Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddam Hussein Defense

No evidence of notability, appears to be a neologism. Also, the attack against wikipedia itself in the main article does suggest vandalism rather than the pursuit of knowledge. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 13:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contains valid information. Perhaps renamed to 'Richard Nixon Defense'? Comment on Wikipedia can be removed if it is against policy. --Xed 14:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note Xed was the original creator of this article. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 14:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note that Xed is also a troll. RickK 19:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK is known for making personal attacks. See his edit history--Xed 21:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK, Xed CAN vote even if he is the original creator of the article. Despite this, I'll add in my own delete vote to negate his XD WhisperToMe 00:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's true that head of state and sovereignty is a knot in international law. It is not true that Nixon said that in those words.  It is not relevant, nor is this legal defense named this way yet. Geogre 16:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies for saying that Nixon did not use those words. He did.  No change of vote or sentiment. Geogre 15:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is is true that Nixon said those word.--Xed 11:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The name can be changed--Xed 21:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No useful content, and not a good name. We do need an article on this topic, and relating it to the retrospectivity clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the concept of crimes against humanity. If we already have one this could be redirected there. Andrewa 17:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a new name--Xed 21:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: This name should come out of the writing of the article. The contents of this article as it stands don't suggest any good ones to me, otherwise I'd have suggested them. Andrewa 17:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be a neologism. I agree that the content is of limited opinion. If the author insists, I suggest the author combine a range of logical fallcies related to legal arguments (for instance the chewbacca defense, no true scotsman fallacy etc) into a common topic. As to the wikipedia attack, this is clearly POV. However,  there is no reason in principle to reject wikipedia articles that make general claims about wikipedia itself provided such claims are substantiated by examples.CSTAR 22:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 22:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. Andris 22:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 02:55, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism.--Jiang 05:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, no useful content, false quotes, and generally just seems to be part of a campaign against Jimbo. Jayjg 07:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Nixon quote is not false. Additionally Jayjg appears to be stalking me in a very disturbing way--Xed 11:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL! Very amusing.  Please rest assured, I am not "stalking" you. Jayjg 14:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've done more research on the quote, and stand corrected; apparently Nixon said this in a Television interview with David Frost in May 1977. As with most quotes the context is important; here's a link which gives a transcript of the interview: .  Sorry if I misinformed anyone by seconding the statement that it was a false quote. Jayjg 23:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Note this admission of error came after many hours of requests to withdraw the lie.--Xed 01:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Title is wrong, and article as it stands is pretty useless, but where do we have an article on the relevant point in international law as to whether a head of state may be criminally responsible for actions taken ex officio? This is also a factor in the Milosovic trial and in the ongoing charges against Pinochet. -- Jmabel 07:29, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with you. It is also a very important point in the trial of Manuel Noriega (anyone remember him? where is he now?).  My suggestion would be that it be a section or a discussion in International law, but I'm not sure that this article's content should be transferred there. Geogre 18:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sovereign immunity. --Michael Snow 22:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * delete The (apparent) purpose for the author to put this up was to engender debate (as seen by his habit of answering most entries, here, that vote for deletion). Wikipedia is not a debate forum.  KeyStroke
 * Keep! I believe I've read it on other websites, therefore the term actually exist. That means it's worthy of being on Wikipedia. -- Crevaner 20:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * On what other websites have you seen this phrase used to denote a logical fallacy? Jayjg 01:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Two issues are being discussed here:
 * Whether it makes sense to call this a logical fallacy. The answer is arguably no.
 * Whether there is merit in discussing legal concepts used to defend dictators, tyrants or other abusers of state power.. If such an article exists it should not be limited to Hussein and in other ways should have broader scope.CSTAR 00:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you're right, CSTAR, that it is not a fallacy. Whether it is a valid defense is another matter altogether.  The idea of "crimes against humanity" is that there are certain actions that are never legal, no matter who does them or with what authority.  That's why I think this is an important part of International law, and it's why, for example, Noriega may be able to say that he shouldn't be prosecuted for violating a US law in his own nation and why Milosovec can't say the same, at least in international law.  It's not a fallacy, though, and the present article seems to have been one of those "the Sysops are mean" articles. Geogre 02:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest the article is renamed as Executive Defense Fallacy--Xed 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bearcat 04:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although it sounds disturbingly like the kind of phrase that certain sections of the media would be fond of. zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 13:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The relevant issue is the appropriate interpretation of sovereign immunity, a long-standing principle in pre-constitutional law - specifically, does it apply to a national leader who is subject to constitutional restrictions.  This is not a logical fallacy by any definition.  These two might be trivial examples in a larger article exploring the concept of sovereign immunity (and its decline which many historians put at the signing of the Magna Carta) but the article makes no sense outside of that concept.  Rossami (forgot to sign)
 * Delete. I removed the silly jibe at Jimbo, which is rather tasteless. JFW | T@lk  22:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Xed restored the attack on Jimbo, JFW, so I removed it again -- it's a violation of Avoid self-references, in addition to being rude. Jwrosenzweig 23:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacrimosus 08:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I realise that there are logical reasons to get rid of it. Nonetheless, the Saddam/Nixon Rationalisation is something that has been used at least twice, and probably more, in history. Maybe it needs a new name ('Leadership Immunity', 'Dictatorial Immunity', 'Ex-leadership rationalisation').  But the information that it provides is not vanity, nor is it inapplicable to Wikipaedia.  &bull; &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  03:51, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * Del. Neologism. --Jerzy(t) 04:08, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * Delete WhisperToMe 00:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Combine it with something, then Delete. Rossami, is there a broader term than sovereign immunity for the same basic concept? func(talk) 01:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)