Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Saddam Hussein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Cheetos and fruitloops

Mention of Hussein's snack preferences while incarcerated do not belong in this article. I find them to be shockingly irrelevant, especially placed right before the section dealing with his execution.

I suggest we move these, and any other similar items, to a Trivia section at the bottom of the article. MasterDirk 09:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

Is there really not any portraits on Wikipedia from Saddam's time as president we could use? The first picture on a page is the first thing the reader will notice so we should take some care to make sure it's representative. Saddam's main claim to fame is as the ruler of Iraq for several decades, not being convicted at a trial. Fornadan (t) 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The image uploaded at Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg was used as the portrait in this article most of the time between 2003 and 2006. Apparently the file was copied by Answers.com, and it can now be viewed here. I uploaded that image myself a few years ago, arguing that the portrait should be a photo that was both recent and taken during his time as president. But the file was deleted because of the copyright status of the photo. (In my view, the deletion was silly; in all seriousness, the Iraqi government is not going to sue Wikipedia over the rights to photos of Saddam released by the old regime and reproduced in countless publications and websites.) If you want to change the portrait, go ahead and re-upload Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg on Answers.com. (I don't feel like doing so myself. At the moment my tolerance for self-abuse isn't high enough to argue copyright law with the people who worked to get the image deleted earlier on the grounds that we ought to respect the ownership rights of a regime that was overthrown by an invasion more than three years ago.) 172 | Talk 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good detail. Saddam wasn't a courtroom guy. He was the leader of Iraq for some 25 years. We need a proper image of him. This picture depicts him as a careless man with his dirty beard. Deliogul 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgarian and Russian Wikipedias have good images of Saddam (taken during the years of his rule) in their infoboxes,but I do not know the statuses of those pictures.Does anybody here understand Bulgarian or Russian?Dimts 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet is full of comedy pictures of Saddam. The only proper picture is the old image that we used in the article sometimes a go. Many websites are using that image. I don't understand why Wikipedia deleted it. Deliogul 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very strict rules about copyright, and they take it very seriously. They will delete photos that have improper copyright data. They also have a rule that a fair use image CAN NOT be used if a free image is available and the fair use image will be deleted as a result. If you disagree with this policy, take it up with those policymakers. Caper13 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I prefer to avoid yet another discussion about the portrait photo in this article, I feel compelled to address two misguided assumptions in the comments above. First, Wikipedia editors are engaged in 'policymaking.' For instance, in a discussion of the use of the Trang Bang photo [1] my comment "This picture is one of hundreds posted on Wikipedia of similar fair use status" reproduced already in countless numbers of publications and websites was noted on the Foundation mailing list [2] and even worked its way into a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. [3] Second, common sense has a place in the "very strict rules." The last thing Wikipedia has to fear is a lawsuit over rights to photos of Saddam released by a regime that was overthrown in an invasion three years ago. 172 | Talk 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont recall seeing that the liklihood of a lawsuit was a factor in determining whether to violate copyright. Perhaps you can point it out. Caper13 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, paranoia about copyright infringement suits is the only reason for this constant deletion of images. I have had many an argument with editors about this, and it's always the issue. And the page on fair use, as unreadable as it is, makes it clear that fear of copyright infringement suits is the motivation for this policy. FYI, I don't disagree with the general policy, I just think that in many cases editors are worrying about nothing. The first rule of fair use is "do no harm (to the copyright holder)". That's the guideline that should matter. Wahkeenah 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Caper13 keeps deleting the images in the infobox on the grounds that they aren't "free". The latest one I added I found on wikipedia Finland, so I assumed it was free. Caper13 doggedly asserts that it is "unfree". I'd like to know your opinion about this.Max Thayer 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The prevailing wiki policy is that a free image supercedes a fair use image, no matter how ugly the free image is. Just another step in "enhancing" this so-called encyclopedia. Maybe they're afraid Saddam's relatives will sue for copyright violation. Wahkeenah 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the image you try to include has not proper copyright information. It is decribed as "only non-commercial or educational use is permitted". Sorry, but that is incompatible with the English language Wikipedia policy and goals (other subprojects may have slightly different policies) unless we can make a fair use case. So far, none has been made. I don't think the existence of any free image necessarily precludes the fair use of all images of a subject if they illustrate other aspects of it. But neither "I found it on another Wikipedia" nor "the Iraqi gouvernment is not going to sue us" is a good reason for keeping the image. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That would make 99% of wikipedia images illegal, if we follow this logic. How do you determine that an image is "free" ? Why can't you use images intended for non-commercial use ?Max Thayer 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if your statistics would be correct, 99% of all Wikipedia images would be illegal. You determine if an image is free by finding out who created it and what happened to the copyright. Sufficiently old images have fallen out of copyright. Images produced by the US federal gouvernment are PD. Many images are created by Wikipedians and donated under a free license. Many other images are published under a free license as well. If we cannot determine the copyright status, we can at best use the image under fair use. This is not my idea, and this is not new, but official Wikipedia policy, as handed down by Jimbo. See WP:COPY and Wikipedia talk: Copyrights. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There. I added a public domain photo. I did all this because I thought using the "bearded Saddam" photo was somehow adding insult to injury; now I find myself using a flattering photo, and I don't even like the guy ! :) Max Thayer 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In happier times, as they say. If he were told then and there that he would eventually be hanged, it might have wiped off the smile. Now, to restate what I told one user on his own page: This wiki-philosophy, this obsession with "free" photos, regardless of quality, is why wikipedia's photo collection looks like somebody's scrapbook rather than looking "encyclopedic", which is ironic since being "encyclopedic" is another wiki-obsession. It undermines the credibility of wikipedia to be stuck with second-rate or third-rate photos. But it does serve as a reminder that "you get what you pay for". Wahkeenah 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The photo of Hussein in his youth needs a caption identifying him. I am referring to this photo ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:SaddamCairo.JPG ). There are about twelve people in that photo and it's not obvious which one is Hussein. 208.64.241.229 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sites

I think should be on external links... www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?mod=art&lapage=../en_articles_2007/0107/final-letter_020107.htm Do we have this full letter on the main page? As usual, not.

Term in office

He was overthrown on April 9th or was it his statue that was overthrown, should be say he was in power until puppet provision authority took over? Technically speaking he was president until that day. -- posted by 66.99.0.102

He's dead. You don't have to be afraid of him anymore. Wahkeenah 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say that technically he was president until his capture on December 14th, 2003. He did not have much power while in hiding but was still president. I think trying to find any other date to say this was the day he was no longer in power is a hard thing to determine. I am curious to see if anyone else has any other dates and reasoning why their chosen date would be the best date to consider as the end of his presidency. Fsamuels 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah what does this mean? It is a detail and we have to give correct data in the article. Deliogul 09:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do. I'm making fun of the POV in the comment. There are folks here still defending Saddam as if he were still alive and could still send his death squads to "take care of them" for not supporting him. Wahkeenah 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude, its ok. US citizens don't have to worry about being considered unamerican for not supporting Bush's policies any more.
Well, Dude, I voted for the guys who ran against Bush... something the citizens of Iraq never had the option to do with Saddam, other than by deposing him. Wahkeenah 11:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
they still don't get the chance to vote against Bush :p I'm just making fun of the PoV in your response. There are folks here still defending US policy as if they would be considered less of an American if they didn't. But thats a blatently unfair thing to say. FWIW i think you have the best interests of the article at heart and play an important role in keeping anti US polemnic under control, but dude, there is no need to make statements like that. Especially given that people can still be killed for speaking their mind in Iraq.

I didnt see anything wrong with Wahkeenah's response. The purpose of this article is not to try to create a moral equivalency between Saddam's dictatorship and a free society, it is to document reality. The purpose of this article is also not to give a propraganda platform for all of Saddam's statements. It is a place for an adademic and dispassionate summary of the man and his accomplishments (both good and bad). The POV pushing Wahkeenah was responding to, qualfied for a response like that. One does not have to be either a Bush supporter or an American to recognize that Iraq was not a free society under Saddam, (or for that matter even agree with all aspects of the Iraq war that removed him) or that Saddam maintained his power through the use of violence against opponents. Caper13 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly does Wahkeenahs sweeping statement about the motives of other editors apply to? Because of if its no one then its an irreleveant derogatory comment that has nothing to do with dispassionate article creation. I at least had the decency to say that my statement was unfair, and will even apologise for it. Do you stand by the statement that Wahkeenah made? are there editors here who defend Sadaam as if his death squads will get them? and if so, who? if there are not, then what the blazes is he going on about? a feeling he's got?
- The core argument is the question of whether Saddam was a "dictator" juxtaposed with ill-informed or satirical arguments that folks like George Bush or Tony Blair are "dictators". Anyone who can lose an election is not a dictator. Dictators "serve" until they are killed and/or deposed. Whatever Saddam's last day in power was, is effectively the last day of his Presidency. It could be argued to be April 9, 2003 (approximately when Baghdad was secured); or it could be May 1, 2003 (when Bush, in a much-lampooned case of over-optimism, declared major combat operations over) and about when the U.S.-led provisional government took charge; or it could be September 1, 2003, when the temporary governing council was appointed; or it could be December 13, 2003 (when Saddam was captured); or it could be December 30, 2006 (when he was hanged). Perhaps there is a source someplace that would list the effective end of his reign, as opposed to editors having to "decide" it here. Which takes us back to the original, still-unanswered question in this section. The World Almanac, despite being a U.S.-oriented source, does not answer the question definitively, only by inference (as with the list of dates above). In the absence of a definitive answer, maybe the editors could consult the article on Adolf Hitler or any number of other dictators for guidance on how to handle it. The end of the war in Europe is similar, with a provisional government maintaining order after Hitler disappeared and before the permanent government was elected. Wahkeenah 11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - spot on, and dare I say it, well said. Dictator is still obviously PoV, and your definition seems shaky, but that argument has been done to death (and of debatable relevence). This answer is useful, constructive and doesn't imply that anyone asking for clarification on the matter is some kind of sympathiser, regardless of the way they ask. I merely ask that you show care when issuing off the cuff dismissive remarks. You will risk offending people who are still fighting human rights abuses in Iraq after Saddam.
    - Roger. If you read my various comments, you'll see that I don't argue for labeling him a dictator in the article, but I also take issue with those who try to argue that he wasn't, which I take to be blindness to the facts and which I lampoon as "loyalty" to a much-feared man who is now (as far as we know) dead and therefore harmless, or mostly harmless. Wahkeenah 13:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      - tis all good. But don't be surprised if people lampoon your use of the word dicator as being words from the mouth of the white house. No more valid or true, but every bit as annoying. ooh, are we both people with an annoying habit of wanting to get the last word in?
        The dictionary definition (Oxford Engligh Dictionary) is that a dictator is "A person exercising absolute authority of any kind or in any sphere; one who authoritatively prescribes a course of action or dictates what is to be done.". Thus stating that someone is a Dictator isn't actually a direct moral judgment, but a statement of the level of personal power they have. Average Earthman 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthday confusion

I'm getting kinda messed up here. Sources say that Saddam was born at the end of April in 1937, and some say the 27th of April, while others say it's the 28th. Which is more correct? --Angeldeb82 03:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's actual date of birth was never recorded. he was the stupidest person to ever walk the planet. He was a peasant born in a relatively uncivilzed part of the country. When he came to power, this was the official date of birth the government released - 28 April, 1937. But biographers disagree, saying they have obtained documents from his early life apparently stating 1939 as the year he was born. This too has been heavily criticized, especially when it was discovered that, in order to meet national legal standards, the Iraqi province of Salah ad Din had in the 1940s issued falsely designed passports to the young people of the area lacking a DOB. All of them were given 1 July 1939 as there date of birth. Many of his peers state that he was born in 1939 however, but others say he was born as far back as 1935. Some of his biographers say he changed his DOB from 1939 to 1937 when he chose to marry a woman when he was 2 years too young to do so. April 27, 1937 is misleading. It is an error originally printed in the New York Times which seems to have been copied by other media. They also refer to him as 'Mr. Hussein', which is not the correct way to say his name formally. You should say 'Saddam' instead. As a result of all this, it is agreed that databases and the like should give 28 April, 1937 if a date of birth is required as it has not actually been disproven, but to note also that he is believed to have been born at any time between 1935 and 1939. I hope this answered your question.--88.104.106.235 22:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam a descendant of the Prophet?

This text is continually inserted into the article: "Sayyid (From the family of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W.)" without citation nor--as far as I can determine--factual basis. Please abstain from these uncited insertions. Prezen 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that this was some sort of propaganda that Saddam came up with at some point during his rule, creating a fake family tree for political purposes. Reinsertion of this uncited information should be removed as vandalism and appropriate warnings given. Caper13 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I recognize that. I didn't point it out, but it was done covertly under the heading of a picture edit, by an editor who had previously inserted pro-Saddam POV material. Prezen 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith editing like that should absolutely be treated as vandalism. Caper13 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the text. Missed that it was still there. Prezen 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not an uncommon practice to "trace" one's family roots back to the family of the Prophet Muhammed. They say that the more one pays the researcher the closer they can find a link to the Muhammed himself.

Article offers US perspective mainly / only

US perspective on this wikipedia article is overwhelming.

Avenger786 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add a different perspective or to try to make it more NPOV.

Well, I don't know what the article looked like back in January, but the current version is a plain anti-American propaganda piece, that grossly sanitizes the history of Saddam's rule. NCdave 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is too light

Issues surrounding the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein are clearly some of the most controversial issues of the modern era. It relates directly to Middle Eastern geo-politics and goes to the heart of issues such as Palestine-Israel, current tensions with Iran and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

Iraq is said to be a modern day Vietnam and certainly more contorversial due to the impact on the Holy Lands and the wider Muslim world in the Middle East. The artcile needs 'beefing up' and has been stripped of important content and neutred too much.

There needs to be a fair and balanced reflection of a number of issues these being:

international coalition or US / UK coalition
global condemnation of invasion, millions protest, biggest protests in history in opposition to war
was he a secular leader or head of an Islamic state
noticeable lack of reference in US involvement in the Iranian revolution and funding / military backing of Iraq or contentiously both sides
no discussion about the religious reasons for the Iran-Iraq conflict in relation to the belief that Iran was an apostate state (twelvers) and the claimed supremancy of sunni Islam
Halabja issue needs to be properly addressed as it was one of the key original reasons used to support the trial of Saddam Hussein although later dropped
Kuwaiti invasion - there is overwhelming evidence relating to the slant drilling issue and much evidence to support the contention that Kuwait was not only administered from Iraq but that this was mandated by the West after WW2
Western support of Iraq prior to Kuwaiti invasion is blatantly lacking. Commentary like this that is lacking gives the perception of BIAS in the Saddam Hussein article, although it may be unintentional it is a dangerous risk and feeds conspiracy theorists who would attack Western "revisionist" historical accounts.
sanctions post Gulf War 1 - no comment of the deaths and food for oil program. Information needs to be offered up on the reasons for sanctions, the arms inspectorate who constantly contended that Iraq had complied (albeit begrudgingly) with the UN requirements to destroy its WMDs.
Little or no references to Hans Blix, involvement and comment, who is a crucial figure in the pre-Gulf War 2 history
9/11 commission report - clarified the lack of relationship with Al-Qaeda and needs to be cited
removal of a leader of a sovereign state - as support for the Gulf War 2 and international condemnation as it is contrary to international law

Please leave your views.

Avenger786 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To start, please use the term "modern" more sparingly. Vietnam was a "modern" conflict. The term "modern" properly refers to the era that follows the medieval period. To assert that the current civil strife in Iraq is "one of the most controversial" issues of the "modern" era is frankly hyperbolic and lacks historical perspective. The civil conflict in Iraq following the 2003 invasion may not be described in the coming years as more devastating than the Iran-Iraq War, one of the deadliest conventional wars since the end of the Second World War.

To write a competent encyclopedic biography, editors must resist the temptation to over-emphasize current events. Blogs, and TV news and talk radio programs framing the political rhetoric of the day have different frames of relevance from biographies in encyclopedias. News articles usually deal with short timeframes; biographies focus on entire lifetimes. In this sense, "beefing up" the content related to the hype of the moment would leave the article unbalanced, giving undue weight to coverage of the last three to five years, and likely increasing the U.S.-centrism of the article. If anything, we need to move in the opposite direction, restoring a longer view historical perspective, and trimming the stuff that has more to do with American electoral politics than the subject of the article. 172 | Talk 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Avenger786's some points are really interesting. They can show us the way in our search to understand Hussein's fall from power. Take care, Deliogul 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

US / UK support noticeably lacking

Since WW1 and the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire by Western Forces, there has been a relatively constant involvement in Iraqi (and regional) political and financial support by Western governments. On occassion this has been with covert operations such as that which brought the Ba'ath party into power.

Although rejected by the CIA "officially", it is clear that the CIA, with Israel and the UK backed the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein in the bloody coming to power in 1963.

"In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s Health Alteration Committee, as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. Almost certainly a gain for our side, Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated."

An excerpt from an article by Roger Morris ( Op-Ed ) NEW YORK TIMES Friday March 14th, 2003

Used as a reference in Wikipedia here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Abdul_Karim_Qassim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avenger786 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Avenger786 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole points out that there is conflicting evidence regarding these events. A CIA official claims that CIA was not involved. I have to say that I think the original story is very unlikely since it would've involved cooperation between intelligence agencies that represented opposite sides in the Cold War. The Egyptians were hostile to the US at the time. Another point which seems questionable in the above claims is that the Iraqi Kurds were pro-Soviet during this period. http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/conflicting-accounts-of-cia-and-saddam.html

Another interesting thing about this topic is that this is the third time I reply to it, each time I did previously the talk page was archived. Is this a neat way of eliminating uncomfortable facts? Prezen 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Section 8, "Escape and capture"

Under section 8 "Escape and capture", it has sub-categories that appear to be numbered incorrectly:

"8.1 Escape", " 8.1.1 Capture", " 8.1.2 Incarceration"

All three of these sub-categories are of equal importance related to the main "Escape and capture", yet the latter two are made as sub-points to "8.1 Escape".

I have recently registered, so I am not allowed to edit the posting myself.

Raven Morris 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Fornadan (t) 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Still figuring out how everything works here, like the colons for indenting. I know HTML quite well, so figuring out these wiki formats is pretty easy when I am looking at what other people (like you) put in.

Raven Morris 08:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY DID ALL THE FASCINATING INFORMATION ABOUT SADDAM'S PERIOD IN HIDING GET REMOVED - WHO SANCTIONED THIS AND HOW ARE THESE DECISIONS MADE? I SPENT HOURS AND HOURS ADAPTING THAT FROM THE BBC SOURCE. WHO MAKES THESE DECISIONS AND CAN THAT REALLY INTERESTING AND RELEVANT CONTENT (NOT PUBLISHED ANYWHERE ELSE ONLINE) BE PUT BACK????? I AM REALLY FURIOUS ABOUT THIS. James Frankcom 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the anaylsis, can the translation from this Think-tank be used for the Saddam Hussein article or his execution?

Can the translation from this think-tank be used for either the Sasddam article or his execution? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20070129&articleId=4620

Any other opinions?

74.101.98.235

Excellent article. I listened to the execution video with my own ears and Saddam clearly does say "the hell that is Iraq?" Why is this omitted by western media? The article provides good reasons. --Lft6771 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did Saddam's quote on Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes go?

There was a quote in here involving Saddam's position on the U.S. administrations from Reagan to G. W. Bush, where did it go? I felt it was pretty pertinent to his views on the outside world. I can only guess that a Reagan-supporter, embarassed by what he said, took it out. Professor Ninja 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the "history" of the edits, go to the articles page and hit the history top of the top of the page, it will show you all the edits. WAde though them until you find out who made the change, they might have said why, or not. If they don't appear to have a reason then just put them back in. Kairos 10:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Burial Picture

As you may know, I've uploaded the picture of Saddam's funeral used in the Execution of Saddam Hussein article a month ago. I was given the go ahead by someone to post the picture onto the "Burial" section because the picture never violates the copyright law. I've now posted that picture onto the "Execution" section of this article, as long as it doesn't do any harm or anything. I hope you like this. --Angeldeb82 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly

The IPC is quoted in the article as having a monopoly on oil prospecting in Iraq in the early seventies. I believe this is wrong, since a) other Western companies (albeit owned by the same owners) operated in Iraq, and b) a Soviet oil company was also operating in Iraq since 1969. I suggest that this - possibly erroneous - factoid be commented until the "monopoly" can be properly cited. Prezen 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Iraq nationalized the IPC in 1972. The major shareholders were BP, CFP, Esso, and Mobil. While IPC's complete monopoly ended under Qasim, the company continued to dominate the country's petroleum industry. 172 | Talk 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the IPC was nationalized is not under question, nor subject to my proposal for change. It's the word monopoly that I question. Prezen 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reread the sentence: "In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had [empahsis added] long held a monopoly on the country's oil." This sentence implies the IPC had at one time a monpolpy, but not specifically when it ended. It ended in the early 1960s. But the monpoply is is of historical significance, as it explained the continued dominance of the IPC of the country's oil sector throughout the 1960s. 172 | Talk 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the sentence ought to be changed to state correctly that the monopoly was a thing of the past, rather than the present fuzzy and misleading implication. Prezen 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, when I now look at the article it says the following: On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. I don't understand where your argument is coming from? Prezen 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit trying to pick fights. We were talking about the intro, not text elsewhere on Wikipedia. The total monopoly formally ended in the early 1960s. The IPC was still dominant until the early 1970s. 172 | Talk 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:172 vandalism

what is Mr 172 do can not be called more than vandalism to glorify saddam i want to ask why no one stoped him ? alot of informations was removed for the article and he added alot of without refernce information! --217.17.231.76 11:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, User:172 has reintroduced a lot of propaganda that I removed a couple of weeks ago. I'm beginning to wonder at his motives. Prezen 12:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I have had users sanctioned and even blocked for similar personal attacks. The material I upload here is sourced and accurate. Read the books cited in the article. 172 | Talk 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maniputation of sourced, accurate information

Prezen continues to manipulate the following sentence, changing "Kuwait" with "Iraq": On one hand, Kuwait, prior to this point, had been a virulent enemy of Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchy that had had the most friendly relations with the Soviets. The citation of LaFeber refers to Kuwait, not Iraq. LaFeber is a solid source and the claim is accurate. Tampering with cited content is illegitimate. 172 | Talk 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if this quote is correct, it is directly misleading since Kuwait was allied with the west, not the Soviets. You have also restored the following line "For a statement asserting the overriding importance of oil to U.S. national security and the U.S. economy" which is not supported by your source. I object to user 172's consistent attempts to enter pro-Iraqi propaganda into the article. Prezen 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cease the personal attacks, or I would be in the right in reporting you to the administrators' noticeboard. The sentence on Kuwait cites LaFeber. You have a source stating that LaFeber's discussion is "pro-Iraqi propaganda," cite it. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:No original research. I indeed restored the line stating, For a statement asserting the overriding importance of oil to U.S. national security and the U.S. economy. Your comment that the statement is not supported by the source is dubious at best. The source in question clearly states, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." Of course, that statement should be no revelation to anyone who has the least bit of a college-level background in either international relations or political economy. 172 | Talk 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anfal.

I've read over this article of Saddam Hussein, and I think it omits the haneous crimes he committed during his position in office. Biased closely to actually appraising Saddam as a hero to Iraq. In order for the reader to understand the current war in Iraq, and to relate to the need of Saddam's usurpment, I think an extensive article over the Anfal is necessary.

So too was Hitler a hero to Germany... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.183.82.231 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

That is just your opinion, but it does not make it fact. The term "anfal campaign" was not used by the Iraqis, but promoted by a certain human rights group in the west. --Lft6771 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That would stand to reason, as "human rights" is an unknown concept in Mesopotamia. Wahkeenah 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, the Anfal was a name adopted by the Iraqis, "The campaign takes its name from Surat Al-Anfal in the Qur'an, which was used as a code name by the former Iraqi Baathist regime for a series of military campaigns against the peshmerga rebels as well as the mostly Kurdish civilian population of southern Kurdistan."

Oh.. I guess it's just MY opinion that gassing, murdering, and genociding Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is wrong. It's also my opinion that the holocaust was wrong... Do you agree with me? I think we can establish en masse slayings as wrong factually.

I'm sure Saddam had a good reason. Probably something to do with them criticizing his mustache. He was such a sensitive sort. Wahkeenah 01:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No that is absolutely false. Do not bring the Holocaust in to this, that is just wrong. Your opinion was that he has commited "haneous crimes". The so-called Anfal campaign is DISPUTED and was promoted by a propped up human rights organization headed by a non neutral and biased individual. It constantly inflated the amount dead from the crack down on Kurdish seperatist. The original CIA estimate stated that several thousands were killed - unfortunate and a tragedy. However, then this organization inflated that figure: first 50,000; then 70,000; then 100,000; then 120,000; then 150,000; then 180,000 as time went on. What purpose does this serve? promote false propaganda to justify commiting a horrible wrong for past wrongs? Two wrongs do not make a right.

This is history revisionism and should be rejected. You can't just inflate numbers like that as time goes on. What after 10 years would they be saying that 1 million were killed? --Lft6771 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Only this human rights group makes the claim that Iraqis called it that. Why would the Iraqis name a millitary operation after a book in the Quran? This groups has been caught in many lies and in attempts to cook up false information. I have never ever heard any Iraqi official refer to it as Anfal. It is unsubstantiated and it originated by a report by this human rights group in 92 with a title like Anfal: Genocide against Kurds. --Lft6771 09:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the National Geo June '06 (maybe '05)on Iraq, Saddam was directly involved in making between 4 and 6 million people disapear. There is good cause to consider adding more information to this article regarding the holocaustic nature of Saddam's destruction. --68.22.19.194 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Human rights violations should definatly be discussed. If they are desputed, then that can be discussed as well.

I forgot to sign my comment ^ 24.56.216.132 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

Absolutely, "Human Rights Violations in Saddam Hussein's Iraq" should be discussed. There already is a Wikipedia page of that name. Could someone perhaps add some of the information from that page to this page? 64.16.162.161 01:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Ben Pounds

They don't need to copy all the crimes, it would be too many to fit on the same page. But I agree, this article makes Saddam appear to have been a good person. I would suggest referencing that he committed many crimes against humankind, and to cite the other article. Sincerely, Captain Vimes 23:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed

"Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century, with atrocities committed on both sides. During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists. On March 16, 1988 Iraqi troops, on orders from Saddam to stop a Kurdish uprising, attacked the Kurdish town of Halabjah with a mix of poison gas and nerve agents killing 5,000 people, mostly women and children. (see Halabja poison gas attack) Dissenting opinions dispute the numbers and have said the incident was actually a battle in the Iran–Iraq war where chemical weapons were used on both sides and a significant portion of the fatalities were caused by the Iranian weapons."

How did the Iranian retain control of Halabja if it was the Iraqis who used chemicals? Also, what about the war of attrition between the U.S./U.K. and Iraq. It continued from 1991 to 2007, and it is still going. There were almost daily bombardment by U.S./U.K. warplanes over the no-fly zones during this period.

Why is it that one side get to state their position as official when many disagree. Saddam clearly said that he only knew of the Halabja incident from television. Where is the proof he ordered it. It was a fact that there was a battle in Halabja, news article from 1988 show this. History revisionism should be rejected.

The first sentence may be false, because the U.S./U.K. had a 10 year+ war of attrition against Iraq. The destruction from this war of attrition definately exceeds what happended during the Iran-Iraq war.

Also, the facts are wrong. The Iranians take Halabja, then the Iraqis respond by trying to liberate it.

--Lft6771 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is `abd not `abid

`abd means servant in Arabic and it is used in surnames, `abid has the meaning of black slaves in Arabic, so please do not vandalize this page with nonsense. azalea_pomp

Also it is spelled عبد in arabic, or 3bd. That is an 'a' that does not appear in english, followed by a 'b' and a 'd'. --Lft6771 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok idfh you mean ع? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Surname indexing

Based on CIA World Factbook and other sources, it seems that surname indexing should be based on Saddam but not Hussein.--Jusjih 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

left and right

now qusay was on the right ( on saddams left) and uday on the other side. Tourskin 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-image promotion

The article totally lacks mentioning of the fact that Saddam continueously promoted his self image with giant photos, statues, paintings and so on, images that stood on the streets, roads and everywhere in Iraq. John Hyams 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Iraqis did in fact support him and they willingly hung pictures of him. If you go to Iraq today, many Iraqis still have portraits and hang images of Saddam. How do you explain tributes to him that occurred after his death? His ghost was responsible for those? --Lft6771 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Execution of Political Opponents + Regime of Tyranny

Where can I find info about Saddam executing his political opponents? Why is it not in the article? All I read about is the "modernization" programs he initiated. Where can I find info about the regime of tyranny and fear?... John Hyams 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Look under false propaganda from the demonization campaign against Iraqi regime to promote war. Search "incubator lie" to get to get started. --Lft6771 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

John, that sort of information is missing because this is intended to be a leftist (Lft6771-ist) propaganda piece, not a NPOV factual article. NCdave 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Urgent

I've got bad news. The burial picture that I posted is marked for speedy deletion, and I can't save it because the picture is from Reuters, and Wikipedia won't accept images like said picture for Fair Use. So I'm gonna remove copies of it from both this article and the "Execution of Saddam Hussein" article. In the meantime, I want you to find a picture of Saddam's grave that is similar to the picture shown in this link, only public domain, and not from Reuters or AP this time, okay? Can you do that for me? Thank you! --Angeldeb82 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

As a civil reminder, please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Editors should not doing reverts to one another like what is happening with this article. Morenooso 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't know about this rule, sorry. But what can I do? A Saddam fan is deleting information that is supported by reliable sources. He says The Washington Post isn't a reliable source, but doesn't present his own sources ("these are facts", he says). What are you supposed to do in this case? Is there a place to make a complaint against him? Lizrael 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Really unbiased source this is:

She's a clotheshorse. She's a bottle blonde. She's the headmistress of a girls school. She's a jealous wife, and with good reason. She's the mother of a killer. She's her husband's first cousin.
She's Mrs. Saddam Hussein.
Veiled in mystery, totally overshadowed -- behind every megalomaniacal dictator is a woman we hear nothing about -- Sajida Khayrallah has miraculously endured a 32-year marriage to Saddam.
— Propaganda Piece by Washington Post Excerpt, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/bride012591.htm

The part that talks about marriage to a "Shahbandar":

Over time, newspapers reported that Saddam had one special mistress -- Samira Shahbandar. She is described as tall, blond and from an old and distinguished merchant family of Baghdad. At the time Saddam fell for her, Samira was married to somebody else -- Nurredin al-Safi, an Iraqi Airlines official, who quickly agreed to step aside and let the notoriously hotheaded president claim his wife. Safi was later promoted to director of the airline. Some believe Saddam secretly married Samira without going through the formality of divorcing Sajida. (She is described as Saddam's "second wife" in both the London Daily Telegraph and in the quickie biography of Saddam by Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie.)
— Propaganda Piece by Washington Post Excerpt, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/bride012591.htm

More nonsense that clearly put into question this article's credibility:

Their marriage, like so many in the Arab world, was arranged when Saddam was only 4 or 5 years old.
— Propaganda Piece by Washington Post Excerpt, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/bride012591.htm

Finally, this article is not supported by any other source. The burden of proof is on the person adding content not on removing it. (wikipedia policy) It is extremely difficult at proving a negative. You say there is gold burried in the Antarctic. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the one with the very difficult task of trying to prove it false. If this was the policy misinformation will spread and be promoted without challenge for a very long time (even if the originator of the claim was making stuff up).

What is washington post's sources? Why are they the only ones saying it? --Lft6771 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing! The dispute is over if Saddam married a Samira Shahbandar. This is all the Washigton Post article is a reference for. While you are REVERTING all of my edits, even those that have nothing to do with this. --Lft6771 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers often don't give sources, it's no reason to doubt a distinguished paper like The Washington Post. What are your sources? Do you have a reliable source that says Saddam was married to just one woman? Lizrael 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion I found a reliable source. A simple Google search would've avoided this dispute.

(56) NAME: Sajida Khayrallah Tilfah
ساجدة خير الله طلفاح
DPOB: 1937, Al-Awja, near Tikrit, Iraq
NATIONALITY: Iraqi
1483 BASIS: Wife of Saddam Hussein (listed above). Sajida Khayrallah Tilfah is Saddam Hussein's first wife and cousin who bore him five children (he currently has at least six children), including Qusay Saddam Hussein and Uday Saddam Hussein, both of whom occupied senior positions in the former Iraqi regime. She is Saddam Hussein's only officially recognized wife (Saddam Hussein currently has at least two wives).

From http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1518/1483_lst.htm

Write in the article that he had one officially recognised wife, but at least two as of June 2004, referencing the above link.

--User:Krator (t c) 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Krator's suggestion. I don't find the U.N. a more reliable source than the Post (need I remind you the oil-for-food scandal?Lizrael 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?. I thought we agreed on a compromise, we deleted all the information you didn't like, except the one passage that's backed with a reliable source - The Washington Post. I will not hesitate to make a complaint against you to the admins, if you delete information that is backed by sources again. Wikipedia is not the place to push your political agenda. Lizrael 11:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it can be a place where people can learn about allegations provided that it is indicated who is doing the alleging. 64.16.162.161 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Ben Pounds

Saddam Lookalikes

It is common knowledge that Saddam employed many virtually photo-indistinguishable look-alikes who actually made personal appearances and speeches in place of the real Saddam. If anyone has a good source for this info, please add it to the Saddam page. It is definitely encyclopaedic, and it would be a shame if this info was not included. This information is convenient to exclude, especially since no one questioned that the Saddam executed in the 'leaked' video was the real one... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Android8 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

This is extremely important and must not be left out. We were assured at the time of the 1991 Gulf War that Saddam Hussein employed multiple lookalikes who even underwent plastic surgery to make sure they looked almost identical to Saddam. There are countless sites on the internet dedicated to explaining how these doubles were used and why they have been scarcely mentioned since, I'd say about December 13, 2003. For a sample of conflicting arguments regarding the body doubles and Saddam's "execution", watch the audio video on http://www.saddamnotdead.com/?p=80

Saddam Hussein's Body Doubles

Just wondering if it would be relevant to have a section in this article dedicated to Saddam’s body doubles? --User:D.Kurdistani 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links, about Saddam’s doubles
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1076722002
http://www.samsloan.com/saddams.htm
http://www.maddogproductions.com/ds_saddam.htm

Dictator?

The entire article does not contain the word "dictator" which is sometimes used in the West to describe him. Can you please add a sentence in the intro paragraph saying who considers him a dictator, and who considers him something else. To present various points of view on his title.--Sonjaaa 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated attempts have been made over several years to resolve the neutrality and original research problems that arise when using the term "dictator." They have all failed, and the preference is to avoid the term in general. User:172 can tell you more about the history if you're interested. Gazpacho 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Genocide

How is it possible to write an article about Saddam and never use the word "genocide," and never mention the Marsh Arabs who he sought to exterminate? Halabjah gets a brief mention, but with deceptive weasel words that cast false doubt upon a crime for which there is no doubt. The Marsh Arabs are never even mentioned! [4]

How is it possible to write about Saddam and never mention that he was the most notorious eco-terrorist in the history of the world? He intentionally dumped enormous amounts of crude oil in the Gulf, intentionally set hundreds of oil wells ablaze, and drained the most ecologically important marshlands in the region as part of his genocide of the Marsh Arabs. Nobody has ever used intentional ecological destruction as an instrument of war and repression on the scale that Saddam did, but it isn't even mentioned in this sanitized history.

How is it possible to write about Saddam and not mention his support for terrorism, such as his standing offer of $30,000 USD payments to the families of suicide bombers?

How is it possible to write about Saddam and not mention the mass graves full of men, women and children who he had ordered murdered, graves which were found all over Iraq? [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

All of that is proven fact, beyond dispute. But it doesn't appear in this article.

Instead, this article contains dubious and weakly supported allegations of CIA connections, presented as fact.

The best estimates are that Saddam was directly responsible for about 2 million violent deaths during his ~20 years in power. (Estimates vary, but all reputable sources agree that it was at least 1 million.) Two million total works out to be an average of about 375 violent deaths per day, over 20 years. Why isn't that mentioned in this article?

The anti-American POV slant of this article is absolutely outrageous! NCdave 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-American about this article. I also reject your emotional and baseless rhetoric. Disputed one sided misinformation from the propaganda campaign to promote war and justify war with Iraq should not be included to keep this article factual and neutral. The HRW is not credible because it is run by an individual with conflicts of interests to promote war. Furthermore, the information is unsubstantiated and not supported by any other source. -TruthSeeker777 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The word is not included because the article isn't neutral. Saddam fans have been deleting sections of this article for a couple of years now. Lizrael 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

'Multiple sources' is the keyword here. He does present multiple sources (among them the BBC), but without any hard facts (not estimates) from a neutral source it's the usual game of who-do-you-trust. What has been confirmed by the Inforce team is the existence of mass graves. Not to mention them is deliberate blindness. There is some confusion between how many people were "expected" to be in mass graves and how many were actually found. The origin of the widely quoted 300.000 i.e. "400.000 bodies found" claim seems to be Tony Blair (PM admits graves claim 'untrue', Guardian Unlimited), only 5000 corpses (I read 3000 in another pub) have been excavated by Inforce in 2003. Inforce trained Iraqui personnel in Mass Grave Excavation in 2005 (new-mediacal.net). Maybe someone else could look up how many were excavated later (also as evidence for Saddam's trial). But very likely it was only a small fraction because relatives had already begun to dig up suspected remains of family members (Vital evidence lost from Iraq's mass graves, newscientist.com), it was and is a dangerous business, and most Iraquis have other things to worry about now. ALu06 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Buried by his sons?

Article says he was buried by his sons in 2006, but qusay and uday supposably died in 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klorkurou (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

You misread. Gazpacho 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

trasported

under the section:

Incarceration and trial

Capture and incarceration

also, the words trial and incarceration should be capitalized as they are headings and subheadings.

24.20.128.17 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there something preventing you from fixing them? This is a wiki, after all... --OuroborosCobra 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Burial Video

The video link is no longer working. Please remove or find a different one.

I support the latter because that shit's hot.

143.229.182.13 06:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AlRod

Saddam Alive?

I was just wondering if anyone was aware that, in 2002, German scientist Dr. Dieter Buhmann conducted a study of 450 images of Saddam Hussein and concluded that the former Iraqi President utilised at least three body doubles? This was not the only revalation however, because he also found that the actual Saddam had only appeared in public once (September, 2001) in the previous 14 years. His findings were later broadcast on a German TV station.

Also, is anyone aware that in April, 2004, the Russian Government pressurised the USA and Iraq to allow a meeting between Saddam and his first wife, Sajidah Talfah. Believe it or not, it happened. Saddam and Sajidah met in Qatar if I remember correctly (a very rare occurance as it was decided that Saddam must be kept in the Green Zone for security reasons). Anyway, eastern newspapers reported that Sajidah stormed out of the building in a fury and said "That is not my husband, but his double. I asked to see my husband." Guards at the scene assured her that it was Saddam and told her he may have changed significantly since the last time she saw him. She replied "Are you telling me I don't know my own husband. I've been living with him for over 25 years!" This is believed to be the last time she was seen publicly. The story made its way to America, but after Saddam Hussein's 'capture' had proven such a convenient and successful counter balance to the mounting guerrilla violence in Iraq, it was quickly swatted aside , probably as Ba'th Party propaganda.

All of this is entirely speculative. I have no reason to doubt that Saddam, himself, was executed. Are you suggesting he'll send an e-greeting to Amerika of him on the beach with a brew and babe on each arm in the phuture? This is just conspiracy-cruft.—oac old american century ^talk @ 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't presume to know what Saddam intends to do, or whether he is alive or dead. All I know is that some of the media's favourite images of Saddam have turned out to be images of doubles. I also know that throughout Saddam's life prior to his 'capture', he has always been shown as having either a moustache or being clean shaven. And when he is captured, guess what? He has a beard longer than Ayatollah Khomeini's! He kept his beard of course, and from that point onwards no one gave him a second glance. Oh, and as much as I hate to discredit official Allied intelligence, there are dates growing in the background of the photos of Saddam being captured. Then again, they probably have dodgy seasons over there. Oh dear, it seems all this business about the real Saddam getting hanged is all looking rather speculative.

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hussein or Husayn?

An alternate spelling of Saddams given name used outside the United states is "Husayn".Ps6155 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)