24]” These references say only "On October 16, 1946, ten men died in the courthouse gymnasium in a botched hanging that left several strangling to death for as long as 25 minutes”  (footnote 23, Smithsonian Magazine, p6) and "“the experienced Army hangman, Master Sgt. John C. Woods, botched the executions.  A number of the hanged Nazis died, not quickly from a broken neck as intended, but agonizingly from slow strangulation.  Ribbentrop and Sauckel each took 14 minutes to choke to death, while Keitel, whose death was the most painful, struggled for 24 minutes at the end of the rope before expiring.” Footnote 24, Flagpole magazine. So for consistency we should allow this article to call it a long drop or remove reference from short drop in the Nuremberg article, which is as true as the claim of long drop in this article.  and other sources say they dropped from sight, arguiing toward a long drop. Edison 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe there are more than two types of hanging, however? It'd be oversimplified to say because the Nuremberb was standard, then these must be non-standard. ~ UBeR 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Official Table of Drops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Table_of_Drops a long drop hanging is between 5'5" and 8'0" based on the weight of the person (a lighter person needs a longer drop). Saddam's hanging appears to be within this range. 24.255.24.239 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

("Long drop" or not irrelevant?) Whether it was a "long drop" hanging or not may seem to be unimportant to some. However, I remember press reports PREVIOUS to Saddam Hussein's execution saying that he was probably facing a slow death, since in the Middle East hangings were normally carried out by a method causing strangulation. This assumption, while untrue for Saddam Hussein's case, was not unfounded: There are numerous photos available on the net showing executions e.g. in Iran showing people being hanged without being dropped "their own height or more", and without that unmistakable "cowboy knot". So the press seems to have been unaware of the possibility of a long drop being employed in Saddam Hussein's case. So: The fact that this was the case adds knowledge on an / the execution method currently in use in Iraq. While this might be irrelevant to lots of readers, it is certainly relevant for anyone interested in Law Enforcement (Iraq, current).--Kauko56 08:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the drop was within the range? The phone camera images show the start of the drop, but not the end of the drop. It seems to have been a "long drop", but the angle of the broken neck and the bloody wound suggest it may have been outside the range ie. more than 8 feet. Maybe Iraqi Shias calculate with metric? They weren't far off decapitation.--Shtove 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Anyway, I agree with Titanium Dragon's opinion: " Frankly, you have to interpret the video as a hanging too, but honestly, are we going to say 'This video is described as showing a hanging?' No, that's just dumb. Its a long drop hanging, there's no need for more 'interpretation', and it is an accurate description - and accuracy is important and adding in two extra words which are verifiable via the video is a good idea if it adds clarity." But regardless of all that, this is becoming WP:LAME. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)