Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I am reading a lot of the things this particular person said. Is he an expert? I don't know. IsBold text it POV? I think so, but again, I do now know. I don't like this. Daimanta 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement from the Lithuanian government

Statement from the Lithuanian Minister of National Defence, Juozas Olekas:

The execution of Saddam Hussein "is a logical verdict by the court and its logical conclusion". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Statement from Norwegian government

Here is a statement from the norwegian minister of foreign affairs:

The full press release is as follows:
-It is important that the former dictator of Iraq was brought before a court and sentenced for some of his crimes against humanity, says Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. It would have been preferable if he had been brought to justice also for other crimes. A clarification of responsibility would have been positive for the necessary reconciliation in the country, says the Foreign Minister.

- At the same time Norway opposes the use of the death penalty in principle, and therefore regrets the execution of Saddam Hussein, says Støre.

- The execution does not solve Iraq’s political problems, including the serious security situation. The government of Iraq must therefore, together with the various groups in the country, continue the work to achieve security and peace for the whole population, says Støre.

Article Locking

Would whoever locked the article please add the apropos banner to the top of the article itself? Thanks Sixty Six 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Final Words

Should the content of Saddam's final statement go into this article, a different Hussein article, or a completely new one? I find the content of the letter relevant but I am too inexperienced to know where this important piece of history would fit in. Nobuyuki 05:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to place here, and then it may be moved/copied to other articles as necessary.Viperphantom 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
One article, either this one or the main Saddam article, quoted him as saying the Arabic for "Allah is great". That always strikes me as Judeo-Christian-centrism. Maybe a Muslim reading this can help out. "Allah" simply means "God" ("the only God"), does it not? Then it should be translated as "God is great". Do you get what I'm getting at? Wahkeenah 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, "God is great" is pretty much well known to be "Allahu akbar" if that helps at all. 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My point being that the western media's insistence on saying "Allah is great" rather than "God is great" is semi-subtle anti-Islamic POV-pushing, i.e. the view among many Christians that "Allah" does not equate to the Christian God. Wahkeenah 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not just Christian POV. Compare these two google searches, with the only difference being the use of 'Allah' vs. 'God and you'll see twice as many hits for the former. It's the established practice to NOT translate the Arabic word 'Allah' when used as the personal name of the Muslim deity. Here on Wikipedia, if you go check out the article on Allah, you'll see a paragraph that says:

Islamic scholars often translate "Allāh" directly into English as "God", especially Qur'an alone Muslims. Other scholars feel that "Allāh" should not be translated arguing that "Allāh" is the term for "the Only God" in a glorified pronunciation. This is a significant issue when translating the Qur'an.

When a Muslim uses the word "Allāh", he is referring to "God as revealed by His Messenger Muhammad (pbuh)"; the most fundamental belief in all of Islam. It is clear that he is not referring to God as revealed by the Jewish prophets, and interpreted according to Jewish theological traditions, nor as revealed by Yehoshua, or interpreted according to Christian apostles and theologians who followed.The Monster 02:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I heard on CNN that his final word was the name of one of his political opponents. I guess I should look for a source for that, but I guess it's possible I just misheard. Mikeliveshere 08:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article looking to find Saddam Hussein's final words, as uttered from his mouth before he was hung to death. I don't know if any formal statement made before his execution counts as his "final words". So if anyone can verify the actual words he spoke, please include them in this article, in both Arabic script, Word-Literal translation, and Meaningful translation. ~ Eric 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard his final words were "Iraq will be victorious and so will Palestine".I don't get where people got the al-Sadr part.Dimts 14:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the phone-camera footage, his final words seem to have been cut off when the trap door opened. And if he'd fallen any further his neck would have separated.--Shtove 17:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Someone should request a semi-lock for this article because it's bound to be vandalised. I would do myself, but I don't know how. Janipewter 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins usually lock pages, as I'm one myself on another wiki, but I'm not one here. Go here to request protection of a page. Øřêōş 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I too believe this page should be semi-protected to stop people from posting stupid things
I am not sure. Many contributions are made by anonymous users. Rockvee 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed some vandlism so I think a lock might be wise 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are all watching for vandalism, I'm editing heavily too, no need for locking right now. 05:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also watching for vandalism, we'll keep them at bay! Viperphantom 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, all hang out too, helping where I can 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, there definitely is vandalism going on, keep an eye out everyone. Thanks to whoever removed the "saddam.exe" Viperphantom 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do lock. When Irwin died, some joker put porn on his page. Geobeedude 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking them on IRC now to have it locked down a bit.--BC 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I will concur with the lock. As much good as anonymous users can do for these pages, the potential for vandalism is higher; I just saw some vandalism removed just now before I was able to get to it (damn 56k...), but I'd prefer if it didn't need to be removed in the first place. --Lord Kelvin 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, lock is a good idea. Thanks admins. Viperphantom 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be semi-locked now. :) --BC 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to lock it. It's been doing good. Irwin's article is wholly irrelevant to this. ~ UBeR 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Expect vandalism. Executions (judicial and otherwise) seem to ignite the activities of pranksters.T.E. Goodwin 08:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I recieved the info on the two locations for the execution and the burial info from watching CNN and Fox news.

If you post something, add references. --Ssault 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please reference the missing references. --newclear 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a reference to "FOX News Alert--TV" because it was neither specific nor readily verifiable. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for information on the kinds of sources needed for information in articles. For breaking events, alerts from well-established web-based news organizations are adequate until more detailed information is available. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the quote "The United States is braced for lashback violence due to Hussein's execution." should be removed, because I could not find a reference to that statement on the source listed. Viperphantom 04:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Where is the location of this zone they keep referring to ? 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See Green Zone. Picaroon 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone verify that this "The last legal step, before the execution proceeded was for Saddam to be handed a red card." sentence in the article this is actually true? And maybe provide a reference? I'm guessing it's complete BS - but, I'm not Iraqi.

  • They were reporting it on the news. But it does sound weird. If you are shown a red card in soccer, it means you're ejected. In this case, the ejection is permanent. Wahkeenah 02:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep a watch on this article

It's very likely it will be used by the media (as it has been done before) to show the speed and accuracy the article is created edited etc, I'm moving the moving tags to the talk page for now we can settle that later 04:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, when did he die?

A lot of reports I've seen list the death as 6:05 AM, but this article says 5:55 AM. Most sources claim that the death was shortly before 6AM, but the main article states the death was after 6 AM, last time I checked. Øřêōş 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He died about 10 minutes before 6 am. By sharia law they had to have him hanged before the start of the religious celbration that starts at 6. 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I have it at 0305 GMT, or 6:05 AM. Either we or CNN has it wrong. And I'm not betting on CNN. Cougar Draven 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox News originally reported it as being at 6, however they changed it to be between 5:30 and 6. --KCMODevin 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here


I see a lot of "citation needed" tags - if you're going to add information which you have received from a TV broadcast etc, at least try to include a link to the article on the broadcasters website. Janipewter 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Brother-in-law and aide not killed

CNN is now reporting that the brother-in-law and other aide were not killed and are still in US Custody. That the Iraqi Government set aside this day just for the execution of Saddam. Did anyone else hear this or know of a weblink to this? 04:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)amberly

I heard that on CNN as well, their source was an Iraqi official that they recently talked to. Viperphantom 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
BBC also reports this. We've already removed the misinformation more than once. --Hopex 05:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN's website and the Guardian cite Al Arabiya as saying that all three were hanged. AP is also quoting state TV as saying all three hanged.Reverse Gear 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... they're wrong! They will be executed after next Thursday apparently. --Hopex 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the website is not up to date. The report referred to was very recent, and they probably have not had time to update their websites.Viperphantom 05:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the executions for these two occuring next Thursday? The reference in the article states that it might occur on Saturday. Idono 06:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. It didn't make much sense, considering it is Saturday already in Iraq. I have found another reference that states those executions will take place after the holiday. Idono 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect this article

Please unprotect this article for now, All of us (editors) are here reverting. It's best to let the community participate right now as awareness is high. Achille 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

its unlocked of the admins must have heard you :) Viperphantom 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone just locked it back in but added a boilerplater too, I'm removing it for the moment. Achille 05:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this page should be semi-protected to stop people from posting stupid things. and too keep people that have a account only to write things

At least protect this against IP Vandals --KCMODevin 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that for right now the article shouldn't be protected. There are alot of Wikipedians watching it, so any damage done by a vandal couldn't last long. 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


To ensure the the same name is in use, refer to Hussein as Saddam in the article. Refer to Saddam Hussein and Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming. I don't beleive a consensus has been made, but everything remains at "Saddam." - Idono 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eid ul-Adha

Saddam Hussein's execution took place minutes before Iraqis began celebrating Eid ul-Adha.

I strongly contest the factual accuracy of this statement. Islamic days begin at sundown, not sunrise. I thought only Shi'a Muslims in Iraq went with December 30 as the start of Eid (Sunnis went with December 31). A source on this statement would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Islamic days begin at sundown, but I am not sure as to the differences between Shi'a and Sunni celebrations.Viperphantom 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct, the execution took place the day the celebration began, but before the actual celebrations began. Achille 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the statement to... many Iraqis began celebrating Eid ul-Adha...

That removes the impression that Eid starts in the morning (because it doesn't) and that everyone in Iraq is celebrating Eid at the same time (as that is not necessarily true). It also removes the overly precise minutes before bit. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


"Saddam's eldest daughter Raghad Hussein, exiled in Jordan, has asked that his body be buried in Yemen temporarily until Iraq is "liberated" and it can be reburied in Iraq, a source close to the family said by telephone."

Interesting POV take here. Yes, only insane, stupid people believe Iraq is being occupied and needs to be "liberated". In terms of being fair I believe the entire quote should be posted so there's a full quote instead of just the liberated part in quotations. It's just a little too sarcastic and one-sided.--Apples99 07:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Insane, stupid people"? Are you serious? See Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present#Military occupation. Khoikhoi 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Insane stupid people". I was being sarcastic. I forgot that irony is usually lost on wikipedians. The fact that this was attributed to Hussein's daughter and put it quotes makes it sound questionable that Iraq is being occupied when it is in fact being occupied. Whatever Saddam's daughter said, in order for it to be completely unbiased/NPOV, put in the full quotation so it's at least fair.--Apples99 08:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between sarcasm and plain irony. Sometimes comments on WP that seem heavily sarcastic are, in fact, delivered in all sincerity.--Shtove 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Apples99.--Lance talk 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. By the apparent tone of the quotation, the word liberated is used to refer to the United States as being the governing body of Iraq, which it is not. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to use "liberated" as she is obviously POVed against a non-Saddam Iraq and by unquoting the word, I believe it makes it more POV. It seems to construe that the government of Iraq is essentially a puppet government (which is nothing short of a conspiracy theory) and that the United States is occupying Iraq because it wants to (which I am quite sure is wrong, since being in Iraq is heavily damaging its reputation). Just my take on it. The great kawa 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think liberation *necessarily* has to do with a foreign country being the governing body. The US *is* a foreign army in another country and they've been there since 2003 so I believe that makes them a semi-permanent occupying army. Regardless, of all this I like the quote it is now. The quote as it is now is simply a quote by Hussein's daughter which can be taken at its own context. It's a response by one person and there are responses by MANY people on the page which reflect a wide variety of opinions. This is how proper unbiased news articles look. There's a quote without any editorializing. Add "liberated" and there's editorializing. That's like writing an article about Wikipedia and writing Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" and there are many "interesting" articles. All I'm saying is don't go nuts with the quotation marks and get all snarky.--Apples99 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

links around names

This article is too hot to handle at the moment, but if someone gets a chance, can you put links around the reporters names? Chadlupkes 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

funny edit?

i just saw this under the courtroom picture in this article

"Saddam, as he is sentenced to death by butt sex hanging."

laughed abit, but people doing this sugggest a lock being put on this article as stated above

(PAuLw1985 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Threat to US

I strongly disagree that anyone is suggesting that there is a threat to the mainland United States. The Fox article mentioned under responses makes no mention of attacks on US soil. I had changed it so it referred only to violence in Iraq, but someone changed it back. Comments anyone? Viperphantom 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pages like this get changed so often, with so much vandalism, that things go awry. I wouldn't worry too much about it. In a week or so it will settle down. Personally, I feel Wikipedia should not bother with ongoing events, given that it's an encyclopedia not a news aggregator, but that's just one guy's view. Reverse Gear 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair comment, but disagree - I think WP is the best instant source of knowledge for ongoing events. You get a high degree of vandalism, followed by reverts - but you also get details, images, and links to source material that the heavyweight media might just deliver in a fortnight or a month - and then only if the story is still considered newsworthy.--Shtove 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it seemed that someone just speculated that. However I do know that a letter released by the Baath party made the case that saddam is really being killed by the current administration, not by the iraqis and that the administration should expect reprisals. Achille 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just read the letter by the Baathist party. It is widely available all over the Internet in the aftermath of the execution. They are blaming the USA and the current government in Iraq, with the typical threats of reprisals which they propagate on a regular basis.T.E. Goodwin 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there hasn't been any mention, so far, in what I've seen, that there is any threat here in the the US. I've heard much about the security being tightened in Iraq, but nothing here in the US.Idono 05:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


When they become available, should photographs of the hanging be placed into the article? Steviedpeele 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the copyrights allow, I think they absolutely should be. Viperphantom 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with you Viperphantom, however, I believe that the images to be included should be reviewed to ensure that they are of encyclopedic and appropriate content and are not exceptionally graphic. Links to the images should be included though or even possibly substituted for an image on the page. The great kawa 07:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the graphic content of the pictures, I feel that many who would look at the article would be upset or shocked to find such a picture pop up in their face without a warning of some kind. Is there a way to make a link to have the picture come up in a seperate window? After clearly stating the nature of the photograph, of course. That gives the reader the option to see the picture or not, and to prepare themselves for it. Or perhaps 2 articles, one with pictures and one without. This isn't ogrish, after all. Xj14y 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was super shocked, wanting to read about the execution, and now I have seen the death mask of the man from that cell phone video. I am outraged that there was no fair warning on wikipedia, and feel that due to the high volume of traffic this page is likely to recieve, that it should be presented as a LINK at the bottom with a (warning: graphic) as part of the link's title. CNN was courteous enough to stop the videos before the actual hanging, and so should wikipedia.

  • Good point. This isn't Ogrish, where there is no regard to sensitivity. If someone wants to see the photos they should be able to. And, then again if someone doesn't want to they shouldn't be subjected to it. I trust that a good editorial decision will be made on Wikipedia regarding the depiction issue. T.E. Goodwin 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The photograph of Saddam's body (which was previously on this page) I believe was acceptable content as it was not particularly graphic. I think this topic should be discussed more on the pages of his sons, where the last time I checked, there were some disturbing post-mortem photos w/o warnings on the pages. With that in mind, I suggest that if the image is to be put in, then please put a caption at the the top of the page stating the content which follows, or better yet, link to the images (from an official source, not Ogrish or other such sites). The great kawa 03:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Is the Bandar that Saddam's book is to go to the same as his co-defendent, Awad Bandar? If it is his cousin as mentioned in the article, then it is not the Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud currently cited because he is AKA Bandar Bush. Mbrewer 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this myself. I edited the statement slightly about 20 minutes ago, adding "likely referring to" to the beginning, and cleaning up the grammar a little. Maybe it should read "possibly referring to co-defendant Awad Bandar, or his cousin (name unknown)"... Electrode 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the mention of Bandar should be struck from the article entirely. Google and Wikipedia reveal no one named Bandar that is a cousin of Saddam's AFAICT. I'm removing the mention in whole. Revert at will. Mbrewer 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he did in fact say that it should be given to "Bandar", the reference should stay, though with no evidence to support the cousin theory (which seems to have originated here), the speculation over "Bandar's" identity should in fact be removed. I will attempt to do so if no one else has already. Electrode 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a citation for the whole give-it-to-Bandar thing? Mbrewer 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in any of the currently listed references in the article. So, true as it may be, we don't have any evidence of it right at this moment. Thus, I agree with your decision to remove the whole thing, at least until we get a citation. Electrode 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Allahu Akbar"

The source cited doesn't say this at all, it only mentions that "Saddam refused to wear a hood over his head" and he "did make a statement before being executed but he refused to say yet what it was". Are there any reliable sources that state that Saddam yelled "Allahu Akbar!" before he died? Khoikhoi 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Reuters reported that he did say that. The link is too long to put here, but it's the story on the front page of the news section. Viperphantom 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide the URL? Khoikhoi 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox News and their sources are saying he screamed "God is Great" before he died. They are also saying he struggled when he was taken from his cell. --KCMODevin 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be removed until confirmed. I doubt his last words were in English and should AT LEAST be quoted as he spoke them with translations. Mbrewer 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. But Allahu Akbar isn't an English word per se, it's a transliteration of an Arabic phrase. Technically, I would argue if he said it in Arabic, you could still say he said Allahu Akbar since speaking doesn't have letters Nil Einne 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does Allahu Akbar mean? I know that the Islamic "Allah Akbar" means God is Great, but what is the precise meaning of "Allahu"? Is it, like, just a conjugation thing?J.J. Bustamante 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicer words?

I feel a little hostility in the article. Appreciative of his death? What about the other half of the nation that loved him, where are reports on that?

Not sure about 'the other half of the nation that loved him', but I do agree that for the sake of appropriate impartiality and simple factual accuracy we should be careful not to:
1) quote only one news agency prominently (getting a bit tired of seeing FOX quoted as 'gospel'!),
2) report only one 'side' or interpretation of the events (the whole reporting of what actually happened at the execution - Saddam's demeanor, etc, is open to biased interpretation for political gain, for example, and we should be alert to that according to the sources reporting it), and
3) use prose that is un-encyclopaedic and expressing personal viewpoints or prejudices. - 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said! I'll see what I can do. This is supposed to be a place of reference, not interpretation. Viperphantom 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have since removed the quote about Saddam looking like a "broken man," because it was the opinion of a single Iraqi official, and open to bias. The other quote about him being calm however is more of an observation, not a personal belief, so I kept it. Hope that helps a little....Viperphantom 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have a few photos from just before, the subjective characterizations are superfluous. To me he looks like a guy who's resigned to his fate, and that's about it. Wahkeenah 11:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in related article

The article Halabja poison gas attack says Saddam was not on trial for gassing the Kurds. Is this correct? Simesa 06:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • If I heard right, this specific trial had to do with close to 150 specific murders, the event the prosecution thought would be the easiest case to mount. Presumably he would have been tried for other things if he had not been convicted and hanged for this one. Wahkeenah 08:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of the execution, Bushflash clip on Saddam Hussein's life & times

The Bushflash clip "Thanks for the Memories" [1] is a haunting short.

Nice one - didn't realise Saddam's American connections went back so far.--Shtove 15:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo [2] wrote the article "Taking Out the CIA's Trash" [3] three years prior to the news of Saddam's death. G.O.L.A.Z. 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Press Conferences

I have heard reports that President Bush will address the media around 8 AM EST. I have also heard that there will be an Iraqi press conference around 4:30 AM EST, that Fox News will air. Can anyone else verify this?Mynameisryan812 07:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but in the new Government section I think it should be limited to US, UK, and Australia, to avoid it getting bloated. --Hopex 08:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not include other prominent members of the Coalition? Mynameisryan812 08:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Poland, S.Korea and middle-east countries perhaps. What I thought we should avoid is getting the reaction from Brazil etc., because where do you stop? Anyway, too late now :) --Hopex 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the countries listed under 'International reaction to the verdict' in the Saddam Trial article should have their reactions in the Execution article. Mynameisryan812 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NEWSWEEK/MSNBC Article about Videographer

This information should be added:

Exclusive: Videographer of Saddam Execution

In a NEWSWEEK exclusive, the man hired to videotape Saddam Hussein’s execution recalls the brutal dictator’s humble final moments. WEB EXCLUSIVE By Michael Hastings Newsweek Updated: 2:14 a.m. CT Dec 30, 2006 Dec. 30, 2006 - Ali Al Massedy was 3 feet away from Saddam Hussein when he died. The 38 year old, normally Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's official videographer, was the man responsible for filming the late dictator's execution at dawn on Saturday. "I saw fear, he was afraid," Ali told NEWSWEEK minutes after returning from the execution. Wearing a rumpled green suit and holding a Sony HDTV video camera in his right hand, Ali recalled the dictator's last moments. "He was saying things about injustice, about resistance, about how these guys are terrorists," he says. On the way to the gallows, according to Ali, "Saddam said, ‘Iraq without me is nothing.’"

Ali says he followed Saddam up the gallows steps, escorted by two guards. He stood over the hole and filmed from close quarters as Saddam dropped through—from "me to you," he said, crouching down to show how he shot the scene. The distance, he said, was "about one meter," he said. "He died absolutely, he died instantly." Ali said Saddam's body twitched, "shaking, very shaking," but "no blood," he said, and "no spit." (Ali said he was not authorized to disclose the location, and did not give other details of the room.)

Ali said the videotape lasts about 15 minutes. When NEWSWEEK asked to see a copy, Ali said he had already handed the tape over to Maliki's chief of staff. "It is top secret," he said. He would not give the names of officials in attendance, though he estimates there were around 20 observers. One of them, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told CNN that Saddam clasped a Koran as the noose was tied around his neck, and refused to wear a hood. He also said that government officials had not decided whether or not to release the videotape. The execution reportedly took place at 6:05 a.m. local time. Prime Minister Maliki did not attend.

Ali was greeted as a hero when he returned from the execution a little after 7 a.m., flying in with other officials and landing in two helicopters in the Green Zone. A convoy of 20 or so GMCs and Toyota Land Cruisers waited outside to drive some of the Iraqi officials home.

The Iraqi bodyguards, mostly Shiites they said, had passed the time smoking and praying—some prayed on cardboard mats on the street.

It was a cold morning in Baghdad, a few degrees above freezing, and in the post dawn light the guards' breaths could be seen in the air. When the thudding of helicopters began, the body guards rushed towards the entrance to the landing zone. They swarmed around Ali, snapping digital pictures on camera phones and cheering. "Saddam finished, Saddam finished," a guard who gave his name as Mohammed told NEWSWEEK. Ali looked somewhat stunned as he exited, carrying the camera.

"All Iraqis will be happy," he says. "This is the most important day for me [as a cameraman,]" he said. "This page [in history] is over, this page is over. All Iraqis will be happy from the north to the south to the east to the west." One of the judges who presided over the execution then came out to the street; Ali jumped in a car with him. The convoy of SUVs drove off, one after the other, with the occasional honk of the horn.


--Linnwood 07:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Car bombing

"Several hours after the execution was reported, a huge car bomb exploded in a market in the Shi'ite town of Kufa in southern Iraq, resulting in at least 30 casualties. The man suspected of plotting the car bomb has been captured, according to Fox News.[citation needed] This attack cannot yet be linked the Saddam's execution."

If the attack can't be linked to the execution, then it's just speculation that they are connected - WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Any other opinions? Picaroon 08:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I took it out for you. We'll see how long it stays out. Car bombings happen frequently in Iraq. Putting that blurb in there and then admitting it's not known if there is a connection seems to be subtle POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 08:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"President George W. Bush ... stated that bringing Saddam to justice will not end the violence in Iraq." It is linked to the article in as much as the violence continues after his death. I think it follows nicely from Bush's statement but I understand your position. --Hopex 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So your point would be to use that as an example of the violence continuing. That might make more sense if it stopped there and didn't include the question of whether it was related to Saddam's hanging. However, this all really relates more to the Iraq war than to Saddam as such. It's just "business as usual". Wahkeenah 08:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree I didn't add the 2nd sentence myself. --Hopex 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence. Mynameisryan812 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Arabiya?

Media coverage> The primary source of this news was the Iraqi state-run TV station "Al Arabiya". it's "Al IRAQIA". al arabia isn't an iraqi state-run after all..

Al-Arabya is Yemeni, I think, and sign your posts Izzy1985 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is Al-Iraqiya which released the video. Al-Arabiya is based in UAE. ? ANAS Talk? 10:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Madrid Airport Bombing

As of now, this event has nothing to do with Saddam's execution. That said, I have removed "As of 2:34am CST, CNN is reporting that an explosion of undetermined nature and/or source was heard and seen at the airport in Madrid, Spain." from the 'Reaction' section of this article. Mynameisryan812 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN is linking the two events in its coverage. I see no reason why we shouldn't.—WAvegetarian(talk) 09:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we should reprint the preliminary assumptions of a POV'ish TV Channel :) --NIRVn 09:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay so a bombing in Iraq with 'no known connection' is subtle-POV pushing but a car bomb at an airport in Spain is relevant simply because "CNN is linking the events in its coverage"? Mynameisryan812 09:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Madrid bombing, if it indeed happened, is also POV-pushing (at this point) to connect it with Saddam's hanging. CNN might do that to try to build a story. We are not CNN. If there is a connection, it will be reported in due time. We must have patience, Grasshopper. Wahkeenah 09:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..Agreed. Mynameisryan812 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

why would someone even put that in there? no one has any knowledge that this is even related!-- 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

genocide of approximately 180,000 Kurds

From the article:

He was also standing trial for the genocide of approximately 180,000 Kurds during the late 1980s, but the execution ended the trial without a sentence.

Is this an appropriate use of the word "genocide"? I don't mean this to question Saddam's genocidal intentions in the alleged murder of 180,000 Kurds or to imply that there is a POV issue, but as a matter of style this sounds a little funny to me. Genocide by definition is a crime against a group, and it wasn't the 180,000 people that died in particular that Saddam intended to destroy. Maybe something like "...standing trial for his genocide against the Kurds, in which approximately 180,000 Kurds were murdered..." would read better? Actually, that is a little clumsy, but I'm open to suggestions. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Genocide is another POV term. If he was specifically trying to wipe out an ethnic group, that would be genocide. Mass killing by itself is not necessarily genocide. Wahkeenah 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You're mistaken. Genocide is mass killing on the basis of race or ethnicity. Any further motive to exterminate entirely is unnecessary to the definition. Tmangray 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Even if I hinted somewhat at my own POV, I made it very clear that my comment was not about POV. If you want to start a discussion about whether the word "genocide" compromises NPOV, could you please do it in a new section? CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 10:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like you asked the question first. How about, "standing trial for killing 180,000 Kurds"? Wahkeenah 10:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What question? If you mean a question about POV, then no, I certainly didn't ask the question first.
Anyway, your version reads better, but removing a hot-button word like "genocide" just because it easier to improve the style isn't acceptable to me. I would like any such discussion to be separate from this one. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Genocide carries a specific meaning and also raises weasel word implications in some instances. In this case, the only question would be was he standing trial for genocide. If the trial was for the killings and there was no mention of genocide in either the charge or the later court proceedings, then he was not on trial for genocide and it should be removed, period. Nil Einne 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I originally added the word genocide. From Trial of Saddam Hussein: "A second and separate trial began in August 2006 trying Saddam, along with six other co-defendants, for genocide during the Anfal military campaign against the Kurds of Northern Iraq." --Hopex 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps then a copy of part of that sentence from Trial of Saddam Hussein would be appropriate: "He was also standing trial for genocide during the Anfal military campaign against the Kurds of Northern Iraq, but the execution ended the trial without a sentence." If "approximately 180,000 Kurds" belongs in this sentence, and I have mixed feelings about this because it might be putting in too much detail on something that at least legally is peripheral to the execution, then it still may be possible to do so without making the sentence too clumsy. I just don't like the phrase "genocide of <x>" because I don't think the syntax is right. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the BODY?

Havent read yet about the body of Saddam. Where is the body of Saddam after execution? Guddu 09:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Heard on CNN a few hours ago, they'd talk with governor and kin of city where Hussein was born and decide from there. Appears very likely he will be buried in Iraq. ~ UBeR 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
As per usual procedure, I'm guessing the body just needs to be picked up by someone. Usually it's the family, but since his immediate family is in exile in Jordan and apparently they can't even get a Visa to enter Iraq, someone else would have to get the body. His half-brother was still around and they met up before Hussein was executed. It would have been wise if they used that opportunity to talk about what to do with the body afterward, but as of now, we don't know. The bigger question is what is going to happen with regards to a funeral. Islamic tradition holds that the body must be buried in 24 hours, and customarily that's done wherever the person died. Like, remember when King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan died, he was buried within a day -- kind of weird considering all the preparations they'd need to make for a diplomatic and media event that big. But anyway, the body is supposed to be buried, by my count, within the next 11 hours, since he was killed thirteen hours ago. I think no one has talked about those specifics on purpose, and all the media and official confusion was intentional. If they gave the exact plans, they'd be making themselves vulnerable to attack from opponents. I mean, for hours, the media outlets couldn't even agree as to who had custody of Hussein before he was hung.J.J. Bustamante 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Uber, a little update for you. The body has been buried, though as of yet the full details aren't known. Nobody thus far has said who picked up the body, when it was taken and buried (whether or not it was within the 24 hours), etc. The body is buried in the same place where his two dead sons' bodies are. I'm not sure, but I think it's their hometown. I'd really like to see pictures of the grave. There are security issues and people might rob the body to hold it for ransom or whatever. I question if anyone really would even care to spend time, money and effort to protect his corpse. The governments of Iraq and the US aren't exactly his allies.J.J. Bustamante 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Time of Death

There have been differing reports on Saddam's TOD. Some say shortly after 06:00 local time; some say slightly before; some say exactly at 06:00. Until there is an official release, please leave it at 'approximately' 6:00 a.m. local time. ~ UBeR 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Citatation Needed for the Dutch Political leader reaction...

I have no idea how the reference system works, so somebody else will have to paste this in: "Het recht heeft zijn loop gehad, in moeilijke omstandigheden" -- Mystman666 (Talk) 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add it. Just a sec. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 11:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Usually, if you have a reference but don't know how to properly insert it, just use [] . While the reference won't be formatted properly, it's resonably easy for others to fix it later Nil Einne 11:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Additional criticism can be found in the WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION, OPINION NO. 31/2006 (IRAQ AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) issued by the United Nations on September 1, 2006:

27. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Saddam Hussein is arbitrary, being in contravention of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iraq and the United States are parties . . . . 28. As a consequence of the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Governments of Iraq and the United States to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Saddam Hussein . . . . In this context, the Working Group invites the Government of Iraq to give serious consideration to the question whether a trial of the former Head of State in conformity with international law is at all possible before an Iraqi tribunal in the current situation

in the country, or whether the case should not be referred to an international tribunal.

[WikiLink added]. A summary of the United Nations' criticism should be added to the article under the Criticism section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

I disagree. Unless the criticism was made in response to the execution, it should mostly be covered elsewhere not here, probably the Trial of Saddam Hussein article (I believe the above already is). Since this is the execution article, only specific responses to the execution should be covered. It doesn't matter whether the responses are to do with the execution proper (e.g. opposition to the death penalty) or arguments about the legality of the trial, provided they are made in response to the execution Nil Einne 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The United Nations Working Group anticipated the execution of Saddam Hussein and wrote its criticism in response to that aspect of his trial as much as any other. I do not think we should limit criticisms of the events leading directly to the execution of Saddam Hussein to only those criticism that occurred after the execution took place. At the very least, the finding in paragraph 9 of the United Nations Working Group opinion should be included:

On 24 January 2006, a new judge, Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, was nominated to preside the Dujail trial. The source expresses serious doubts regarding his impartiality, since he was born in Halabja, the Kurdish town which was attacked with poison gas by the Iraqi armed forces in 1988, and reportedly lost several family members in the attack. Moreover, judge Abdel-Rahman made statements indicating that the guilt of Saddam Hussein is a foregone conclusion. In particular, before assuming his position as presiding judge, he is reported to have stated on Iraqi national television that Saddam Hussein should be executed without trial. . . .

[WikiLinks added]. 13:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree. Quite a number of opionions expressed earlier also took in to account the fact that Saddam was likely to be executed. The criticisms section should IMHO only contain responses to the execution of Saddam, not responses to the likilehood of the execution of Saddam after the trial or appeal. Responses to the trial and especially responses to the sentence and the likilihood of an execution are already adequetly covered in the Trial of Saddam Hussein article, as they should be. Perhaps we should make an exception for this UN report, but I personally still ned further convincing. Nil Einne 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think duplicating content critical of the proceedings is necessarily a bad thing, so long as the aspect of the criticisms relevant to each respective article is focussed on. I think there is room for the UN criticism both at the trial article and here at the execution article. I can't edit the article, but should any editor find the UN criticism relevant here, paragraph 25 shows the working group's knowledge of the possible outcome that has occurred. 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the criticism be under the relevent subsections on the opinions area, not a seperate section? Zetetic Apparatchik 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

External links & copyright

Please remember that there should be no external links to sites which violate copyright (See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. As such youtube stuff should generally be avoided unless your sure it does not violate copyright. If it's a clip from the news media, it probably does. I removed one such clip. There is another current external link to an Italian site. Can someone who can read Italian confirm whether thiss site and the clip is a news media site or a site or clip uploaded by users. If it's uploaded by users, then it likely violates copyright and should be removed. If it's provided by news media, then it's probably okay. Nil Einne 13:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


its on here twice in oceania and asia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Spoiler Warning ?!?!

Will someone get rid of that? It's not a movie. -- 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree --- its a current event, not entertainment.

Well, people could argue that since good part of Saddam history is the making of America, it's fair to judge the events as a Hollywood production, that is, entertainment in an American way. 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Finnish reaction

There is bo such thing. Finnish foreign minister spoke as the leader of EU, so the statement should be attributed to EU. Finland is still in charge until 1.1.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Unless the Finnish foreign minister gave specific indication he was only speaking for the EU, then his reaction should be either attributed to both Finland and the EU or just Finland Nil Einne 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, here's my translation of the relevant part of the news article pointed to:
Erkki Tuomioja, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the current EU leading country, Finland, restated the EU position that the union is consistent in its condemnation of capital punishment. "Even if there are no doubts that Saddam Hussein is guilty of very serious crimes against humanity, very serious comments have been made about the court process in Iraq," Tuomioja said in YLE interview.
(Sorry, the wording in the article is a bit clumsy, and I can't correct it that well in this translation of mine.) So to me it seems to me Tuomioja is speaking on behalf of EU rather than just Finland. Regrettably this source doesn't say what he exactly said about that and in which exact context... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge options

The entire scope of the article is covered under Saddam's main page. I think this needs to be merged or put up for deletion. Rrten00 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to merge the article with the Trial of Saddam page, but not with Saddam's main page. Viperphantom 04:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you. There isn't a good reason to treat the execution as a separate entity from the trials; it's the conclusion of that process. Giving it a section in that article still allows nice hyperlinks to the specific section The Monster 04:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep this separate until it settles down. Much easier to edit that way. --Hopex 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't know how events in Iraq will proceed. The execution of the warrant could lead to huge backfire which would make a separate article useful. If it is merely an event of one day then it should be merged with the trial but not Saddam overall, whose article is already too long, and the details of his trial and death unimportant to his overall life. 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well, the page should not be merged at this time for reasons stated by Give the page sometime and then it can be decided whether it should be merged or not. --Credema 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was some car bombings in Madrid and it's unknown whether or not this is related to the Saddam Execution. I agree, this should be merged with the trial proceedings, but lets wait a day to see the Iraqi and global reaction. If there is a huge global response than this day will be significant, otherwise the successful carrying out of his sentence is nothing more than part of the trial proceedings that does not warrant its own article.-- 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC) This article does need to be merged. The basic gist of it should go on the Saddam Hussein page and the preponderance of it should go on the Trial of Saddam Hussein page. This event, in and of itself, isn't notable, per the lack of Execution of Timothy McVeigh (this link redirects to the Timothy McVeigh article), Execution of Hideki Tojo, and so on. No execution of any person, however important, has warranted a Wikipedia article before, and it certainly doesn't now. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The page, including the reactions, raises important issues about capital punishment in general, and in the specific case of a rushed trial and the fact that many issues of justice (for Saddam and his victims) can now never be tested. It could develop further into a useful case study on capital punishment, and this seems to justify separating it from the trial page. 12:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course this should exist as a seperate article: its parent article is already too large, it is a significant historical event, it has the breadth to grow to a featured article, it is already reasonably long (none of which is fluff), &c. --Oldak Quill 14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Saddam Hussein

I think this should be a separate article; the Saddam Hussein article is already far too long, and this is a momentous enough event in his life that it deserves its own article. Minor details in the biography are fine, but the whole story should be here, for clarity. -Hobbularmodule 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lennon's death --Gracenotes T § 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the main reason for deletion was a bit different, but an article on someone's death is still non-notable, in my opinion, unless there was something about it outside of the context of the person who died. Gracenotes T § 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The execution was unremarkable, in the sense that there was (apparently) no deviation from due process. Still, the article is here now, I would suggest giving the article some time, in case the event itself proves notable, otherwise merge. Peter Grey 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Come to think of it, it may do the wiki good to have a temporary "hub" wherein content can be organized during this hectic period. If nothing precipitates from his death except for several sparse protests, merge into the Saddam Hussein article; and if not, move this article to something like Saddam Hussein's excecution, or even Saddam Hussein's death, and note non-standard events that occur. But you're right, the primary focus should not be merging it, but writing it. I suppose I was being a bit too immediatist. Thanks for responding. --Gracenotes T § 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I really have a hard time thinking of a reason this would ever need to be a separate article. --Lukobe 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
How about the fact that Saddam Hussein is 77k? Way too long to merge an article into, especially an article that has improved drasticly in the last half hour and now seems capable of standing alone. Let's keep them separate. Picaroon 07:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page should exist as a separate article; it is a significant enough event to deserve its own page.Viperphantom 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • His execution is an historical event. It deserves the attention that it is recieving. Of course, unless this page is protected you can fully expect the IP vandals to have a field day with it. That is their sick idea of "fun" isn't it? T.E. Goodwin 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of the amount of attention one believes the article deserves. The events of today are related to, but distinct from the trial process. The hanging is an event in and of itself. They need to be separate articles. Mynameisryan812 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, then. I'm delighted to have been proven wrong, and also delighted to have taken part in the process of proving myself wrong; to the extent that this article's references have been solidly furnished, unverifiable information removed, and the sections organized to be what they currently are. Perhaps I should have foreseen the Heymann standard, and the miraculous collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, at work. Kudos to all who participated; I should stay up the whole night more often. :p --GracenotesT § 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the article has reached a high standard is admirable, but is not in itself justification for keeping separate. As per my comments in the other "Merge" talk item, the page has the potential to be an important case study in capital punishment, and it may be worth keeping that in mind in relation to its separateness from the Saddam Hussein page. 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Trial of Saddam Hussein

Shouldn't this be merged with Saddam Hussein? Why is it a seperate article? Mitsos 14:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Once an article reaches a certain size (>32 kB), subarticles are created which detail certain aspects of the top of the main article. For example, history of saffron and trade and usage of saffron are subarticles of saffron. --Oldak Quill 14:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If anything, it should be merged with Trial of Saddam Hussein. But for now it is an undeniably important current event details of which are rapidly evolving, including world reaction and opinion. Until things settle down and these Saddam Hussein articles reach more of a steady state, talk of merging is premature. Also two sections above already discuss this. --Hab baH 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's should be merged with Trial of Saddam Hussein. Mitsos 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Trial of Saddam Hussein is a good idea. --Lukobe 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This execution and this article merits it's own page. ~ UBeR 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should remain as one because his execution is surely more notable than his reacurring South Park counter-part, which passed the AFD.--andrew|ellipsed...Speak 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but as long as there's an active debate, why remove the <mergeto> tag? --Lukobe 07:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think someone removed it because they cited it was quite obvious this article is too thorough and long to be merged. It wasn't me, but I agree. ~ UBeR 07:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not to say, however, you should add it. :) In fact, the trial page is already quite long as it is. Both articles merit their own page. ~ UBeR 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Should be kept separate. Too large now to merge in with this large article. --Walter Görlitz 14:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


This article is an anti-execution showcase. How many quotes from non-Governmental Organizations do you need in this article? 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article has such a bent, that is only because it is reflective of world opinion and reaction concerning this particular execution. What particular quotes do you find objectionable? --Hab baH 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting if persons who are concerned at the anti-execution bent of the comments have have any (appropriately sourced) "hanging was the right thing to do" quotes from government officials or international NGOs of the same stature as those already listed, please feel free to add them. -- 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Three. --Richmeistertalk 15:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chilean Position on Sadam's execution

El gobierno de Chile expresó este viernes su rechazo, "por razones de principios"
a la ejecución del ex gobernante iraquí Sadam Hussein. 

In english: The Chilean Government expressed this friday, its reject for principles reasons, of the execution of the ex iraqui president, Sadam Hussein.


Pipe752 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

El gobierno de Chile expresó este viernes su rechazo, "por razones de principios" a la ejecución del ex gobernante iraquí Sadam Hussein, y manifestó su confianza en las gestiones que países de Europa y Latinoamérica llevan a cabo para que sea anulada.

The Government of Chile expressed this friday its reject, for reasons of principle, the execution of the ex-governor of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and manifests its confidence in the gestures that countries of Europe and Latin American to make it annulled.

Reasons of Principle explained here.

"Por razones de principios formamos parte de los países que están haciendo campañas activas para la supresión de la pena de muerte en las naciones donde subsiste", precisó el canciller (S), Alberto Van Klaveren.

For Reasons of principle we formed a partnership with the countries that are actively campaigning to end the death penalty in the nations where it persitst," said Chancellor (S), Alberto Van Klaveren.


Picture deleted?

Am I going crazy... but I believe as of an hour ago, there was a linked picture showing a dead Saddam with markings on his neck (no thumbnail due to the graphic nature). It seems to have disappeared. The noteworthy part of this is that there was no mention on the talk page... I think it is an appropriate picture to have at this point, and not having a thumbnail is repsonsible. Dtemp 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it (once, it may have been added and deleted and added again since then) as having multiple fair use images where one is "adequate" is NOT fair use. (And I did mention that in my edit summary.) What does a photo of his dead body contribute to the article that a photo of him with the noose around his neck doesn't? One shows him dead, the other shows him near enough to dead, and is a better demonstration of the circumstances of the execution. I'll leave the photo up for now so the matter can be discussed on here. If the consensus is that either of the photos is unnecessary then one should be removed. I would like to stress that removing the image was not an attempt at censorship. --Richmeistertalk 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It proves that he's dead, presumably. That's why the photo was released to the world. Sounds like you're using wiki policy to justify censorship. Wahkeenah 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you not read what I said? --Richmeistertalk 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rest of execution video

Is there any word about the full video of the execution? CNN and MSNBC are only showing up to right before the body was dropped. Last I heard, the government hasn't released the whole thing yet, and that's all that is available for now. Will the rest be released to the public?J.J. Bustamante 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a link in the External links section of the current article described as "video footage moments after the execution". Is that what you are looking for? I doubt footage of the moments of execution have been released, not that the cameras stopped recording during those seconds or minutes. --Hab baH 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Black thing around neck

Just curious, what is that black scarf they put around he neck for? I'm not saying he isn't dead or anything, I was just wondering if it is some sort of religious thing or something else with a different purpose.

Thanks. -- 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's something like a protective cloth. Sounds a little ironic, but I'm sure there's a good reason for it. --Hopex 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it was the hood that the dictator refused to wear. It appears to have been used to prevent dammage to the soft tissue around the neck. It prevented, I imagine, a bloody hanging, as it were. This is just my guess however.--Lance talk 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I know little about hanging practices, but it may be a standard item used to reduce the chance of blood as you say and also partial decaptiation Nil Einne 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It was the hood to pull up and cover his head and face, which he declined to use. Wahkeenah 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was under the impression that it was just to help reduce friction. If it weren't there, when the body would be dropped, it would twist around and the noose wouldn't be at the back where it should be. If you see some old pics of people hung, like around the time of the US Civil War, you'll see how the noose is often up by the ear or the front of the head. It happens with the friction of the neck on the rope. So, to prevent that from happening, they'd need to put something to help the rope slide more easily when it tightens. Sometimes, executioners even put vaseline around the noose knot so that it would slide and tighten without friction. They've got executions down to a science.J.J. Bustamante 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The black scarf was placed around Saddam's neck to prevent the heavy rope from slicing through his flesh. To protect against the frigid cold of the morning Saddam wore a wool cap, a 1940s style wool overcoat, and a black scarf that morning. The scarf was taken away from him when he entered the execution room, only to be given back to him at the top of the gallows at the suggestion of one of the guards: it was improvised, since Saddam refused the hood.Patrekursson 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Method of hanging?

In the article on hanging, four variants of this execution method are discussed. Is it known which of these was used in this particular execution?

Almost definitely the long drop IMHO. It's generally considered the most humane method because it kills quickly which appears to be the case in this case. It's also AFAIK the most common method hanging method nowadays outside a few Middle Eastern countries who AFAIK don't necessarily consider it necessary to kill the convict humanely Nil Einne 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In the video recorded of him laying dead it also appears that his neck has broken. This suggests the Long Drop method was used. Janipewter 17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If the long drop were used, Hussein would have died instantaneously. But, the media reports suggest that it took a little while for him to die, be it a couple of seconds or whatever. I don't think a humane hanging would be deemed so necessary for them. In that very same region, they'd chop off a guy's hand just for stealing. If he was killed instantly with a snapped neck, I think the pictures of his dead body would look a lot different. The head would be hanging off the neck like a joint. Rather, it looks more like the head is just sharply turned to the right, which might just be a consequence of muscle damage from the weight of his body during the hanging. In short, it doesn't look like his neck was broken. I guess we'll see if I'm wrong as the media gives out more info and more pictures are published. But as for what we have now, it looks like it was just a strangulation death.J.J. Bustamante 22:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the long drop. If you look at the video prior to the execution, you see approximately six feet of rope (three feet down, three feet up) hanging down by Saddam's arm. If you look at the amateur cell phone video, you hear the trap door drop, and you see Saddam dropping down about six feet. This is a long drop. Look at the article that the hanging article links to on tables of drops.
  • According to the Wikipedia article on judicial hanging a short drop is insufficient to break the C2 vertebra and dislocate the spinal cord, so the executee dies by suffocation. If the rope is too long, decapitation has been known to occur. With the proper length of rope, the C2 vetebra is fractured dislocating the spinal cord, and in addition the carotid and jugular blood vessels are occluded. The onset of death is rapid with these effects. There is a table based on on the two parameters of weight and height to determine the proper rope length.T.E. Goodwin 10:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to long drop hanging in the article as original research (WP:OR). --Hab baH 19:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


After any mention of Qaddafi there is a little Arabic blurb in brackets. What does it say and why is it there? Alex Klotz 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what it says, or what the guidelines are, but considering this is the English WP I don't why it's there. --Hopex 17:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the word is the word Qaddafi used which was translated as Arabic. It appears the source for the Qaddafi quote is Arabic so I presume a wikipedian translated it. So either, the person was unsure of the best translation or felt there was no English word which accurately conveys what he said. If it's the former, then it should be removed once someone has confirmed the translation. If it's the later, then it should stay. Although this may be the English wikipedia, there's nothing wrong with having a foreign language word when it's the only way to accurately convery what was said Nil Einne 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The word, باطل, means "null, void, vain, false, useless, futile" in Persian, so I'm assuming it means the same thing in Arabic (as it is an Arabic loan word). --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that's the word Qaddafi used to describe Saddam's execution.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Batil, as it often seems to be transliterated, is often translated as "falsehood", though I don't know of the context in which it was used, nor do I consider myself fluent in the Arabic language, that how I understand the translation of the word. Pepsidrinka 22:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel's reaction

Lance6968, the Iran-Iraq War was far more significant than the Scud attacks on Israel, so why do you add that poorly-spelled editorial to Israel but not have one in Iran. Regardless, the reaction section is not the place for such edit, which are to begin with, written in a grossly pov manner. For the benefit of other readers, Lance6968 added the following under Israel's reaction: "Saddam's Iraq bombarded Israel with scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, causing panick [sic.] in Israel to stock up on gas masks for fear of a possible chemical attack, a measure which was repeated with the launch of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam also gave U.S.$25,000 to the families of Arab suicide terrorists who murdered men, women, and children in Israel." I urge everyone to remove his addition. El_C 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you discover a spelling error, then correct it; don't delete uncontroversial facts that you presumably dislike. Israel's reaction to the death ot iraq's dictator should be placed in context; I believe I have done so. El_C's complete blanking of my edits suggests that the purpose was to suppress fact; and not about any concern with Wikipedia NPOV.--Lance talk 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Your notion of npov appears rather questionable and one-sided. I do not dislike that editorial, but it is misplaced and poorly-written. El_C 18:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Misplaced and poorly-written" in what sense? Israel's reaction should include the iraqi dictator's violent hostility to both Jews and Israel; in particular, because his last words were the hateful nullification nonsense that "palestine is arab."--Lance talk 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel's reactions should be limited to reactions by Israeli officials. El_C 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional Video Sources?

False pretenses aside, I believe this article should contain (if possible/available) alternative sources of the video(s) of Hussein's execution. To clarify, it would seem more.. informative to post links to sources other than CNN, although I have nothing against them. I've been searching since last night (US EST) for photos and/or videos, and have been watching CNN closely, albeit they were focusing more on the sociopolitical ramifications of the given subject, but that's another issue entirely. In addition, I have been combing through many Middle Eastern/Iraqi news sources (i.e. Al Sumaria, Al Sharqiya, National Iraq News Agency, Ishtar TV, Al Jazeera) but to practically no avail. I'm hopeful that, as the day passes, more sources will surface-- seeing how this is a major developing story. Cheers CrimsonScholar 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone watch the execution? Getting his final words from CNN and (worse still) Fox (a major source of American propaganda) is questionable. Or did they not televise the actual execution? Titanium Dragon 18:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
They've released the footage, I believe, first to the local media (possibly some of the ones I mentioned previously). Currently, I'm finding it rather difficult to locate this footage, so I'm assuming the only way to obtain this is to first access a live streaming version of the given news source, and wait until the particular newsclip shows up. If I come across this, I'll be sure to inform others through this post. I'll also take screenshots if possible, to further support the given page's topic. Cheers. CrimsonScholar 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep an eye on Liveleak, I'm sure it'll be on there by the end of the week. Janipewter 18:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I heard on TV, one of the CNN correspondents, saying that he'd be surprised if the full video footage and/or photographic documentation WASN'T leaked within the coming days/weeks. I have no doubt this will be leaked. Cheers. CrimsonScholar 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
They did not show the entire footage. As far as I know, they've shown the video up to the moment where the noose was placed around Hussein's neck. ♠ SG →Talk 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Limited Geographic Scope

Not sure why the template was removed, but the template addresses concerns stated above by editors who note the absence or shortage of non-US and UK sources. Please discuss reasons and issues before removing. Sfacets 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. The article seems to sufficiently concentrate on a worldwide view. So long as the sources are reliable, there's no need to accuse them of being US- or UK-centric. So long as the facts are verifiable somewhere, the fact that most those sources are from the US or UK don't matter. Sure, you could add Arabic newsletters, but it would only be redundant. All of these sources (CNN, MSNBC, BBC) pride themselves on being objective, and for the parts of their reports that might not be objective, we won't cite them anyway. If I'm misconstruing your ideas in any way, please correct me. ~~ GracenotesT § 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
These are indeed reliable sources. Furthermore, the reaction has plenty of world view and various different sources. There is also a lot of Iraqi news sources. Removing tag. ~ UBeR 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The template is part of the Countering Systematic bias project which attempts to identify demographic bias (most Wikipedia users are from the US for eg). Many points have been raised on this page, the sources are only the tip of the iceberg, the tone for example, has also been mentionned. To mirror these objetions, I have inserted the template, to draw attention to the matter and obtain concensus. I am re-inserting the template, please do not remove it untill the issue has ben discussed (ie concensus obtained). Sfacets 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
By all means, please add your worldly tone. ~ UBeR 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it reflects bias, because it has quotes from all sorts of world leaders, including China, which isn't western at all. I think the template should be removed -EdFlyer

Hungarian version

Pls give the hungarian link:

hu:Szaddám Huszein kivégzése Thanks.

Done. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Masked Executioners

I may be being completely ignorant and this may be in bad taste but why are the executioners masked? Mynameisryan812 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is custom to have executioners masked. There are plenty of reasons. However, in this case, it's quite evident one of the reasons is to protect their identities from any loyalists or simply not wanting to be immediately associated with his death. See, for example, how one of the executioners face is blurred out on the execution video to protect his identity. ~ UBeR 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a public execution would have brought a greater sense of closure to the iraqi people. Masked executioners, takes away from the new spirt of openness in Iraq. A more enjoyable public spectacle would lead to greater catharsis IMHO. --- Tonganoxie Jim 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And a lot more open to attack. ~ UBeR 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New Section on Burial

Is it appropiate to add a new section on burial, about place, time, blah, blah, based on this article[4]? --Flying Canuck 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot of information that could be added. It'd be such a small section.. ~ UBeR 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is all the info so far: Iraq's state-run television network, Al-Iraqiya, reported that the Iraqi government formally handed over Hussein's body to Sheikh Ali al-Nida, leader of the Bou Nasser tribe, and the governor of Salaheddin. It was transported by the U.S. military. The body was then taken to Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, north of the capital, where members of the Bou Nasser tribe and clerics prayed over it. The son of one tribal leader said Hussein will be buried at 9 a.m. (1 a.m. ET) Sunday in a cemetery in the Awja section of Tikrit. Some of Hussein's relatives are buried there, including sons Uday and Qusay. They were killed in a firefight with U.S. forces in 2003. ~ UBeR 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that they don't cremate the body, and then scatter the ashes secretly, thus preventing the creation of a grave site that will be a focal point for controversy. Tonganoxie Jim 00:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
New information: However, Saddam Hussein's family said late on Saturday that it had been decided to bury him in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, citing family circumstances and the security situation prevailing in Iraq.[5] ~ UBeR 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka's flag

Umm, what's up with the flag picture? It links to an old car drawing. DTPQueen 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Last name?

I've noticed he is referenced throughout the article as "Saddam". Seems informal.... shouldn't it be by his last name? - eo 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No. See article at Saddam Hussein. Specifically, you may want to read this ~ UBeR 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, ok got it. Thought maybe there was a reason, but figured I'd ask to be sure. Thanks! - eo 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove the "Fox News says" et al

This shouldn't be the tone of the encyclopaedia. State the facts, state the source but don't say "CNN says" or "Fox News says" unless you're deliberately talking about the media coverage of the event. There's got to be a nicer way of doing this. -Halo 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the best way to insure balance - some News sources are 'biased' simply because they hold a certain position in regards to demographic groups. If more sources were provided per statement, then there wouldn't be an issue. Sfacets 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Video of Execution

it claims was filmed by a cellphone

I don't personally think this should be shown here. It's graphic violence, not informative. No doubt Google will remove it soon anyway. Janipewter 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is how the security could be so lax as to let someone with a cellphone film the entire event. Although it isn't especially shocking, the fact that it was filmed so blatantly is horrible. Stephencraigen 02:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There were reportedly 15 witnesses at the bottom of the gallows. We can be sure that they were carefully screened. The individual who used his videophone to capture the event was apparently using his privileged status to accomplish this. After all, nobody intervened to stop him, did they?T.E. Goodwin 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
An excellent point. I suspect that either (1) no one was paying attention amidst the chaos and/or (2) this was allowed on purpose, to let an "underground" video go out while the government's official video censored (so far) the actual hanging portion. Since it appears to be "candid", it would be more convincing to a possibly skeptical public than the official video might be. (There's your conspiracy theory for the day.) Wahkeenah 12:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think its kind of neat. It adds to the historical record. --- Tonganoxie Jim 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This kind of thing should not be sugarcoated or censored. It's a grim reality of war, like showing the coffins with the U.S. flags on them. People are sheltered from these realities, and that's the way the various governments want it. This is not a new complaint. When Matthew Brady publicly displayed his photos of the dead of Antietam, there was a major outcry over it... officially because it was too grim, but actually because of fears it would undercut the warhawks' propaganda efforts. This video should be shown everywhere. It's a message to would-be dictators: This could be your fate, too. Take the sword, die by the sword. Wahkeenah 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider it informative in the sense that it both confirms Saddam's death by hanging, which is bound to be disputed, and adds the dimension of the role of technology in journalism and historical documentation. It's not simply graphic violence, at least, not any more so that any historical account of an execution. It's a primary source regarding Saddam's hanging. Personal Robot Jesus 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Google wasn't able to remove the link fast enough. I got an AVI extract of it, and I'll be hosting it to my HTTP soon enough. This kinda stuff should NOT be censored as Wahkeenah said. (10 minutes latyer) Got it here: [6] - Ghostalker

NPOV tag

added because there is no reaction of actual Iraqi citizens in the article. I don't care what Joe-schmo in Timbucktu thinks. Tell me what the Iraqis think. --Jayzel 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been mostly rejoicing. Some say they mourn. It's just a matter of pulling out comments from the sources, which are there. Only reason i haven't because I don't feel some random store owner represents all of Iraq. ~ UBeR 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The opinion of "some random store clerk in Iraq" has 10000000% more weight than the opinion of some ivory-tower pinhead in some office in The Hague. Regards, --Jayzel 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
According to this BBC article, "Shias celebrated the pre-dawn hanging while some Sunni towns saw protests. About 70 people died in attacks in two mainly Shia areas after the execution." Indeed, these pictures show celebrating in Shiite towns, while protests in Sunni towns such as Tikrit. Khoikhoi 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the article currently says, "various news sources report that Iraqis are celebrating Saddam's execution", while the actual source doesn't mention people in Iraq at all—it talks about residents of Dearborn, Michigan. Khoikhoi 01:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And one sentence saying "various news sources report that Iraqis are celebrating Saddam's execution" in an article this size and with this many quotes from non-involved parties is embarassing to say the least. --Jayzel 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Khoikhoi 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There still needs to be some quotes from Iraqi citizens and government officials. The article as it now stands is overly-heavy with quotes from people who have no direct connection to Iraq. What the article needs at a minimum is an entire section for reactions from Iraqis and Iraqis only -- Preferably, with some pictures if possible. Unitl then, the article is not neutral. It's just a platform for anti-death penalty protestors. Regards, --Jayzel 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a very good page of quotes from Iraqis that could be used as a reference. I agree that we have too many contries now. I was the one who originally added that section, and I didn't think that people were going to add every country in the world... Khoikhoi 01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to go off line at the moment. I may be back on line later this evening. If not, tomorrow afternoon I will look through your links as well as do a bit of research on my own and see if I can fashion an Iraqi reaction section together. Regards, --Jayzel 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hah! And you think you're neutral... ~ UBeR 01:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking to me, I never said I was neutral. I don't have to be, the article does. Regards, --Jayzel 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please be more civil. Khoikhoi 01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Also please only comment on the edits, not the editor, failing to do so could be considered a Personal Attack Sfacets 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, then, do not try to push your un-NPOV views on the article. ~ UBeR 02:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to insure NPOV, do not remove the corresponding templates which help in that respect. There are stillisues being discussed on this page. Sfacets 02:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who this Sfacets guy is, but he keeps adding the NPOV tag. I've already added "a minimum [of] an entire section for reactions from Iraqis and Iraqis only," as per requested. This can, and will be, continually added to. If you wish to add tags, please read the whole article beforehand. ~ UBeR 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The criticism for this NPOV tag has been addressed by changes to the article. I am removing the tag. If you wish to add it again, please create a new section on this discussion page for your new issue(s) of NPOV. --Hab baH 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the edito who first placed the tag on the page, the issues have not been addressed. Plese refer to 'NPOV issues 2' for discussion. Sfacets 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"last meal"

I'm a little skeptical of the info in the "last meal" section. Can anyone provide a citation, or is that just someone's idea of a joke? 02:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just vandalism. ~ UBeR 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues 2

As recommended above I am starting a new hread in which I would address POV issues in the article. My big concern is that the Iraqi reaction is not properly shown, only a few dignitarie's quotes and two lone sources claiming that there were festivities in Iraqi cities (BBC and CNN). For the article to be NPOV, Iraqi media sources would have to be included, and the section expanded. This would also address the {{limitedgeographicscope}} template. I am unable to re-insert the template for another 23 hours (3RR), however I will do so when I am able to, if it is not re-inserted per arguments given here.

There are other issues concerning NPOV throughout this page. Sfacets 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, please add any comments of Iraqis you've spoken to, or any Iraqi media sources you've come across. ~ UBeR 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why the template is there to COORDINATE efforts in this regard. Your sarcasm doesn't help the article. Please remain civil. Sfacets 03:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was being sincere. If you choose to, however, remain idle. I will continue to look for new sources if no one else will. Inactivity, however, is no reason for erroneous tags. ~ UBeR 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you were, maybe I should ask an Iraqi if he thinks you were being sarcastic or not. Get real. I haven't been inactive, I have been keeping an eye (and continue to keep an eye) on POV edits made on this article, and addressing them as such. You can turn a blind eye on this if you wish, but do not attempt to hide the issue from other editors. Sfacets 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
As the one who originally put the NPOV tag up, I will say my concerns have still not been fully addressed. The article has improved, but the Iraqi section needs to be fleshed out a bit more and the comments from the rest of the world needs to be trimmed down a bit. Currently, quotes from others account for just over 50% of the article (The quotes should be wittled down to just neighboring countries of Iraq, coalition member states, and perhaps a few other large countries and the EU). That is undue weight being given to people who have no direct connect to the incident. The article is unballanced and not neutral. Therefore, I will place the tag back on the page. It is currently almost 11pm where I am so I will work on the article again tomorrow. Please, do not remove the tag until these issues are fully fixed. thanks! Regards, --Jayzel 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The full international response is important in relation to the war in Iraq, which is a major global issue. It might be worth splitting into a seperate subpage though. On top of that, you're adding a NPOV tag to a page that is still far from a stable state - once it settles down, this might be worth discussing, but not now when the page is in a state where several changes are happening every few minutes, so making substantial edits is difficult. Moreover, your criticism seems to be that it's /overly/ neutral rather than anything else. -Halo 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Halo. To say that the international community has no say and merit no discussion is 100% un-NPOV. Here is a good link with plenty of Irqi quotes. Feel free to add them. ~ UBeR 04:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --causa sui talk 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)