Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV issues 3

The main sources in this article are BBC, CNN, and Fox News all three of which have been known to Show bias in favour of either the Bush administration, or the war in Iraq in particular. A more varied, international and independant sources are required to balance the article, and help make it NPOV. Sfacets 13:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am putting your criticism under a new heading (NPOV issues 3), to separate it from the prior two discussions. This should aid in addressing it. --Hab baH 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox is about the only republican news source on here. Most of the news is coming from Aljazeera or other Iraqi sources. So long as the sources are reliable and tell facts, I'm not really seeing any issue with what's being said in this article. ~ UBeR 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The BBC aren't biased towards the Bush administration /or/ the war in Iraq. Halo 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the links given above. Sfacets 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep adding the tag, but your allegations are unfounded. Please, post some controversies for Reuters, The New York Times, The Washing Post, and all the foreign sources listed as well. Until then, the tag is being removed. ~ UBeR 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the vast majority of sources are those given above, which have shown bias, and that a largewr diversity of sources are required. Stop removing the template untill this has been discussed. Sfacets 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed, and no one agrees with you. Furthermore, what's stated in this article here is facts, not opinions. And so long as facts can be verified (click) then all is fine. Furthermore, the more reliable a source, the better. Facts cannot be biased (e.g. the fact that Saddam died by hanging cannot be biased). So please, read up on your NPOV. ~ UBeR

It hasn't been discussed, no consensus was reached. No, facts cannot be biased, but the reportage of these facvts can be. If you can find a more appropriate and targeted template, feel free to substitutre it, but untill then, there is bias. Sfacets 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read ANY of the links I just posted? Your allegations are unfounded. The fact that WIkipedia does not support you is reason enough. Please, read NPOV. I really don't think you understand the idea of the NPOV tag. Here, "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean 'a piece of information about which there is some dispute.' That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." So, please tell me where facts are not being stated or where opinions are not being attributed to a specific person? ~ UBeR 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While the above sources certainly are not unbiased, in what way have they shown bias on the topic of the Execution of Saddam Hussein? I have to go in a little bit, but I was going to look later into the foundation for the claim of Saddam Hussein having been convicted of crimes against humanity, as the article on that topic indicates such a designation is defined by the Rome Statute and the Rome Statute specify the ICC is supposed to try such crimes, not a local Iraqi tribunal. But I have not yet found (or done a good enough job of sampling) articles to support a split between the usual U.S. voices and other voices. Have you found other areas of potential factual dispute or differing interpretation between the U.S./British news sources and non-U.S./British news sources on this topic? Unless you can find some examples, I do not think the tag can be sustained. I personally would welcome any broader, more balanced sources that can be found. --Hab baH 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I am not talking about the bias by each individual news source, I am talking about the lack of varied sources, since most of the sources are the three I mentionned. The article needs more varied and international sources. I had earlier used {{limitedgeographicscope}} (as part of the Wikiproject against systematic bias), however this doesn't precisely address my concerns regarding the sources. You can tell just by reading the article that it uses a predominance of 'Western' sources. Sfacets 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's fine so long as what's being reported are unbiased facts. Wikipedia is verifiability. Every statement here is verifiable. There is no rule saying the minimum amount of Western sources may be used. I wouldn't care if all the sources were Nigerian sources, so long as what's being presented is fact. Again, your allegations are unfounded. ~ UBeR 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you oppose the other template? Sfacets 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding the false tag (I did not remove it myself, so you know). You here cannot even address what I have said, and that is the Wikipedia has not policy against factual representation so long is it is verifiable. What is "vandalism" is you putting up erroneous tags with no merit. I think you're lacking the understanding of what these tags imply. ~ UBeR 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is I who am awaiting your response to my question. Vandalism is committing destructive edits to the article, which all that removing the template does, because it doesn't help address the issue. Sfacets 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. We're here to discuss the NPOV tag on the main article, nothing more. Thus far, you have not come up with any valid reason that tag should be there. ~ UBeR 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has a variety of sources. Sfacets, I have asked for examples of what you consider the lack of neutrality in the article. Unfortunately, "[y]ou can tell just by reading" is not an example of non-neutrality of an article. Pointing out a lot of the content comes from only a few sources is also not an example of non-neutrality of an article. Accordingly, I am removing the tag and ask that you not return it until after you have built a consensus on this talk page for the addition. --Hab baH 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I support continued removal of the NPOV tag until Sfacets identifies assertions in the article that are disputed (as opposed to identifying sources he doesn't like) and who disputes them. Gazpacho 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it's not the assertions, but the point of view by which they are being narrated by the media - please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias for what I mean. Sfacets 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views." You have not identified a point of view that conflicts with what is expressed here. You can add non-Western sources if you want, but that's not an NPOV issue. Gazpacho 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV - "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented" - how is the inclusion of the template contrary to wiki policy? Sfacets 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you haven't identified "views" relevant to that sentence. Gazpacho 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again all significant published points of view are to be presented... Sfacets 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That wikiproject is a project, not a policy. In fact, no where in the project does it say to go around vandalizing pages with erroneous NPOV tags. Everything under the "what do section" is everything you've failed to do. The consensus here is that this article demonstrates a NPOV. ~ UBeR 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy, and the NPOV tag doesn't belong to the project, it is something completely different, however you removed the initial template which was being used, so I had no recourse but to signify POV in regards to the points I raised by using a NPOV, a template I suggested you find a substitute for, should you find a more suitable one. So far, nothing. Sfacets 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're saying. You've failed to explain any of your vandalizations for either the NPOV or the recentism tags. I havne't removed the tags, just waiting for you to do it once you realize you lack merit. ~ UBeR 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Background" section

I honestly don't know enough to write it, but I think a background section with a quick summary of his trial, the sentence and the days leading upto his death would be a valuable addition to this article -Halo 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already links referencing to it. See the intro. This page is specifically about his execution. ~ UBeR 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning Regarding Execution Video

I removed the Warning: Graphic Content bit from before the video of the execution, and instead prefaced each link with whether the footage is from before, during, or after the execution. It is understandable that some readers may not want to watch video of the actual execution, but there's no need to be condescending. The link clearly indicates that the footage includes the execution; adding a warning is merely superfluous (Hmm... the link says man being executed... I wonder if I might see footage of someone being killed...). That would be like putting a warning at the top of the Penis article saying that pictures of penises may follow; that ought to be a given. Additionally, viewing the video, I don't even see what's so graphic about it; there is a significant portion of the main event that is hidden from view. I've seen far more disgusting things on the Discovery Health Channel and the evening news. -- tariqabjotu 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like the version better when it looked like:

• Saddam Hussein before execution — (Reuters) video footage of the executioners placing the noose around the neck of Saddam Hussein.
• Saddam Hussein's execution (after) — (CNN) video footage moments after the execution.
• Amateur footage of execution - Cell phone video footage of Saddam's hanging, including his final moments.

Looked a lot cleaner, and actually explained a lot more clearly. ~ UBeR 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that works too. I was worried that might not have been clear enough for some people, but perhaps it might be. -- tariqabjotu 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The full "amateur" video has not been shown on most mainstream media, wikipedia users might be fooled to believe that they are watching the cut-media-friendy version. It is also wierd because most porn links on wikipedia has a note or warning but an actual death does not. Death is a VERY serious subject for most individuals 83.255.71.22 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Statement

I think the Filipino statement should be removed-- it's not an official government statement, it's just something said by a random politician following the execution and in no way reflects the opinion of the nation of the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdawg99 (talk • contribs)

"Reaction" editing/splitting

The statements by the international community is very long and mostly un-contributing. It is becoming too much of a Directory and a list, both something that Wikipedia is not! Pondering what to do with it. It's hurting the article, and make it overly large (length and file size). ~ UBeR 07:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I did try to warn people this would happen. Obviously no one listened. Perhaps try to get some consensus, and then someone be bold and delete the majority of it. --Hopex 16:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary to delete any of the statements, but we should simply rewrite them in a more encyclopedic fasion. For example, we can summarize the reactions of European countries relatively easily, since most of them (if not all) have stated their disagreement with the death penalty. There is certainly a way to make that paragraph into a very useful one, but I don't think that we should needlessly remove information, since I do think it's useful to know exactly what the official reactions were, especially from a historical point of view. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They are original and verifiable content, and most times what appears as simple "innocent" words in these quotes is scrutinized by FA ministers and staffs (therefore has apparently some importance). I propose we group the statements e.g. by EU members etc, and then we create a separate article (e.g. World statements on execution of Saddam Hussein) with all the exact quotes, to which we provide a link. Thoughts? NikoSilver 17:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do think the content should stay and also that it should be moved to a separate article, like International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test. --Amit 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Consideration should be given to splitting "Reaction" into its own article. It is too large and is taking the focus away from the main topic of the article. --Amit 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Something like the one at 2006 North Korean nuclear test would be good. Hut 8.5 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The reaction is sufficiently close to the topic to be part of it. I disagree that it "takes the focus away from the main point" since it is greatly part of the main point. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 17:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. As long as there is a hyperlink it makes little difference.--Lance ^talk 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be considered moving the quotes to Wikiquote. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (Directory and a list). Nor is it a Laundry List. Furthermore, most of these countries are uninvolved with Iraq and their opinion is of little interest for this article. ~ UBeR

As the one who started this hullabaloo, I agree a new daughter article should be created for world reactions and a substantial summation be placed in this article with a link to the new article. I will add a "laundry" tag to the world reactions here until the issue is sorted out. --Jayzel 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I see it's already been tagged. Regards, --Jayzel 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to transfer the quotes (perhaps a few can stay if they are contributing to the article or may be impacted by the execution [i.e. US, European Union, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.]?), could they do so please. Thanks. ~ UBeR 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to summarize what positions the various countries took. I have started sorting them in my sandbox (to avoid edit conflits). - User:AudeVivere/Sandbox2 Reactions in some key countries, such as Turkey and Iran, which have more of a stake in this should be given more weight. Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It still looks very large. ~ UBeR 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still working on it. Compare the "disapproval - oppose death penalty" section with the paragraph above it, as an example of what we should do. --Aude (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that summary looks good. We could move the quotes to Wikiquote, people willing. ~ UBeR 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished my first pass through all the quotes, summarizing them. Further copyedits and summarization may be needed to synthesize the material more. I'm working to transwiki the quotes. --Aude (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are now on Wikiquote - q:Transwiki:Execution of Saddam Hussein. I can work there to cleanup and organization them, to suit the way they format things. Will replace section with summary text. --Aude (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Marvelous. ~ UBeR 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. Good work -Halo 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please copyedit and improve. I need to spend time to cleanup the transwiki page. --Aude (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to add some U.S. reaction besides Bush. Obviously, there is wide ranging opinion in the U.S., aside from his. I can try and do this later, if no one else does. --Aude (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, you have to be careful otherwise it could become non-neutral. Human rights organisations are listed below with their reaction to it -Halo 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if a certain person represents their country with substantiation (i.e. president, prime minister, king, etc.) it should be allowed. Non-representatives I think should be left out. ~ UBeR 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's reality though, but care can be exercised to keep it neutral. The implications of this on certain countries (e.g., the U.S., Turkey, and Iran) are more substantial, and discussion of political factions and opinions I think is warranted. It should be brief, but included. I may also spend time looking at Arabic language sources (courtesy Google translation) Anyway, might not get to all this until tomorrow. --Aude (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The page looks a little messy though. ~ UBeR 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Video Link

No where in this article is the full version of the leaked video (recorded by a cellphone) posted?

Here is the full video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=863ce7d4a3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.232.216 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Picture of Execution

Is the picture of the moment of death really nessesary including a highly graphic thumbnail?? It sees highly extreme and very condecending to the dead man regardless of who the hell he was. Younger people dont need to see the moment of death of a man no matter who he was. JayGannon 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that the post-execution photo is of remarkably poor quality and ought to be removed anyway. Tempshill 13:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

@JayGannon I see your pint, however this would be censoring the image. This is an Encyclopedia, and as such has a duty to report facts, no matter how graphic they may be.

@ Tempshill - the quality of the image is no grounds for it's removal. Sfacets 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on both points. We don't run execution photos in the articles on all the other people in history who have been executed. We're a tertiary source of information, and our duty is accuracy - we don't have some duty to mindlessly provide every piece of information that exists. The photos are available everywhere. On your second point, sure it is. To take the argument to an extreme, suppose the image resolution was 4 x 4 pixels. We'd remove it immediately. Tempshill 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. "Reporting the facts" doesn't need to include graphic pictures to illustrate those facts, particularly when they are inline and shown without warning. fauxcouture_<T> 14:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

@sfacets: Would it not be more prudent to include the video as an external link as done with all the others? This would solve both problems, as it appears that its been positioned at that moment in the video purely for graphic interest: Many executions have been captured to film but I feel that you'd be hard pressed to find them positioned to show a mans neck breaking when there are more prudent and humanistic. It seems the positioning of the video at that moment is very "tabloid" style as opposed to being encyclopaedic. JayGannon 13:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (By the way its the still image from the cellphone video that Im referring to not the post excecution video which is correct in its portrayal I beleive.)

External links would be better than inline images. Tempshill 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Does showing the picture give any relevant information impossible to give with the text and with the pictures of the rope loose around his neck? NO! Not showing the picture is not censoring at all. And all the pictures are fair use...--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image removed. This is gratuitous and unnecessary. For those of you who're claiming it's censorship, look up the meaning of the word. Still convinced? Then I'm sure you'd advocate pictures of Nick Berg's severed head on his article, right? Oh, but Saddam was an evil dictator! Yeah, he was, but this isn't a forum for what YOU deem politically acceptable. It's a world encyclopedia. Either show all death pictures or none at all. The picture on the gallows is analogous to Nick Berg's sitting prior to beheading. Period. Dead men's bells 14:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm returning the image to be consistent with Tom Ketchum. Comparisons to Nick Berg are inappropriate as Berg was a victim of arab terrorism; whereas saddam was a criminal subject to judicial hanging similar to Tom Ketchum; although Ketchum was not as evil as the arab butcher of baghdad.--Lance ^talk 14:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and your terminology shows your political bias. Where does it say that criminals get ghastly photographs and victims don't? There's no basis for the inclusion of one over the other, aside from your affection for gore. Removed, again, until you come up with a better argument other than "OMG HE'S A WAR CRIMINAL," or show me where in Wikipedia it says that he warrants it but nobody else does. 24.6.105.44 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why do I need to repeat myself. See: Tom Ketchum.--Lance ^talk 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what is decided on image keep/delete, can we discuss the propriety of having a graphic image of someone's death on an article without any sort of warning? I don't agree with censorship, but for a picture that isn't entirely relevent (given that there is a picture of his dead body below proving he died), it seems irresponsible not to have a warning of some kind near the top. fauxcouture_<T> 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Until this is settled, there really should be a warning at the top. Would anyone oppose that much? Landeyda 15:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, you're comparing a 100 year old horrible quality postcard to a close-up of a dead man with a noose around his neck? Yeaaaah, that's SUPER logical. Dead men's bells 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your example does not provide an adequate parallel. The Tom Ketchum article shows two pictures - one on the gallows and one after his death. You are re-inserting a picture of a mid-hanging, an image the nature of which is not shown in the article you are referencing. fauxcouture_<T> 15:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

These images are highly relevant and add to the article in a way the text never could. Seeing Saddam's twisted neck indicates that the hanging appears to have been competently carried out. There was not a decapitation as was the case with Tom Ketchum. Death sentences in California are now in a state of flux because of irregularities, such as, according to a recent court judgement, the narcotic that is first applied, prior to the more painful chemicals, appeared to be insufficient; and the judge implied that they were being stolen and not used for executing death sentences. Iraq is a primitive savage place. It is stunning that they pulled this execution off as they did; although the chanting during the process shows this was less than a "professional" job. These pictures are invaluable to telling the story; and unlike Ketchem's time, the technology exists to do it.--Lance ^talk 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The post motem picture of saddam lying with a quite obviously broken neck is indication of a competent execution/ And dont make irrelevant statements about iraq when u have 0 knowledge of both the situation and the state of the country. Proves your tendency to ignorance. Image will stay removed as it is gratuitous and unencycolpaedic in any manner.. JayGannon 16:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you just jump from one argument to the next, don't you? The problem is that you've made it ABUNDANTLY clear that you hate Saddam and love Bush. As Faux stated above, the article perfectly parallels Tom Ketchum as is. There is a pre-hanging and post-hanging picture. You might actually look at the articles you cite - especially sock puppeting and the concept of a personal attack - before you speak and look foolish. Dead men's bells 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I count 5 editors supporting removal of the image while only 2 support retention, not counting the 1 editor identified by IP who supports removal. Removal is the consensus.--Hab baH 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous that the photos of Saddam with the noose around his neck, or of him dead have been removed. See Benito Mussolini & Mussolini e Petacci a Piazzale Loreto, 1945. Wikipedia is not censored — Linnwood 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about the photos before making new topics. As for the one at the top being removed, that is because someone deleted the actual source of the picture (i.e. removed from Wikipedia altogether). ~ UBeR

I will reiterate my protest again, as I wrote previously, the pictures reveal what the text never could; and, as such, are an essential element of describing the content of the article. Wikipedia is diminished without them.--Lance ^talk 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This topic was discussed above and reached consensus to remove the picture. To avoid duplicate topics, I have moved the comments from the Photos section to the current location, appended to the Picture of Execution section. --Hab baH 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

President Bush didn't lose any sleep over the final disposition of the arab dictator

This fact, noted in many press reports, should be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Lance ^talk 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Bush has a statement like the other leaders. I don't see why that's pertinent. Dead men's bells 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pertinent because the press—radio, print, TV, electronic—made a point of it. Bush going to sleep early demonstrated how insignificant saddam was to him.--Lance ^talk 14:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The press reported a thousand things. I don't see why what one world leader did or didn't do before the night of the execution is especially relevant to this article, other than to insert some sort of "nya nya nya nya, Bush didn't care!" Also, um, he sort of invaded Iraq - that suggests Saddam was kind of significant, dontcha think? 24.6.105.44 14:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You: "don't see why what one world leader did or didn't do before the night of the execution is especially relevant," in respect of President Bush? Can I take this assertion seriously?--Lance ^talk 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Condescending, much? Your bias is clear by your constant reference to Saddam as the "Arab Butcher of Baghdad." Try to come off as a little more NPOV if you want people to consider your inclusions. Dead men's bells 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A statement from Little George is encyclopedic; inferences from his (alleged) sleeping habits are original research. Peter Grey 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Bush is on his ranch in Texas. That means, correct me if I'm wrong, that depending on where in Texas he is the execution happened at 9, or even 8, his time. Having been there for awhile, his body is likely on local time, and staying up for the execution would have been unlikely to be particularly difficult. Just something to mention. -- Pakaran 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's needless to say, Pakaran - so don't say it.--Shtove 01:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The useless factoid that Bush allegedly slept during the execution is only being discussed here because it was reported by American TV news channels, which were doing live coverage after they heard about the execution. The channels were scrambling to report something, anything, related to the execution. "A ha", they said, "some previously unreported news about this execution! Run it!" It was embarassing. Anyway, my point is that a useless factoid does not become notable just because it is run on the air by American TV news networks. Tempshill 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

President Bush normally goes to bed at 9:30 pm (and awakes at 5:30 am), so he went to bed at least 30 minutes early that night - but that's incredibly trivial and unencyclopedic. User:Spock 156.34.27.23 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This raises the question - who's to decide what is trivial or not? I'm sure many other examples used in the article could be cited, such as the "Red card", well in fact the whole proceedings section. Sfacets 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The red card is something supposedly used under the Saddam regime, however there is no source for this information at the current time. ~ UBeR

Estonia reaction

Could anyone add Estonias reaction?Saddam ootab hukkamistAnyone could translate the prime ministers and foreign ministers text and add it?

I could make out that the press secretary was saying, "Estonia is against capital punishment and so in principle this execution. Iraq will bear the sanctions of this act." That is a rough translation of «Eesti ei toeta surmanuhtlust ja on põhimõtteliselt sellise karistusviisi täideviimise vastu. Iraagi õigussüsteemis seda sanktsiooni kaotatud pole.» using online dictionaries linked at lexicool.com. I think someone else should independently verify the translation before it is added to the article, however. --Hab baH 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I contacted 3 users from Category:User et-N. NikoSilver 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This translation is not 100% correct, it seems to me. It is also based on the resource that was published before the actual event took place and is known as a tabloid. Therefore I would point to the daily newspaper "Postimees" at [1]. This resource contains at large the same information, but I publish here the translation of the first two paragraphs from this later article.

Prime Minister Andrus Ansip said that Estonia does not approve the execution of the former dictator of Iraq Saddam Hussein, but as a rule of law Estonia respects the decision of Iraqi court.

"In Estonia the capital punishment is abolished and in principle we do not support the implementation of this sentence. In Iraq this sanction is legal," said Ansip through the press secretary of the government. -- Sacerdos79 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sacerdos79. Your translation makes much more sense. --Hab baH 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both. Added info and source in article. NikoSilver 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I believe the external links should be reverted to the pre-edit ones with descriptions as currently they are unnoted. See edit by Ender78 on external links. JayGannon 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the external links and left the three links of the videos (liveleak, contemporary insanity and google video) and the video that is just cut before he is executed. Pipe752 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone is spamming its own website i think. Check: 88.224.151.58 contributions Pipe752 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have rebuked the spammer on his/her talk page, and he/she responded by saying that the execution links were "out of order." This made no sense to me, and I informed him/her that he/she should not be deleting other links and replacing them with just one.

Emmz89 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

People just keep putting the same video over and over, and with different topic (so people will think it is another video leading to confusion). I just edited it and only left 3 links for the cellphone leaked video. They are just enough. Pipe752 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Pipe752. There was a logical set of options there, but it seems people have gone edit happy on it. I think we should be shooting for a few basic criteria:

1.) Multiple "platforms": Not everyone wants to watch flash-based, or drm'd media. 2.) One or two copies only of each "version", ie, edited or uncensored.

As an example, the CNN link seems rather superfluous when there is already an edited version in the links.

I'm going to put a link back to the Contemporary Insanity in htere, with a note to refer here before blindly reverting my edit. Let's talk this one through before making rash decisions. Ender78 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, FTR, not trying to get into a rv war here. Just want to discuss before going with redundant copies of flash-based edited-cut versions. Hence the removal of either the Reuters or the CNN, and adding a downloadable format. Thoughts? Ender78 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people like to see streaming videos too. Alas, having both would be the answer, yes? Which is currently the case. ~ UBeR 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Current format is reasonable. Basically, we should seek to have one source for the edited, and one flash- and one non- source for the unedited. IMHO, of course, which is why I wanted to talk this out in here before we both violated 3RR. :) Ender78 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting "Reaction" into a new article

This section has been merged into a previously existing [2] section. --Amit 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution of ...

What's being executed is not the man, but the sentence of death upon the man. So the article's title should be, Death of SH. Am I being fussy?--Shtove 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. It was the sentence of death by hanging that was executed. I'm afraid, however, that use of correct terminology in this respect seems to appear only in legal writing.--Lance ^talk 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both were executed, the sentence and the human. Put a little differently, the existence of a term in legalese does not prevent its existence and separate meaning in non-legalese.--Hab baH 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem with idiomatic titles - but is this an idiom, or just sloppiness? And the full form (execution of sentence) isn't legalese or jargon - it's just plain use of language. I guess there are many articles that use the term this way - does WP have a policy?

Anyway, I prefer 'Death of ...' because it goes right to the final act, without assumptions ie. this article is about the death of SH (which came about because ... etc.) rather than, this article is about the justification for the hanging of SH. Know what I mean?

Oh joy - Happy New Year!--Shtove 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Execution of" works. Dictionary: "3.the infliction of capital punishment or, formerly, of any legal punishment." ~ UBeR 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, UBeR - thanks.--Shtove 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Indian quote

This quote was filed under India's reaction to the hanging. It's not cited, as all the rest of the quotes are, and it reeks of vandalism to me. I've removed it from the article. --Starwiz 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mar gaya saala, Long live Reservation in India. Long live fascism" - Uddu Gankrishnan a.k.a user:Somen. Bhartiya Dalit Bhenchod Front.

question on non official source opinions

Formerly under a heading "Come on" one posterian/wikipedian(same differenece) had the following: It's definetely a not uncommon view that Saddam's trial was illegal or inproper for a variety of reasons including the view Saddam should have been regarded as a POW. Check out Trial of Saddam Hussein It is good that some persons had this discussion since under this heading it seemed as if others might remove info about Lybia's leader calling the trial (that led to the execution and is very relavent) illegal. At the time the discussion was going on here, there were not a list of statements from numerous countries as there is now. It is also interesting to note that being an encyclopedia wikipedia tries to rely on official sources, in this case government or media sources and not the everyday citizen. Thus the word hypocracy shows up no where in the article with regards to the illegally occupying power performing a show trial via a puppet government. No other government is going to call another government on this and most certainly not the world's only hyper-power as governments usually deal in diplomatic language. What are the responses of non-government citizens to this? Do only state actors and their opinions matter? Is this the policy of wikipedia? I suppose one could choose their favorite open-source news publishing website and state on wiki that people there state such opinions? Or would they be dimissed as not relying on official sources? Or alternative media? As corporate media are notorious for relying on official sources as well. Shambozolo2 12:50, 31 December 2006

Images should have a warning

I think personally that some poeple may find the images are a bit overbearing. For example the man one where Saddam is seen with the noose around his neck; I think it is way too graphic, particularly given that young children, religious people, and those opposed to the death penalty may be offended by this. Ahadland 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Young children won't be looking up this article. Religious people are well used to images of man's cruelty. Those opposed to the death penalty are offended by the very notion of the death penalty. What about the value of a straight representation of fact?--Shtove 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed already. Please read the discussion page. Wikipedia is not censored. ~ UBeR 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly don't be sanctimonious about this. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, to be specific. But we make decisions every day to "censor" ourselves (if you insist on using the most inflammatory and inaccurate term), in the name of many good things, such as the good taste to not shock our readers without a warning. It's a reasonable comment that the noose picture is too graphic. I'm not certain whether I agree or not, myself. Tempshill 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BURIAL HANDOVER

Saddam was never in US hands after his execution. According to the sources cited, number 15, he was handed over for burial by the Iraqi Government to the local governor.

The U.S. transported him. Sorry for the confusion. ~ UBeR 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Trial

This article is specifically about the execution. The trail is already linked to in the intro. Second, the current section of the trial is overly long (un-needed information), notwithstanding my first sentence. The execution proceeding is pretty irrelevant to this article, other than what was already mention previously (that he was sentenced to death by the Iraqi courts). It is also in the "see also" section, where it belongs. ~ UBeR 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's relevant, I mean years from now when people read this article they will want to know something about the trial. If they are too lazy to click on the link and read the whole entire article on his trial; they can read the short summary in this one. Pseudoanonymous 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes for a more rounded article that stands alone better than it would otherwise. It adds context to the article. -Halo 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, it will take days, possibly weeks, before we can reliably say how much content for what point. Reorganizing can take place then. Peter Grey 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I concede. ~ UBeR 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

persians

I followed this link [3] to skynews website but couldn't find anything about Mr Al-Rubiae saying that Saddam shouted "Down with Persians" for several times. I even searched the web with google but the result was not valuable. Could anyone help me to find the source? or otherwise omit that from the article. --81.90.154.4 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen to the video. He says it at about 2:30. ~ UBeR 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

World Reaction

This new redo of the world statements is too busy. This version looked much cleaner and easier to follow with it being seperated by region then country. Johp78 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#.22Reaction.22_editing.2Fsplitting ~ UBeR 23:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Johp78 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

article not long enough yet

please add more details.

Such as? What would you like to know? I have a few bits of new information I can add to burial section (will do a bit later). ~ UBeR 01:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

grate, get it up there. thanx, homie.

Consistency between articles

UBeR, can you please explain why you do not believe this article should not be consistent with the main Saddam Hussein article in its description of the trial? Both articles present a brief summary of the trial and link to the main trial article so why should those two summaries differ? --ElKevbo 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The reason being is that the article of Saddam Hussein is that of Saddam Hussein's. This article, Execution of Saddam Hussein, is specifically for his execution and what is relevant to the execution itself. The minor little details in the article at Saddam Hussein are appropriate for that article. Minor factoids within and throughout the trial are insignificant and irrelevant for this article. Furthermore, Just because something shows up in Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean it should automatically be placed here, word for word. The current description on the page is correct and explanatory. ~ UBeR 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by your arguments as your viewpoint is too narrow and limited. It's terribly unprofessional and illogical for us to have summaries of articles that significantly differ from one another. The difficulties and challenges of the trial are playing a very large role in the reactions described in this article and I think it's perfectly logical to have a brief description of them in the summary of the trial. --ElKevbo 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not a professional, so that makes sense; neither is Wikipedia. At any rate, what isn't logical is having identical content in articles that are not identical. Should we talk about the Gulf War, his youth, marriage, etc. simply because it appears in Saddam Hussein? I think not. That is simply illogical. What is professional, however, is not simply copying unsourced information from article to another. What you consider "significantly different" is actually just a more adjusted, more precise, and more attuned summary appropriate for what this article is. ~ UBeR 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia and its editors should strive to be professional and I'm disappointed that you do not share that belief. I remain unconvinced by your assertions and I hope that others will weigh in as it's obviously a bit difficult to speak of "consensus" when only two editors have expressed an opinion. --ElKevbo 08:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR - only parts relevant to the article need to be included as an overview to the leadup to his execution. -Halo 08:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Uber too. 68.200.224.78 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that Saddam "appeared drunk" in the video

This seems to be a very subjective statement. Without sources backing it up, I think it should be removed. I removed it once, but the editor put it back, citing WP:V. janejellyroll 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He is known to have drunken alchohol and if you've seen the video [4] it is very apparent. I think it deserves a mention. frummer 09:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? janejellyroll 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Would i need sources for the fact that he appears to have a beard in the execution video too? If i did have a source does it have to be from US prison service or the hangman himself? I inserted that it appeared in the video that he was drunk. He had all the symptoms, furthermore its actually a good custom to let the executed to be intoxicated. I will reinsert a more toned-down version so as to please WP:V which by the way is also in my favour in that we can draw conclusions from apparent possibilities. We present the facts, which may include what people speculate, (even if its unsrouced providing its obvious) and the reader decides. Plz discuss. frummer 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you would need reliable sources that are easily verifiable. If you edit Wikipedia with your own perception of how Saddam appeared, you are doing what is called original research, even if you are correct. It is not allowed in Wikipedia. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the article should not make any claim whatsoever about him being intoxicated unless a reliable source can be found. It is obvious to everyone that he has a beard. If he was drinking, it is not at all obvious or unambiguous. He looked to me like he was feeling tired and defeated, resigned to his fate. He could be perfectly sober, and simply did not get a good night's sleep. But that doesn't belong in the article, either, unless we could cite someone who knows for sure. Wahkeenah 12:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Would i need sources for the fact that he appears to have a beard in the execution video too?" No, because he does have a beard in the video. Can you say with absolute certainty that he is drunk in the video? "WP:V which by the way is also in my favour in that we can draw conclusions from apparent possibilities" WP:V makes no mention of anything of the sort. What it does say is that Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. --Richmeister_talk 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see this link [[5]] which states that

" Munir Haddad, an appeals court judge who witnessed the hanging, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that Saddam was not sedated.

"Not at all, Saddam was normal and in full control," Haddad said. "He was aware of his fate and he knew he was about to face death. He said, 'This is my end, this is the end of my life, but I started my life as a fighter and as a political militant so death does not frighten me."'

Penguin s 10:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shi'ite revenge?

A commentator in the Jerusalem Post suggested that:

Moreover, televised scenes of the execution show that guards called out words of support for Shi'ite leader Muqtada Alsadr and the Shi'ite cleric Muhammed Baqer Alsader, who was executed by Saddam in 1980, suggesting that the execution was seen as a Shi'ite revenge and just another part of the ongoing struggle between Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq. As such, it would add fuel to the fire of sectarian violence and hinder the future unity of the divided country.

--Lance ^talk 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First Chief Trial Judge Reaction?

Where should the reaction of the first chief judge who presided over Saddam Hussein's trial for crimes against humanity go? He is not a politician (Iraqi judges are appointed). But he doesn't quite seem to go under Populace, or just general Iraqis. The article is here: Former Saddam judge says execution violates Iraqi law. --Hab baH 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting reaction to add to the article. Put it under "Politician" - the term doesn't imply there's an election. Karl Rove is an unelected politician. Tempshill 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tempshill. I added it there. --Hab baH 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings, Again

I once again removed the warnings from the external links. There's nothing wrong with clearly explaining what is in each video, but Wikipedia is not in the position to tell people what is inappropriate content for some readers. Like I said, in the same manner we don't need some kind of warning about images in the penis article, we do not need a warning about videos that are clearly labeled as showing an execution. Readers ought to know what to expect given the description, and should decide on their own whether they feel they're up to viewing the content therein. -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We have had constant spamming of the video links section, so I moved the videos under a subheading. I have reverted the External links section to that version, as it existed before the warning was added. --Hab baH 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, what kind of logic is this? Do I have to prove that watching the video of the death of a human being can be strong content is NPOV???? It is called common sense - watching someone die is strong content. That's simple logic. Wikipedia is not censured, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be considerate. Baristarim 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Again (see below), it violates WP:NPOV to place a "warning" of your opinion as to what follows the link. The videos are labeled as videos of the execution. In fact, they are under a subheading: "Video of Execution". This description amply communicates to any viewer who visits this article, titled "Execution of Saddam Hussein", that a video of an execution follows. It is a factual description and allows that someone who does not want to see a video of an execution knows what follows the links and, thus, would not be expected to click on the links. On the other hand, someone who does want to see a video of the execution would be expected to click one of the links. I do not like the described content of the videos, but that cannot justify putting my opinion in the article. --Hab baH 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the video warning. The simple title "video of execution" is a red flag, and that amateur video is not too pretty either. I am cool with the video, but I can imagine a lot of people who might be affected adversely by watching it. Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be considerate :) Baristarim 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The warning has been removed. Please see the discussions above. Inserting the warning is a violation of WP:NPOV and it is a very subjective endeavor. Personally, I plan never to watch the videos, other than a few second of footage at the start of the cell phone video I have already seen. The gruesome photo of Saddam Hussein's body with neck twisted, previously included in the article, is evidence enough of what occurred. --Hab baH 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, what kind of logic is this? Do I have to prove that watching the video of the death of a human being can be strong content is NPOV???? It is called common sense - watching someone die is strong content. That's simple logic. Period. Baristarim 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Read tariqabjotu's comment. There is no need to put a warning in front of a link called "execution of a person." That alone is warning enough for those who deem it "strong content." ~ UBeR

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)

Nobody has suggested "censorship" or "sugarcoating" the external link. Warnings are totally appropriate. Many people will be affected adversely by watching such strong content, and it's responsible for us to use warnings to accommodate this. Tempshill 23:25, 1 January 2007 (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)

Those in favor of such warnings should review the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, paying special attention to the fact that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --causa sui ^talk 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you Ryan. Since when does a warning equate to censorship? --ElectricEye (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Should all these (almost 3000) warning also be removed? [6]. Should all explicit/strong/sexual content warnings be removed? Also Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse has a WARNING: Some links contain explicit material. Readd warnings, as I also said above, the "amateur" video has not been shown in full on most mainstream media and some wikipedia users might be shocked to see the full video. 83.255.71.22 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The current link reads: "Execution — Cell phone video of hanging, including final moments." If you fail to understand those implications, little else can be done. I am against anything that may deter a person who is obliged and rightfully allowed to see a video he so chooses to view. So long as the description is factual (i.e. says it involves his "final moments"), there is no need for a subjective point of view (i.e. "disturbing"), which would violate Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. ~ UBeR 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

83.255.71.22: Many of those are actually discussing warnings rather than including warnings about content. Those articles that are including warnings about content are violating WP:NPOV. I find it hard to believe anyone would visit this article, titled Execution of Saddam Hussein, make their way to the bottom of the article and click a link right below the heading "Video of Execution" and not expect to see a video of an execution. Why would someone be shocked to see something they are clearly expecting to see if they are reading the text of the link and the text surrounding the link? If they are not reading the text of the link and the text surrounding the link, then a warning is not going to be read and so does not accomplish its goal of communicating the editor's opinion about the link. --Hab baH 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the warning a violation of NPOV? Do you mean that the warning is POV? How can it be POV when such a warning can even be referenced to television media? To me this discussion is a violation of WP:POINT. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is entirely subjective as to whether or not, in an editor's opinion, the content on the other side of the link is deserving of a warning. Tagging expressive content, i.e., pictures, prose, poetry, videos, etc., with a tag that says "warning: I find the content at the link objectionable and you might, too" is not a factual matter. It is a matter of opinion. The content may be objectionable to you, but it may not be objectionable to another person. On the other hand, the factual description of "video of execution" is not subject to opinion. The videos are of an execution, as described. It is not a matter of opinion. So, yes, the warning is POV and a violation of the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. I hope I have answered your questions. I do not understand your sentence, "when such a warning can even be referenced to television media?" Also how is this discussion a violation of WP:POINT? --Hab baH 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Hell That is Iraq?"

The article mentions somebody shouting "Go to hell, inshalla!" and in a yahoo news article ("Fallen tyrant" taunted in Saddam video; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061231/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_taunts_dc) it is mentioned that Saddam replied by saying: "The hell that is Iraq?".

I think these words are significant of his view of what has happened to his country since his capture.

The description can be found in the sixth paragraph of the linked article.

Should Saddam's reply be added to the main article? Eeo 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It was added. Thanks. ~ UBeR 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Event

Should this still be considered a current event? Most news outlets have very little more to say about it. Most of the new stuff is criticizing the manner/environment in which he was executed. ~ UBeR

I'd say no. I'll go remove the tag now. timrem 01:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

This article suffers from recentism, meaning that alot of edits focus on the short term rather than long term. An example is the importance given to trivial matters (see above sections). Sfacets 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See above what? You can never cite any specific reasons for your vandalism of pages. ~ UBeR 03:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An example of trivial content is the example of 'chicken' you gave yourself in the next section. Stop with the personal attacks. Sfacets 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you - I wouldn't call mentioning the last meal necessarily trivial, as it works in context of his last few moments. Several other pages dealing with executed people discuss "last meals" and they don't suffer from recentism (see Last meal), and also summarises his last moments. I would be interested in some specific examples of Recentism too - there doesn't seem anything overly trivial mentioned. Unless you can mention some examples, I think the template should be removed -Halo 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious and cultural rituals, such as the last meal, should indeed be included. This may be meaningless or seem "trivial" to people in western cultures, but is significant in Arab cultures; Hence, it's something that Al Arabiya (and some other sources) talk about quite a bit. It's important, as you have said before, for the article to represent more than just a western/U.S. viewpoint and sources. Please provide other specific examples you think are problematic. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --Aude (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the chicken example came way after you put the tag up, so you're going to have to come up with a better reason. I, too, agree the tag should be removed. You cannot put up tags without reasons, or at least not with a discussion that holds merit. To say Saddam's execution lacks prevalence in the long run, and this is an insignificant news story would be wholly imprudent. ~ UBeR 19:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is to remove the recentism tag. I have done so. --Hab baH 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivial information: Saddam's Farewell

Does trivial information necessarily have to be incorporated into the main article (e.g. he ate chicken)? I'm not exactly sure what it says in WP:TRIVIA, but it's not a policy. Thoughts? ~ UBeR 04:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are frowned upon. Things like what he eats and religious rituals are of cultural significance. It would be good to provide some cultural context, as well as more legal context (sharia law). --Aude (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Other notes" I wouldn't really consider the same as a "Trivia" section, though both may hold trivial information. Perhaps some discussion. ~ UBeR 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the information was incorporated well. I retract my statements. ~ UBeR