Talk:Human rights in Ba'athist Iraq/Archive 1

Title and content in article don't correspond
Wow. I'll like to add to the above that it opens in a way that'll make the scrupulous reader who found this entry by using an internet search engine double check as to a) whether or not he/she has clicked on the intended link b) whether or not Wikipedia.org is an encyclopedia as opposed to a tabloid rag.

If this is an encyclopedia article on the "human rights situation in Iraq," then a) explain what you mean by the "human rights situation" in the intro b) proceed from there to sketch the historical backgrounding c) characterize this "situation" over time (if I assume correctly that you're dealing with Iraq the sovereign nation-state, the timeframe is 1920-present). 172 20:54, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see that the article has just been moved to "Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq." This is a good excuse for not having any content on 1920-1968, but the focus of the existing coverage is still far more narrow than what is afforded by the title. The coverage would match, say, an article on "torture and murder" in Saddam's Iraq (the title before the page was moved initially), not the "human rights situation" overall. Moreover, the existing content fails to delineate the range of coverage entailed by its intended function, that is sketching the "human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq over time.


 * The text here can find a more fitting home without having to go through modifications in State terrorism. Until there's an author ready to draft a proper, contextualized overview of the "the human rights situation," this page should be a blanked, ::leaving only a stub for the time being. The stub could include a link to a related topic, e.g., "See State terrorism in Iraq." 172 21:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to see what happens if I move the content to State terrorism and redirect the page to Politics in Iraq. 172 23:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like a mess. There's easily enough information here for an article, and not all torture is terroristic (some may be intended to extract information, for instance). -- VV 02:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a perfect fit anywhere, but it goes better in State terrorism. 172 05:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172: I don't know what exactly your problem is. There is a ton of accurate, relevant commentary in this page. Instead of building on it, you pretty much are throwing it all away. This is wrong. Furthermore, you're doing it on a weekend, when few people are present to complain. This page has been being actively worked on, and your intrusion here to delete the entire page is not welcome. Please be constructive, or go elsewhere. At the very least, give it a week for people to comment. --Rei
 * I did not "throw it away." Nor did I even address problems with the content in and of itself. I moved the content to State terrorism, where it is more fitting. I moved the content to that entry so that it would not have to go through major modifications. 172 07:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You completely missed the point. I'm not surprised, you seem to be fairly new to this article. there are two articles, and they're a pair: Iraq before Saddam, and Iraq after Saddam.  You don't just change one and delink them - you've made a mess of it.  Now there are lots of dangling links all over the place.  That's why I'm rv'ing.  And you still didn't catch the "wait until the week to let other people have a chance to speak before such major edits".  Dramatic uninvited changes are not welcome.  --Rei

Ideally, there should be a pair of articles (or better yet, three articles starting off with Iraq between 1920 and 1968). But coverage of the human rights situation under Saddam hadn't existed before my changes, just as it did not exist afterwards. The content simply did not match the title (see my comments above).

Once again, I did not delete the page Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq. It was redirected to an article with a link to an article where the old content can still be found. If someone's ready to write a broader article on human rights under Saddam, he/she can easily go back to the old content on torture and murder and reintegrate it into an article that can be posted on this page.

Even though Wikipedia is a work in progress, posted work should be usable. If you'd like to rewrite the article here, I created a temp page ate Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq/temp. 172 05:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 172, we don't want a temp. This is NOT an article about state terrorism.  This is an article about human rights.  This is NOT an article about the politics of Iraq.  It is an article about human rights. It needs some work, but the solution is NOT to break the pair of articles that have been worked on by many people, NOT including yourself.  The solution is to be constructive and add in elements that you feel are missing.  If you are not going to be constructive, leave.


 * I'm calling a vote. You know where I'm casting my vote, where 172 is casting their vote, and where VeryVerily's vote is (if I'm wrong, please correct me).  That's 2:1 in favor of keeping the article and improving it.  Who else is going to vote? --Rei

P.S. - VV, it's nice being on the same side of the issue for once. If you (or anyone else) need any help getting reliable, reasonably confirmed info about Saddam for the article, I'll be glad to help. Amnesty has some really good stuff on Anfal that I've run into before that covers the entire course of the ethnic cleansing campaign, and there's lots of documents on other things. We can also use some of the interviews that have been conducted with people post-war (as long as they weren't paid for their testimony or have any other major conflicts of interest). --Rei
 * The article still exists and you can still improve it. If you want to broaden the focus of the article, thus changing it from an article on torture and murder to the broader human rights situation, you don't even have to edit the content on State terrorism. You can use the Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq/temp page, which I created for the sake of writers here. Until then, temporarily the existing content fits better under State terrorism in Iraq as opposed to human rights in Iraq. 172 21:22, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rei,

This was not a page protection. You don't even have admin status, so you cannot even protect pages to begin with. And had you actually been an admin you'd be in even worse shape, though. Any admin would've been "de-sysoped" within minutes for protecting his version of the article in the middle of a revert war. Now will you please cut it out with the phony page protection and finally provide a reasonable counter-argument to my comments on the talk page? 172 21:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * We're taking a poll, 172. Will you stop it until then?  What right do you think you have to come in here and start radically changing things against the wishes of the people here?  Especially when your changes- to quote another user - "It looks like a mess.  There's easily enough information here for an article, and not all torture is terroristic".  Wait for the poll.  Why can't you do that???  Because you're currently losing?  Is that why?
 * Quit begging the question. The title said "human rights situation in Iraq" but the coverage was far too narrow to belong here for the time being. 172 21:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * And we can *fix that*. Why didn't you just ask us to *fix* things that you don't like instead of *completely changing* things?  List the things you think should be changed, and as long as there is general agreement on them, we will fix them.  Shortly.  --Rei


 * And what are these "arguments" that you've put forward? Where did you explain how human rights are equivalent to terrorism?  Where did you explain why the pair of articles should be split up, and this article should be redirected to "politics"?  How are human rights "politics"?  How is torture "politics"?  This is probably one of the most ridiculous restructurings that I have ever seen.  What made you feel that you have to come in here and do it?  --Rei
 * Where's the poll? I don't see a poll. One user saying that he and someone else constitutes a poll is not how the process works. 172 21:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Then make it an official process. We already know where three people currently stand.  It's running two to 1 against you.  If you want to formalize it, go ahead.  --Rei
 * This is not a contest. We are editing and writing an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying a negative word about the content that I'd moved. I was only commenting on the lack of correspondence between the content and the title. This really shouldn't be a big deal. It's still just as easy to use the old content as a basis for an article on the human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq as before. 172 22:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It is still just as easy to use the old content as a basis for an article on the human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq as before Not really, when you're constantly rv'ing the article.
 * 2) I will *gladly* work to fix the problems, if you spell them out. Saying "I already did that" isn't very productive, now isn't it?  If I could tell where you've done it, I wouldn't be asking you to spell it out, now wouldn't I?  I want an enumerated, non-vague list that I can check off.  --Rei
 * 1) Use Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq/temp.
 * 2) See my first set of comments above.


 * 1) Why should I use the temp? The temp is outdated: In case you haven't been looking at what you've RV'ing (which I assume you haven't), I've been making changes to the article to try and make it fit its title better (mainly in the header).  Even if that weren't the case, it is pretty dumb to use the temp when the whole point of a wiki is that you edit the article and your changes show up right away.  This isn't SubmitPotentialChangesToTheEditor-Pedia.
 * 2) I'm copying what you listed at the beginning; there still are unanswered questions, as I will enumerate below.

Wow. I'll like to add to the above that it opens in a way that'll make the scrupulous reader who found this entry by using an internet search engine double check as to a) whether or not he/she has clicked on the intended link b) whether or not Wikipedia.org is an encyclopedia as opposed to a tabloid rag.

If this is an encyclopedia article on the "human rights situation in Iraq," then a) explain what you mean by the "human rights situation" in the intro b) proceed from there to sketch the historical backgrounding c) characterize this "situation" over time (if I assume correctly that you're dealing with Iraq the sovereign nation-state, the timeframe is 1920-present). 172 20:54, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see that the article has just been moved to "Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq." This is a good excuse for not having any content on 1920-1968, but the focus of the existing coverage is still far more narrow than what is afforded by the title. The coverage would match, say, an article on "torture and murder" in Saddam's Iraq (the title before the page was moved initially), not the "human rights situation" overall. Moreover, the existing content fails to delineate the range of coverage entailed by its intended function, that is sketching the "human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq over time.


 * The text here can find a more fitting home without having to go through modifications in State terrorism. Until there's an author ready to draft a proper, contextualized overview of the "the human rights situation," this page should be a blanked, ::leaving only a stub for the time being. The stub could include a link to a related topic, e.g., "See State terrorism in Iraq." 172 21:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) If you'll look, I already changed the header. That point is already addressed.


 * 2) "Human rights", as I mentioned to you before, is described by the merriam-webster dictionary as being a collection of basic rights with the three ones enumerated as freedom from unjust imprisonment, execution, and torture. That is what this article is about.  So that "point" of yours is invalid.  Explain what, precisely, you want changed there.


 * 3) Historical background: That can be done, although it wouldn't make sense to go back to before Saddam took power


 * 4) Situation over time: Before you jumped in and threw this article into disarray, we were discussing doing just that. You've set this article back half a week already.  If you keep up this rv'ing, what you want to happen (and what we want to happen) will never occur.


 * If I missed any of your points (the reason I asked you to enumerate them), let me know. --Rei


 * BTW, just so you know, I am waiting for your response to ensure that I have listed and responded all of the points that you were trying to make before I act on them. As soon as I have an affirmative from you, I will begin to address them in the text.  --Rei

Uh-oh, edit war in progress. I vote for the Two-Page Solution (echoes of middle east politics :) In other words, the Saddam-era/post-Saddam pages.

I don't quite understand why 172 changed things so that clicking a link that says 'Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq' would take you to a page on Iraq's politics. Human rights abuses are part of politics? Other problems were:
 * to get to the page on human rights (puzzlingly located under terrorism, even though plenty of human rights abuses do not qualify as terrorism), you had to click a further link.
 * if the Saddam-era human rights stuff belongs under State Terrorism, so does the post-Saddam era stuff. So we're back where we started, with all the Iraq human rights stuff in the same article, with the same corrosive arguments about balance which that leads to.
 * the state terrorism article is meant to be a comparative overview of state terrorism in different countries. All the state specific examples are short paragraphs, except for Iraq which is now much longer (and that's without the post-Saddam stuff added in). If all the other countries were edited up to the same length, the article would be enormous, and well over the 32k recommended limit.
 * sure, there's plenty of work to be done on the page, but if the page isn't there to be worked on, people are less likely to do that work. I contributed to these pages because I found them when looking for information about Saddam's human rights record. I simply wouldn't have found the temp page. So the move to State Terrorism was cutting out a whole class of contributors.

Human rights in Saddam's Iraq is a huge, controversial, and extremely topical subject, it deserves its own page. And there's already enough information on the page to make it useful. IMHO. :) --Russell j 01:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To go some way to addressing the criticisms of this article, I've just merged in the Human rights violations in Iraq article. It dealt exclusively with pre-Iraq war human rights issues, and thus overlapped massively with this. Hope everyone's ok with this!

Please see Talk on Human rights violations in Iraq for more details of the merge.

The section on 'Abuses during the British Occupation of Iraq in the early 20th century' is a bit of a headache, as it doesn't exactly belong here... should we also have a 'Human rights situation in pre-Saddam Iraq' stub? --Russell j 03:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess the only logical thing to do with the 1920s human rights stuff is create a new page: Human rights situation in pre-Saddam Iraq. Which I've done. Hope people are ok with this. --Russell j 04:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. :)  Rei 16:09, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is "Saddam" being used for the title. I'm quite sure no one is familiar with him. Should "Hussein" not be used?

NPOV
Well it is hard to see how this page can be NPOV. It is not enough to say "allegedly" -- who has alleged this? Who has named these names? Why? What is the purpose of creating a list of twelve? Did Saddam do it? Maybe this page should be deleted? Slrubenstein


 * I agree Slrubenstein.Such claims MUST be refrenced, to decent sites. It should either be deleted or more clarification that this "dirty dozen" is just American media propaganda. --Mostafa Hussein

Slrubenstein: The page already has a reference as to who points the group out. No one, as far as Iknow, has given a purpose to name it the Dirty Dozen. As far as Mostafa Hssein is concerned, it isnt very Neutral of you to say it is just American propaganda, Hussein.

Antonio Magic Man Martin

What exactly is this sentence supposed to mean: "In the event of the 2003 war against Iraq, the group has surfaced to the general public's light." I did a google search and got all of 8 hits. --snoyes 20:42 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's because the group wasnt widely known before the 2003 war. Not like nowadays, anyways..

Antonio Hot baby! Martin


 * First of all you'd have to somehow validate the claim that it is infact widely known at the moment. I did not know this term, and from the looks of it neither did many others. Secondly the grammar in that sentence appears to be attrocious. --snoyes 20:52 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

AntonioMartin, thanks -- I am sorry I missed the attribution; I put it up top where it belongs. It still seems like progeganda and more needs to be said. I went to the US State Department home page but could find NO reference to this phrase -- the Guardian article doesn't provide a source either. Maybe this is just a creation of the Guardian? Let's have some more research than just cribbing from a newspaper article! Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein, can you justify the removal of the term "derogatory". Surely if I start calling you "dirty Slrubenstein" from now on, you (and I) would agree that this is a derogatory term, not so? --snoyes 20:57 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
 * I of course agree with you that it is derogatory. I just consider it poor style -- it is editorializing.  The article is stronger without it, because readers can make their own judgement (and some -- not I -- would call it "accurate" rather than "derogatory.")  You will note that I was the first to state my NPOV objections.  I do not believe adding the word "derogatory" renders the article NPOV -- I think the way to render it NPOV is to situate the claim more precisely (i.e. who coined the term, when, and why).  I have made other changes to the article along these lines. Slrubenstein


 * I concur, it is probably best to let the reader themselves draw any necessary conclusions. --snoyes 21:08 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree -- and I am sure most readers will reach the same conclusions as you and I. Still, I wish we had more info on whose idea the list was, originally, and in what specific context it was presented.  The article has the potential to be a valuable object lesson in the relationship between politics and the media -- but we need more facts! Slrubenstein


 * Yes, more information is definately needed. Have a look at this LA times newspaper article. I think that it is relatively clear that this term was invented to create a good-sounding news bite that would resonate with the average television viewer. But obviously this is just my opinion. It may, according to who you ask, also be racist. --snoyes 21:19 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * My favorite line in the article is this: "The hybrid is also necessitated by the Bush administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court. US would look hypocritical if it asked for a UN-mandated war crimes tribunal." I am not sure the word "would" is quite the right word, though. Slrubenstein

Well, let's just say that we need to keep working on this article. As many users can testify, my 1,000 or more articles have, for the most part, except my first few articles, enjoyed a neutral point of view. I tired to make this one as neutral as I could. But a good edit is good for an article, so Im more than happy to see a good edit to my articles. My biggest problem here was with Mostafa Hussein, who, by trying to critizize my neutrality (or lack of therefore) by using the term American propaganda actually shows hes not neutral on the subject. I wonder if he hasnt learned that at Wikipedia you need to be neutral.

Antonio I love you everyone!! Martin


 * Well, I think it is actually exhibits all the conditions necessary to be a propaganda term. Why would you need to invent a potentially racist alliteration at all? --snoyes 21:50 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Antonio I didn't mean to criticise you personally. The first version of the article was alarming. Thats why I commented. It is much better and informative now. Yes, I might be not very neural on the subject, therefore I will not edit it. I only complained on the Talk page. Well, I hope that ALL war criminals get prosecuted fairly. -- Mostafa Hussein

I moved the article from Saddam's Dirty Dozen to Torture and murder in Iraq. Hope no one minds. --Uncle Ed

Now that Sadam has been deposed shouldn't this article, particularly the first sentence, be in the past tense? --Axon

I'm disputing the accuracy and tone of this article. --Systemshocked

"Much of this was made possible by the United States's arming of the Baathist regime run by Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s." Look, wasn't Iraq a Soviet Client State!!? Where did all those AK-47 Kalashnikov rifles, Scud missiles, ZSU-23 Anti aircraft guns and T-72 tanks come from? The ether? Hardly a Neutral Point of View. --Systemshocked

Please qualify this "support" the United States gave to Saddam Hussein. I concede that the United States did give him intelligence and some helicopters during the Iran-Iraq War, but that's nothing compared to thousands of front line (at the time) tanks like the T-72. --Systemshocked


 * I've updated it with information from, and a link to, Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990. Happy? --No-One Jones


 * Keeping it honest, that's all. Thank you No-One Jones.  --Systemshocked

The link to Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 gives quite a different picture than the sentence in this article: "Foreign powers at times colluded in Iraqi state oppression, including France, the Soviet Bloc and the United States". In the table showing sales, I see that the US was the least involved by a great measure. I would like the sentence to be changed: "During his dictatorship Saddam Hussein was aided by foreign powers; the great bulk of Iraq's weapons were supplied by the Soviet block, China, France, and Egypt. (here link to Arms Sales)" The US contribution is so small, even less than Germany. It seems to me that some try link the US to anything and everything. Proof: Egypt and China are left out entirely in the sentence. Whyerd 13:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein may be responsible for the deaths of 1,131,000+ Iraqis and others in the region.

I added this line in order to reflect a balanced position on the harm caused to Iraqis by including the previous regime's possible human rights violations. --Systemshocked

I also added an internal link to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and an external link to the United_States State Department website. -- Systemshocked

Title: Name
Why does the title of this article not use Saddam Hussein's full name, and instead uses only his first? To use the first name only in an article title seems unprofessional for an encyclopedia. The titles of all sub-categories and articles in Category:George W. Bush for example use either Mr. Bush's full name or solely his last name, and never just his first. Other contents of Category:Saddam Hussein also use his full name, such as Saddam Hussein's novels - (The article Remembering Saddam being a proper exception as this is the title of a documentary). Kurieeto 17:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, which has used his full name for over a year. I'm going to rename this article in deference to that one. Kurieeto 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Main article on Saddam
Many people on the discussion of the Saddam Hussein page were saying that there was not enough mention of Saddam's human rights abuses. May I suggest that you include some of the information presented here in that article? 64.16.162.161 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Ben Pounds

Extensive POV remains on this page
This article contains no references to positive human rights in Sadaam's Iraq. I'm not saying that Iraq was a fairytale under Saddam Hussein, but it wasn't the worst place in the world, either. Bbrown8370 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Women have had more rights in Iraq (especially prior to the 1991 war) than in much of the rest of the Middle East.[]
 * The society was one of the most secular societies in the Middle East (especially prior to the 1991 war).
 * Iraq had the largest percentage of its population in the middle class than in neighboring countries.


 * I guess we have an Iraqi to contribute to the page, since you are implying first hand knowledge of conditions. You have a point but think about it. It was not as bad as say, Iran at its worst under Sharia law, but really, isn't that true only if you kept your mouth shut about the President? Saddam DID add the phrase "Allah Akbar" to the Iraqi flag after Desert Storm, moreover when the government was removed we saw the "secular society" you describe quickly fall under the sole guidance of Islamic clerics. Clearly what was going on is Saddam allowed Islam to blossom, and be the "opiate of the masses" to pacify his people so they would not yearn for the material excesses he indulged in himself. I'd say a key factor is that Iraqi journalists were oppressed and silenced and the true horrors of what life was like may never be spoken of. Many who were Ba'athists saw their fortunes lost since the invasion and long for the good old days. It would be helpful to find references of that time, written at that time. One thing I noticed, I wonder if all who seemed to tag every claim as "citation needed" hold the same "question everything" standard when browsing post invasion pages?Batvette 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Iraqi but I have worked with many Iraqis who were the victims of Saddam's Mukhabharat secret police.I have also worked with Iranians. I would have to say that torture in Iraq was a level higher than that of any other country, including Algeria. People would be imprisoned and tortured for almost anything from not having Saddam's picture in your house, or being a Shakespearean actor in one case. People had finger and toenails removed with pliers, were chained to benches and gang-raped, had limbs severed with axes, a wire placed around the head and electrocuted until sent blind, had their 2 year old children strung up in front of them until their shoulders popped out, made to clean cells knee-deep in human blood, watching their parents murdered on their doorsteps, imprisoned in confined spaces in complete darkness for years at a time, released only to die from thorium poisoning, just to mention things I came across which they had suffered. One man was confined in a dungeon with 120 people and survived having hand grenades thrown in through the cell door due to the absorption of the blast by the corpses. They also told me of worse practices of which there are perhaps few survivors if any- crucifixion, being pushed throughj a mincing machine feet first, being buried up to one's neck in concrete, being used for weapons experimentation, eye-balls being poked out with cigarettes etc. I understanf that the Ayatollah of Iraqi Shia's was forced to watch his sister being raped and killed, prior to having a six-inch nail hammered into his own forehead.

US propaganda concerning these practices does not even begin to recount the full horror. They also gloss over the facts that these were well-known to them even when they were fully supporting Saddam Hussein, supplying him with weapons grade anthrax as the Germans supplied poison gas and the French nuclear warhead detonators. Most Iraqis at that time were terrified even to meet other Iraqis in England for fear of the Secret Police. And neither did I notice any "NotinmyName" protestors either Given these matters it is indeed difficult to see the positive aspects of Baa'thist rule. --Streona (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a joke
Things like the "dissappearance" of thousands of Barzanis are not even mentioned. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article is a "joke" but it will probably remain a controversial article until if and when people let go of attacking (directly or indirectly) George Bush. While there are some thoughtful discussions, suggestions here, this is yet another article where some of the editing wars reflect current cultural wars. This article (and especially the discussion) has some interesting leads to follow up. But I would only use it as a secondary source.Victorianezine (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are jokes not meant to be humourous? So where are the laughs ?--Streona (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Iraq Sanctions
Saddam Hussein certainly shares responsibility for the effects of the embargo across Iraq, but to quote only from the US State Department when describing these consequences is plainly absurd, especially when other sources (including UN humanitarian co-ordinators Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck) rebut their claims, and offer a more detailed account of the effects of sanctions on different parts of the country -- stringently imposed on heavily populated urban centres vis-à-vis less built-up areas where additional food and medicines were in free supply (e.g. Northern Iraq). Dynablaster (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also questionable whether this section is on-topic, by not describing basic rights and freedoms, but claims and counter-claims regarding a UN-run aid program. Dynablaster (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say it is relevant, because it inflates the number of deaths resulting from Saddam's policies by at least a couple hundred thousand. Even a low estimate of 170,000 deaths is still a serious crime, and I would say that a conservative estimate of 300,000-400,000 is most likely correct.  This would mean Saddam killed almost 2 million people, if we counted and accepted a low estimate for the Iran-Iraq war.  Further, that war may have cost a million or more lives according to higher estimates, so one could get a large estimate of almost 2.5 million killed during Saddam's 24-year rule.  The lack of food and medicine, and the deprivation of such resources needed for survival, obviously is a human rights violation.  As far as the section containing claims and counter-claims, well, that makes it more neutral, doesn't it?Libertyfortheoppressed (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources also say the number of deaths were exacerbated by US policies. The section in no way reflects this. And I still do not value in a section on Human rights that covers a means of arms control. Dynablaster (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the number of deaths was exacerbated by US policies, but that is primarily not due to the sanctions, because they specifically exempted food and medicine. At the end of the Gulf War, a lot of valuable infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed by US bombing. This includes, for example, water purification facilities, which was why I mentioned that chlorine was not allowed to be produced in Iraq and that the sale of chlorine to Iraq was severely regulated. Sure, Iraq did face humanitarian problems after 1991, but in the North, where the UN adminstered it, there were no excess deaths after the OFF program was put in place (and Saddam was offered it in 1991 but refused to accept it until late 1996). I think it is fair to argue that Saddam's implementation of the program was the primary cause of the deaths (the State Department document states that Saddam illegally exported tons of food and nursing supplies on a black market and was caught doing so again and again; he no doubt wasn't even caught every time he did so). The Duelfer Report part probably was irrelevant. I added the part about chlorine and Albright to present an opposing viewpoint; if you'd like to add a counter-argument to the State Department's document, feel free to do so. Libertyfortheoppressed (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The United States routinely blocked humanitarian supplies to Iraq, including medicine, according to a report issued by the United Nations. "The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme." This is one of the reasons why Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned, having witnessed the withholding of vital supplies. Halliday accused the US of obstructing the Sanctions Committee from inception, which he himself setup in 1996. His successor, Hans von Sponeck, also questioned why the US would choose to make things difficult, knowing innocent Iraqis were trapped between a dictator and a bankrupt policy. "For how long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent on all this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" He authored a book, A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq, in which he accused US policymakers with serious interference. You don't appear to be aware of these facts, nor, judging by your responce, do you appear to accept that sanctions had far less impact in the North of Iraq, by not being strictly enforced, as opposed to other parts of the country Saddam had total control over. There is plenty of blame to go around -- but not that anyone would know this from reading the article today. Dynablaster (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the State Department says that medicine and food were explicitly exempted from the embargo. Read the document. Yes, the UK and US governments did block some substances, including some with a humanitarian purpose, that the rest of the UN was okay with allowing. If you want to add that or anything else to the article, by all means, feel free to do so.70.131.49.182 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. I still feel the same way, however, that this section is unnecessary to the real goal of describing Human rights in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Dynablaster (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the page needs to explain why this section is relevant.  But as long as it is here, I made a few needed changes, especially referencing the main article (UN sanctions against Iraq). DougHill (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions subsection too long
User:TheTimesAreAChanging was indeed correct that this section was (and now is again) too long. (The material there now is already discussed on Iraq sanctions where it belongs. This subsection is supposed to be in a section dealing with the numbers.)  So this user's edits generally improved the page, even tho  there were problems with some of them. So I want to encourage User:TheTimesAreAChanging to join us on this discussion and then return to editing the page. DougHill (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that my subsequent additions were in error and trimmed accordingly. I had originally considered undoing my own edits after I added that material from the sanctions page, but decided against it. I don't know if the current length is still too long or not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Times. I think the sources are good, and the new editing is a good improvement.  And while the section may still seem long, I think we need those direct quotes (especially the Unicef which has so often been misinterpreted). DougHill (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"He murdered as many as a million of his people...His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead."
I have a lot of respect for Dexter Filkins, but the above claim just sounds like hysterical war propaganda. As cited in the article, Human Rights Watch estimates "that in the last twenty-five years of Ba'th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more." I have no idea where the fabled and conveniently round one million cited by Filkins in The New York Times could possibly come from, but my best guess is that it is the product of inaccurately paraphrased citogenesis, as a similar figure was provided in the paper's earlier "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?", which tells us:
 * "Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people."

That may sound like it is consistent with Filkins' account, but the succeeding paragraphs tell a very different story:
 * "The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000—surely a gross exaggeration—but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country. Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have disappeared into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless."

So, the Gulf War tally is inflated by a factor of 10 and the Iran-Iraq War numbers are also wildly exaggerated (and by no means the "official figures", which may well have been understated to avoid demoralizing the public but which were far lower than the NYT would have you believe), but the democide figure is consistent with Human Rights Watch. It looks like Filkins is double-counting implausibly extreme inventions, effectively pulling one figure out of thin air while assuming that all of the one million or more casualties in the war with Iran were deaths (even though wounded is usually three times the number of war dead). In addition, even if one holds that Iran's attempts to export the revolution to Iraq were ineffectual and that Saddam bears primary responsibility for starting the war, Iran did everything it possibly could to provoke the Iraqi invasion, and was on the offensive from 1982 through 1988. While no-one would dispute that Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, this kind of article seems like a transparent effort to demonize an official enemy. Removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040101104919/http://web.amnesty.org:80/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040603134820/http://iraqfoundation.org:80/archives/hr/hrarchindex.html to http://www.iraqfoundation.org/archives/hr/hrarchindex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
IP sockpuppets of a banned user have been pushing to include their own synthesized estimates of the former Ba'thist regime's death toll, in addition to Human Rights Watch ' s 250,000: Some of this material may be salvageable, but the deaths of refugees fleeing the aftermath of the 1991 rebellion may already be included in the sources provided—indeed, that could explain why the numbers given vary so widely—and any attempt by a Wikipedia editor to extrapolate many tens of thousands of additional victims based on a vague reference to "hundreds" starving every day is pure original research. The same is true regarding the allegedly "missing" Marsh Arabs; the contradictions in the proposed text ("The Marsh Arabs ... have dwindled to as few as 20,000 in Iraq. ... There are now only between 125,000 and 150,000 Marsh Arabs remaining in Iraq") only underscore how dangerous this practice can be—especially when editors are assuming that, whatever the actual number, all of those supposedly "missing" were both killed and yet not counted by Human Rights Watch. Finally, while I have no doubt over 100,000 civilians lost their lives as a result of the Iran–Iraq War, it is questionable whether we should simply attribute all of them to Saddam's government—Iraq certainly started the war, but Iran was on the offensive from 1982 to 1988—or if that topic is even within the scope of Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you are using your own analysis of this event (which is original research) to combat what you think is original research? Good luck with that. You are using your own opinion and other generalized, somewhat inaccurate data,to synthesize and indict the sources that back up the assertions made in the article. What is true isn't the same as what is verifiable, and that burden has been met. If the consensus disagrees with including this, then you might have a leg to stand on. Let's see what the other editors think. Thoughts everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.167.47 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the WP:BURDEN is on you to get consensus for including your totally original and bizarrely exact "552,990 civilians killed" unsourced nonsense—not on me. Plus, banned users should stay banned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027093231/http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_6-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_6-eng
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bu.edu/iis/files/2013/04/Bath-Party-ArchiveFinal-1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ%3FOpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625060431/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/dateline/2010/01/iraq-citizenship-and-womens-rights.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/dateline/2010/01/iraq-citizenship-and-womens-rights.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)