Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 5

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

You guys have it all mixed up

First of all THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA... I can say Julius the Emperor died around 5 BC, what good does that give me... THIS MUST BE EXACT AND WHAT THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT SAID NOT WHAT the above vandal demands Uber. ALso, explanation of hanging or explanation of some other death... Are you trying to put words into my mouth? I am not disputing them, you can explain all you want and even show the video, but as long as there is no name to it, as simple as that, again there are cnn videos which show somewhat, thus that is acceptable, not illegal video, remember this is illegal, some jerk took that video and made it public, now Saddam's cult will grow even more, martyred on holy day of sacrifice and again, it's ugly and well, read what I wrote if you have any sense at all... Also do not judge others so you are not to be judged some day by God, there are many worse dicators than Saddam, us works with saudi arabia, but if you convert somebody to christianity you are dead, so where is justice here, under saddam, iraq was most liberal amonth islamic countries, christians were doing well and other religions. But video is ugly and only promotes hate. That should not be under external links or on this page. More evidence of his death, here's a live blog (at that time)... http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html

Of all the sources to cite, please do not use a blog. In addition, I would suggest ignoring the 66.99.3.18 until he or she reads the above comments and actually responds to them, rather than spewing forth more and more commentary. GracenotesT § 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Straw poll about Video Inclusion

This Straw poll is an attempt to get a general feel for consensus. So far, several vocal people involved in this article have made points both for and again the video links' inclusion. However, I assume that there are also those who feel one way or the other, but do not want to get involved in the theatrics. This talk page, as well as the archives, should provide some (vaguely quantitative) insight into both sides' views.

This is a straw poll. It is not a binding poll. Please add your vote to the appropriate section, and whether you Support or Oppose the following:

The inclusion of a links to videos of Saddam Hussein's death in the External Links, especially the one taken with the mobile phone (number 6 in this list).

Please sign your vote with four tildes (~~~~), and it would be appreciated if you could add a brief comment. Policies to know: WP:EL, WP:CENSOR. This issue should be finished up soon so that we all can get on with editing Wikipedia; I am willing to accept an outcome where my point of view is not enforced, and I hope that you are too. GracenotesT § 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

For this section, all consider these three sub-alternatives:

  1. No text indicate graphic content, reader should assume that deaths are graphic
  2. Some text to indicate graphic content, noting that there is blood, etc. but no actual warning
  3. Explicit graphic content warning

Support inclusion:

  • Support: support because the previous consensus was support (see "Warnings," and "Warnings Again" at the top, as well as Archive 1 and 2). Support because Wikipedia is not censored. Support because WP:EL supports the inclusion of these links. Support because Wikipedia is not biased toward those offended by what they may consider disturbing (please see Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer). Support because the videos are unbiased (videos represent facts). Support because the videos are very relevant. Support because the videos demonstrate a landmark and historical event in Iraqi history. Support because the videos are factual, accurate, and historical. No warning should be given; only factual and accurate descriptions of the video should be included. ~ UBeR 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion as per consensus above and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The inclusion of links to content precisely related to a topic is a major reason for having an online encyclopedia. Warnings, on the other hand, are not encyclopedic and they do not adhere to WP:NPOV. -- Hab baH 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Gdavidp 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC): Disagree with censoring video, historical event, but must include "Explicit graphic content warning".
  • Support - Wikipedia should not censor, nor should we practice auto-censorship. Even though there are two policies that contradict themselves, Censorship creates deplorable encyclopedias. There should not be any type of warning to indicate graphic content, it is up the the reader to use his/her discernment, and the accompanying text is already a preliminary warning. Is there any other article which contains such a warning? Sfacets 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of the links to the video. Wikipedia is not censored. I'm not against a warning though - I think a warning would be the best way of keeping everyone happy and IMO doesn't stop it from being encyclopaediac. -Halo 07:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of the links, Wikipedia is not censored and it should not be censored. The video links should not have a warning either, the naming of the video link is enough warning to the reader that it is going to be graphic. --Borgarde 08:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support but with explicit warning. I really can't understand the fuss against a warning. A warning is not censorship. A warning is not POV because it is easy to find references demonstrating that videos of deaths are disturbing. A warning costs only a few characters and hurts no one. If warnings are not encyclopedic, then neither are spoiler warnings, and WP is full of them (and are appropriate for the same sorts of reasons). A warning is not a bad precedent - I'd have no problem with warning against any link which substantial amounts of users would find disturbing. Rocksong 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with wording like this: (Caution: Graphic content). To not have any kind of notice is imposing our own point of view on the user. "Warning" is also kind of POV-pushing. "Caution" is fair. It's like having a rating on an HBO movie or whatever. Wahkeenah 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with explicit warning. Pepsidrinka 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support before and after, Strong Oppose the camera video: read the upload comment - Originally posted as a link on the Something Awful forums, I saved and uploaded it to google video before it died. Per WP:COPYRIGHT we Do not link to material that infringes copyright. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Might be worth noting that Iraq have no copyright laws according to Wikipedia:Copyrights - seems that's very out of date.. Either way, I think it's important to let the content hosts deal with this, particularly as it could easily be argued as fair use and a million other things and isn't a clear cut case. -Halo 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So you're happy to link a grainy video with gross content uploaded by someone who freely admits to having no right to upload it, and whose justification for uploading it was that it was likely to be pulled by those who do. And this is good in what way, precisely? Guy (Help!) 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In general, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to attempt to arbitrate copyright disputes. In general, we're a mass of (legally) uneducated non-lawyers with at best a poor grasp of copyright and related issues and laws. My support is not for this particular copy of the video but for the video in general.
The quality of video is a non-issue - the material is of such historic importance that we take what we can get. I'm not sure I'd want a nice, well-lit, high-definition copy of an execution, anyway... :) --ElKevbo 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with no warning but a clear description. A clear description should be more than sufficient to notify readers that, yes, this is an uncensored video of an execution. A warning on top of a clear description is not only overkill but an insult to our readers' intelligence. --ElKevbo 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with no warning; just a description, per rationales mentioned in previous sections. -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for all videos, with a clear description- including the fact that the video contains someone being killed.Fishies Plaice 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support clear description of what's going on, maybe to the extent of mentioning that there is blood. I am not in favor of an explicit warning because it must be written in the second person, which is (in my opinion) unencyclopedic. (i.e., "Warning" or "Caution" clearly must be directed at the reader to be efficacious, and "Viewer discretion advised" implies a link between this "viewer" and the person actively deciding whether to click the link or not: once again, second person. A possible exception to this rule might be Introduction to special relativity, which is more wikibooks-like than encyclopedic anyway.) I have not seen the video myself, but am aware of its content from descriptions by several sources within the media. GracenotesT § 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support m:Voting is evil, but both videos are pertinent to this article and links to them necessary. The mobile phone, in particular, has stirred up much controversy. It is discussed in this article, as is media coverage in general. As for, whether a special warning is needed? No special warning is needed. This article is about an execution of a person, and with the words "video" and "execution" in the link, it's quite clear what to expect. --Aude (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - only if option 2 or 3 are used. Given that videos of actual deaths are rare in most cultures, it is assuming too much to expect that the average reader will be prepared if the link is too innocuous/simple. The link must spell out clearly what the reader will see if they click the link. Then they can make an informed decision and at that point we've done our job. Johntex\talk 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - c'est la vie + WP is a better place with the truth in it, Clarice.--Shtove 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose inclusion:

  • Oppose -- not from a reliable source. Jkelly 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, you question the validity of the videos? ~ UBeR 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, why are some Wiki rules enforced here, and others (reliability of source) not? FireWeed 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not support FCC clearly says such videos must have a warning, all of you are law breakers. What can I say, I am sick.
FCC has no such law. ~ UBeR 20:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
FCC regulates public airwaves radio and TV closely (hence the rating system), but has little or no authority to censor content on the Internet. Wahkeenah 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is an international project. You are sick. Sfacets 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? Wahkeenah 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I was agreeing with anonymous above... Sfacets 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with him when he says he's sick? Ten-four. :) Wahkeenah 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it's THAT video it could create issue as the content could be thought 'sick' or inappropriate in some jurisdictions, which would create legal issues for Wikipedia. 62.56.80.206 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no legal issue with the video. ~ UBeR 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a legal opinion (are you a lawyer?) and original research to me. FireWeed 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any copyright issues with the video? Perhaps a silly question, but I'm constantly getting burned on this in my own efforts to enhance this site, so I have to ask. Wahkeenah 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Under American law, the copyright belongs to the person who created the video, unless (s)he was being paid to do so. ( Think: photojournalism. ) Since the person who created the video has been arrested for doing so, it's extremely unlikely that there's any copyright issue here.
In response to FireWeed, other way around. He said it created legal issues. He did not provide a source to back his claim. How am I to prove there isn't a law on something? Copy paste every law in the book about showing videos? That would be imprudent. Which would be simpler? Precisely. So next time before you come to attack me, realize what I'm responding to first. ~ UBeR 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Very) Weak Oppose It's in bad taste, but unarguably news-worthy, noteable, or valid here by almost any standard. I believe all life is sacred and that it's not for us to decide who lives and who dies, even a monster like Saddam, however his execution is a matter of historical fact, of great importance to Iraq, the United States, and perhaps the whole of the Islamic world. I think it would be more appropriate to use text to describe the event, and mention that the video exists, however, my opinion on the sanctity of life shouldn't be reason enough to censor an encyclopedia. FireWeed 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you a Buddhist and a vegetarian at that? --Svetovid 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 1

Its good to see the page editors agreeing on this. When the page is unprotected, you'll be free to add the links back. However, the edit wars weren't about this, and whatever they were about still needs to be sorted out William M. Connolley 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I like to use the expression "Edit Jihad", and it certainly fits here, ja? :) Wahkeenah 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the only thing that is still being argued about is the time of the execution. However, I would like to clear up this issue first, in an organized manner, so that we don't have to be concerned with arguing about it anymore. Also, the caution tag issue needs some resolution. GracenotesT § 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am confused. If the edit wars were not about the external links to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein, then what administrative reason did you have for removing them after you protected the page? --Hab baH 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Comment - as of current votes in the straw poll, by my count, 6 are for a warning, 7 are against a warning (in one form or another), 1 opposes the hanging video over copyright concerns. Which leaves us with a problem as there is no consensus. -Halo 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to read the Warning and Warning again already discussed above. ~ UBeR 07:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have - there was no consensus there either hence the straw poll. -Halo 07:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem - because there is no consensus to include a POV warning, we do not include one. --Hab baH 07:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that it's POV. Saying it is or isn't POV is, well, a POV. -Halo 08:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No it's a matter of fact. It's a fact it's your opinion the the video is "horrific" or "gruesome." ~ UBeR 08:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Halo: So you are saying a content warning is not a matter of POV? I just do not understand that. --Hab baH 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, what I meant is that while a content warning /is/ POV, I'm also saying no content warning is also pushing POV in the opposite direction and isn't the neutral option. I'm not saying you should put anything saying "horrific" or "gruesome", more like something like "Discretion advised", which /is/ the most neutral option from where I'm sitting. -Halo 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Kid safe would be the opposite of a warning, at the other end of the opinion pole. Another example is grandparent friendly. The neutral option is to not have opinion tags . Since no consensus has been reached after discussion of the controversial edit, it should not be include. --Hab baH 10:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be something that makes it clear this is video of a killing. To state that is neither POV-pushing nor is it censorship. To withhold that fact is POV-pushing and is censorship. Wahkeenah 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree... hence why people label material "NSFW", because otherwise it's assumed the opposite. -Halo 10:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. And we are not saying "not suitable" anywhere. We are simply providing information to the readers, so they can decide whether they want to see it or not. That is fully in the spirit of wikipedia policy. It's like with HBO, where they list contents: violence, nudity, language, etc. They don't play nanny and say "warning, don't watch this", they simply provide information. Providing information is openness. Suppressing information is censorship. Wahkeenah 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just like with HBO, and The Sopranos, Wikipedia is making the video available (to a much wider audience) and letting each reader/viewer decide for him or her -self whether to watch it. A description of the content of the video one needs to make this descision about is not a point of view. FireWeed 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The description "Video of Execution" makes it clear this is a video of a killing. The adding of opinion tags is not encyclopedic. I do not assume a link is safe for work unless I have reason to, such as an accurate description. I do not do personal web surfing on the job, so I rarely encounter links that bear any level of scrutiny. I would expect to see a video of a killing when clicking on a link prefaced with the text "Video of Execution:", found at the bottom of a page titled "Execution of Saddam Hussein", and with a link name "Execution". On the other hand, I do not want to encounter an editor's opinion when reading an encyclopedia, which HBO is not. --Hab baH 10:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The description "Video of Execution" might be sufficiently clear to the casual reader, I'm just not fully convinced of it. If "graphic" sounds too opinionated, how about "explicit"? Calling such labeling POV-pushing is, in itself, POV-pushing... because no matter how it's labeled, it's not stopping anyone from clicking on it. Insufficiently labeling it is an insult to the readers, i.e. it is pushing another POV: the idea that it's OK to smack somebody in the face and that they shouldn't be offended. That's standard, modern-style rudeness. Maybe "video of execution" is sufficient, but it wouldn't hurt to make it a tad clearer. Wahkeenah 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Many depictions of violence stop short of actually showing the violence, including execution. Even many historical records - see Garrot include photos of an executed person before their execution. A reasonable person may well expect the same here. FireWeed 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The description "Video of Execution" is clear to anyone who reads English. "Graphic" is an opinion. "Explicit" is an opinion. My having an opinion is why a Talk page exists. I try to keep it separate from the article so that the article might remain in an Encyclopedic form. Why do you want to label the external links with a tag about your opinion? I do not think anyone is insulting the readers. You cannot use words (especially lack of words) to "smack someone in the face". Nor can you engage in discussion and then logically claim your opponent is a member of an "actual lynch mob" for trying to keep the external links section clear of opinion tags (see DeathOfReason's only comment to Wikipedia above). Keeping an Encyclopedia page clear and concise, and free of opinion, is not rude. It is WP:NPOV. The links are as described: "Video of Execution". Do not add your opinion to that. Also note that Wikipedia's verifiability policy says: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." The content at the other end of these links does not verify your opinion, as opinions cannot be verified. --Hab baH 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hab baH, you couldn't e more wrong. If "graphic" ( basically meaning visualized ) is an opinion, then you must be argueing the POV that there is no absolute truth, and that oxygen being necessary for human life is an opinion. You might better spend your time in a philosophy discussion.
For the sane among us, the debatable notion that The description "Video of Execution" is clear to anyone who reads English. is, again, a point of view, and a guess at the mental state of all readers of this article. Including those for whom English is a second or third language. However, because most documents of an execution do not show the actual execution, mearly the lead-up. You can't tell me you don't believe a single viewer will expect this video to similarly stop short of actually showing the man's death, on-camera??? FireWeed 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I just want to address some of the points some of you have made. First, Wahkeenah, you say there needs to be a clear warning of what people are going to see when people click on the link. You give examples of how HBO says "violence, nudity, etc." without giving absurd warnings. You say that deceiving people to trick them in to viewing a video they may not want to see is POV-pushing. I agree with all of that. I also believe the current description of the links follows that completely. A title factually and accurately titled "Execution video . . . including his final moments" is VERY clear to the reader. It is not deceiving in any way. That title is not POV, it an accurate description of what the video is. Saying "Warnining" or "Graphic" or "Explicit" is pushing it. Not everyone can agree with those. But everyone agrees that what they're going to see is Saddam's execution and death, which is precisely what it says.
Halo, you say NOT having a warning is POV. You give examples of where people say "NSFW" on forums to warn people, and without it people are tricked into viewing inappropriate things. I disagree. When you might be at work and see link titled "Ultra hardcore pornography" or something, and no one put "NSFW" next to it, are you going to use that as an excuse to click the link? Of course not. You know better. And to think the readers of Wikipedia do not is an insult to them. I agree with Hab baH that the opposite POV of having a "Warning" tag is not withholding the tag, but rather putting some other tag like "child friendly." Thus, having no tags, but only an accurate and factual description of the link, is the Neutral POV. To say otherwise and place {NPOV} tags is simply imprudent and impolite. ~ UBeR 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying it needs to be clear before they click on it that they're going to see Saddam be killed. If the group's consensus is that the current label is sufficient, then that's the way it is. However, to argue that a little extra "caution" or "note" connected with it violates wikipedia's POV rules, is really splitting hairs. Wahkeenah 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, it must have been awhile since I looked at the description. It currently says "Execution" and "Cellphone video of hanging". I think that's clear enough. The "cellphone" prefix is key, because by now the knowledge of this (supposedly) unauthorized cellphone video is widespread. Wahkeenah 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I disagree that the description is explicit enough. "Execution — Cell phone video of hanging, including final moments" isn't explicit enough to state it's contents (worth noting I have a strong objection to any use of the term "Cell phone", which is an American term and /really/ should be avoided). I would object less to "Full execution - Amateur camera phone footage of hanging, including complete uncensored footage of death" would be better, but not enough to fulfil my objections. Please also don't delete my neutrality templates User:Hab baH - this issue is NOT resolved. -Halo 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Your wording is probably better, if there is ambiguity over the term "cellphone"; and it still steers clear of the nitpicking over it being an "opinion" that someone being killed in front of your eyes is "explicit". If you want it really unvarnished, you could say "Video of Saddam being killed by hanging". Also, I didn't delete the neutrality tag. I'm not sure who did. There has been a lot of activity on this page, in case you hadn't noticed. :) Wahkeenah 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It was referring to User:Hab BaH below about removing template - it's been readded now (my main neutrality point IS about any warning). I think mentioning it is "uncensored" is extremely important, I spent a good 10 minutes pondering over phrasing. I think "complete uncensored footage of death" would serve as a warning, wouldn't need any prior knowledge of its contents and still stay neutral from everyone's point of view. I'm trying to avoid getting involved in any edit war... Halo 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree enough with the current description. It has the same message as the previous. ~ UBeR 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Currently there's an IP address that's trying to add back a "viewer discretion advised" as if this were an episode of NYPD Blue, and also posting what I gather (though am not totally sure) is a redundant link. I tried reverting it once and it got put back quickly, so somone else is going to have to take up this torch now. Wahkeenah 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's the same guy from yesterday... ~ UBeR 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the redundancy and sensationalistic tone as well presumption of censorship (and also Wikilinking in the External links) from the boldly-changed description. --Hab baH 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed it back. I disagreed with the changed phrasing, which didn't make it's contents explicit enough; "Full Execution" and "uncensored" serves as the warning in my opinion, whilst trying to swerve around potential POV issues as much as possible. If you disagree, change it back I'll add the POV template again and we'll try and come to an acceptable compromise. -Halo 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I have only removed the presumption of censorship. I do not like the redundancy and recognize it as a means of marking the content as explicit, as you admit, while not seeming to. I hope this compromise will be acceptable. --Hab baH 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Halo: I am disappointed you have not accepted my compromise and insist on having it only your way. I have removed the neutrality tag because the way it is currently described is objectively neutral and you have not added to this Talk page since adding the tag nor acknowledged my attempt at compromise. --Hab baH 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF. I've tried to come to a neutral compromise, but you keep reverting it, hence adding the neutrality tag rather than getting into an edit war. Using the word "uncensored" specifically serves as a warning that I thought was as neutral as possible - that was the entire point of the compromise. -Halo 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the recently-added POV tag from the section. The continuing consensus is to keep the links. No strong consensus has developed with respect to the inclusion of warning/explicit/graphic content opinion tags, although after polling more editors do not want the opinion tags than do (9 to 6). --Hab baH 20:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the video doesn't show "everything", but it's grim enough as it is. It shows him in position with the noose around his neck, presumably reciting a verse from the Quran. Just as he says "Muhammad", at 1:38 of the video's timer, you can hear the sound of the trap being sprung, and Saddam quickly drops out of sight while the camera remains fixed on his previous position. You can see the rope go tawt. Then the screen darkens as the camera operator is moving it to find Saddam's face in the dim light. He finds it at 2:05 (27 seconds later), presumably dead at that point. So this is what's really going on on the video, but this might be a tad lengthy for a link description. Wahkeenah 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So I guess "complete" footage might not be entirely accurate? Yeah, that would be an exceptionally lengthy description. --Hab baH 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It's the most complete available footage that we know of. Maybe the government's hi-def version will come out on DVD in time for the next holiday; or maybe on pay-per-view. They could call it "Saddam's Greatest Hits", including his 1991 statement that "the mother of all battles has begun", complemented with a selection of parodies such as Johnny Carson announcing that he was beginning "the mother of all monologues"; and they would for sure have to include that infamous party congress meeting video from the 1980s, where Saddam sat on stage calmly smoking a stogie while his enemies were led away to the firing squad or the hangman one by one. Wahkeenah 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a very nice guy, huh? I guess the United States/Iraqi government just did to Saddam Hussein what he had done to so many others. So, maybe he was justified? I mean, George Bush did go to bed early. --Hab baH 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It seemed inevitable. Saddam's stubbornness and ego overrode pragmatism. Even after he was thrown out of Kuwait, he could have saved himself if he had kissed up to the UN rules. Either he deluded himself (aided by his lackeys who dared not contradict him) or he had a death wish. Or both. Wahkeenah 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, this isn't the forum, but Saddam Hussein was not executed for anything that occurred during the 90's. --Hab baH 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The point being that if he had cowtowed to the UN, he likely never would have been tried for his 1980s crimes, he would still be in power right now. Yes, I reckon we are trailing off the topic. Wahkeenah 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I do seem to recall the United Nations being very against the invasion. And the UN did issue an opinion that the trial of Saddam Hussein was arbitrary and in violation of international law (namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Iraq and the United States are signatories to). Of course, if Bush cowtowed to the UN, Iraq would be a very different place today. --Hab baH 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's just say that the worldly-wise Bush Sr. worked with the UN and played by the book, while the not-so-worldly-wise Bush Jr. (with, incredibly, many of the same advisors as Bush Sr. had) did things the way he wanted to, in defiance of all advice that he didn't want to hear... such as from the UN, as you alluded to. And now that Bush Jr. has triggered all of this, it is fair to say that it is not at all clear how (or if) he's going to fix it. Realistically, Iraq is waiting for its next strongman... its next Saddam Hussein, so to speak. It's to be hoped that the next guy will be a bit less autocratic. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 02:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you have alluded to it, but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please keeps discussions pertaining to editing this article for encyclopedic content relevant for this article. Thank you! ~ UBeR 05:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It does relate, in a sense. We've got one clearly pro-Saddam user on here, which relates to the coloration of these articles. But we'll try to keep the rhetoric reined in. :) Wahkeenah 08:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to me, I find that statement incredibly offensive and libelous. I am going to have to look up the rules now. --Hab baH 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I am definitely NOT talking about you. I'm talking about a red-linked user. That might be on the main page, I forget just now. Wahkeenah 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It's on the main page, and his entire "contribution" has been about this one subject. I apologize for causing confusion. Wahkeenah 13:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hab baH - Wahkeenah is clearly not talking about you. I believe you're quite wrong in some of your positions, but they're well defended and consistant with each other. The "pro-Saddam user" is the one who won't sign his posts, likes TO SHOUT, leaves messages on all of our talk pages, and in general acts like a raving lunatic. It's only natural for many editors to disagree on how rules and facts are interpreted and should be presented - we're all individuals. And, with one anonymous exception, we all seem to be working in good faith. FireWeed 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Hab baH has stayed away for a couple of days, hopefully not due to misunderstanding my comments. I put a message on his page also. Vigorous discussion is good. Consensus can often arise from free exchange of ideas. Wahkeenah 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer to "Who released the video"

and if you want to know who first released it: it was the head of security in Iraq.
Latif Yahia, who acted as a body double for Saddam's son Uday received the controversial camera phone footage in an email from the head of security in Iraq. "Two hours after the execution I received an email from him saying: 'This is the footage of your dad being hanged, ha, ha, ha." [1]
I will leave it to you (i.e. any editor) to add this information to the article - ClemMcGann 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

OK, I'm going to unprotect it and see what happens - there is an assertion that all we disagree on is the time; lets see.

But please, no edit warring which I will interpret very liberally - in fact, you might like to stick to WP:1RR on this for a while William M. Connolley 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, like i said on saddam execution talk, we can put official cnn video, not illegal, ugly and tormenting, it does promote hate, you remind me of that iraqi puppet who said now that saddam is dead we can reunite, lol. Sunnis are really suffering. However, on talk page i also gave other links that proves he died at 6:10, also other sources say he was on the rope 5 minutes, it says died at 6:05, pronounced dead 6:10, so, even if he was on the rope 20 days, but pronounced dead at a certain time, that is what counts. And by doing the video, wiki promotes hate. No censorship? Then I can put just about everything and say... hey this is rape in action, see the blood and screams, mutilation, etc... I can say, well, I am only explaining how it's done.

What I propose is ask all administrators if hanging should be allowed, but instead of under external links we can put that link as a footnote in the article.

Crimes against humanity

Saddam was only convicted of a single (mass) killing, for which he was sentanced to death and executed. However, he stood accused of a GREAT MANY other crimes against humanity, for which he was never convicted - probably because this would be unnecessary as it would only lead to redundant and impossible to carry out sentances. However, I feel the article should mention the other mass crimes he was accused of. While I stand against the death penalty, it must be noted that if ever there was a candidate for it's use, Saddam was exactly that. I feel the article currently gives the impression the man was executed for this one crime alone, which while technically true, is functionally wrong. FireWeed 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why Bush and Iraq hanged him, he wanted to call Bush, Rumsfeld and others as witnesses to testify, remember us supported Iraq in their 8 year old war with Iran (persians), gave them all wmd and more... Again, I wish the trial did continue so he was found accountable of Kurdish deaths, now he can never be proven, judging him now will only create more confusion, hate and other problems, also it does not get more rediculous.

Under the trial section it says: "Saddam Hussein and eleven senior Ba'athist officials were handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide." ~ UBeR 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and this is exactly what I mean. We're told Saddam is responsible for as many as half a million of his own peoples' deaths. He was sentanced for 142 of them, but if that's all he was guilty of, there never woulf have been an intervention. 142 summary executions ( mass murder ) is less brutal than what's going on today in Azerbijan. Genocide in particular seems like very important context. You're right that it's mentioned, but perhaps it should be "above the fold?" FireWeed 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes you're right. It'd be appropriate to note the significance of the crimes he was accused of (genocide, etc.) in the trail portion. Mostly because this is about the execution of the Saddam. It'd be more appropriate to go into depth about the accusations in Saddam Hussein article. But because this is mostly about his execution, I don't think we shouldn't get too bent over his genocide mentions. ~ UBeR 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but who handed him, invaders, this was puppet court. 10 of his lawyers killed, so sorry even to talk about that... and nobody cares, why then did they even defand him. REMEMBER, they say some people are uncivil here, but posting video of execution. REMEMBER IN US COURTS THIS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, LIKE ILLEGAL COP SEARCH, THEY CAN NOT COME INSIDE YOUR HOME AND JUST SEARCH, THE PHONES DID NOT HAVE CAMERA 3 YEARS AGO AND RECORDING WAS ILLEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO THIS MEANS (AS USUAL) WIKIPEDIA IS POSTING ILLEGAL NASTY VIDEOS... Again, we are not to judge but to report it right. Did cnn or niteline show the illegal footage from a to z?

From a to x, at least. But we're not CNN. Stop POV pushing. If you feel the video is illegal because they didn't have cameras 3 years ago (?), feel free to contact Wikipedia administrators (see WP:OFFICE). ~ UBeR 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and this is the job for others, ALSO I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU ARE REVERTING OTHER LINKS, NOT ONLY VIDEO. (ON WHICH WE ALL AGREED)Stay away, because I am here to stay and stop you from vandalizing this page, as long as it takes. You have no manners and you simply create your own truth.

You really don't know what you're saying. Please read the discussions we've already had on this topic. I've explained it so many times over. At least make an attempt to understand what's being said. And please, stop removing/changing stuff just because YOU feel like it spreads hate or whatever. You're the only person here who thinks so. To make Wikipedia reflect ONLY YOUR views is incorrect. ~ UBeR 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My views IS INCORRECT? Learn grammar, my views are is proper view, no my views are correct, you have special agenda here, because you spend all time doing something here, typing and reverting things, you did not explain anything, i simply corrected few things, added info on time, and you reverted.

Sigh. ~ UBeR 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please notice that mister or miss "rediculous," making these silly arguments and not signing them, is someone else. Just because it's being posted under a section I created ( about the depth of Saddam's crimes ), please don't associate them with me. FireWeed 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. He is IP: 66.99.3.118 / 64.107.0.68. He's been asked by an admin to sign his posts, but he doesn't listen. ~ UBeR 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)