Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Can we remove this tag from the talk page? The article has three embedded photographs, as well as links to execution video. When scrolling quickly down, the photo illustrations may seem sparse, but this is mostly because there are more than a hundred references, where most wiki articles show none. This particular article is actually fairly well documented, visually, and the encyclopedia as a whole is probaby better off asking the graphic artists who contribute to focus their attention elsewhere. Normally I would just make the edit and "act bold," however, this is a contentious page, and I'd like to see whether other editors feel the same. FireWeed 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. It's obviously outdated and nobody had bothered to delete it yet. Wahkeenah 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not care whether it's there or not. I still hope for some new photographs to be added though. A good article always has good photographs, and plenty of them! ~ UBeR 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger. Belay my previous comment. :) Wahkeenah 02:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a day or two, but if nobody really objects, I'll remove the tag. UBeR is right that photos, drawings, maps, and so on really do make a big impact on the quality of an article. I wish I had more talent and was able to create some - certainly can't just pull them from CNN's site. My logic here is that (some clicking reveals) this article shows up on a list of articles that need images, and most of what's on that list need them more desperately than this page. I would hate to pull someone's attention away from an article with no pics to create some for this.

But on that note, is there anyone out there who would be able to create a map, or would people object if I used open source programs to create one? I'm thinking a chart showing where Saddam was executed and burried would be relevant here; maybe a larger scale one also showing where the crime Saddam was executed for? FireWeed 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FireWeed, you can go ahead and make the map. The reason why I believe the tag was added because I kept on removing photos snipped from the CNN, Reuters and other press agencies. I been told that we should not be using press agency photos, especially if they are recent. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Put up these mobile phone screenshots that shall improve the quality of the article. -- Zondor 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it won't. It's gratuitous and unnecessary. These images can be seen if you click a video. Very few of the execution articles on wikipedia show this kind of color and quality - it is NOT reasonable to expect it upon clicking on the article. Anyone seeking graphic depiction can easily watch any of the linked videos. This issue has been SETTLED, there was a CONSENSUS to remove graphic images long ago. Please respect that decision and stop adding them. Dead men's bells 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please start a peer review?

I can't as I don't want to have an account. -137.222.10.57 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

More news

This is just in: Saddam's two co-defendants were executed today, but not as planned. Here's the link if you wish to add anything. Man, I can't believe his half-brother was decapitated in the process! Messy! :P --Angeldeb82 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

}I just saw on msnbc that they were executed. There is also a part where in that article it says hanging does not decapiate, but according to the wikipedia article on hanging it has happened. Just something to note. -Ed

And here's a Mallard Fillmore parody comic strip on Saddam's death. If you can't see it, fear not: just look on "Week of 01/15/07" section of the Mallard Fillmore weekly comic list coming next week! Cool! --Angeldeb82 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said hanging doesn't decapitate is dead wrong (pardon the metaphor) and USAToday.com discusses the issue. Long drop hangings try to adjust for body type, but a heavy person can have a small neck and decapitation can result. Wahkeenah 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another link that I stumbled onto while I was going through another link on capital punishment. Here's the story link should you wish to update this article: After the YouTube execution, what now for death penalty? --Angeldeb82 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Still more evidence the type was "long drop" hanging

For your consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barzan_Ibrahim_al-Tikriti - beheaded by the wrope that was intended only to break his neck. In other words, too long a drop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireWeed (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• Ironically, he was Saddam's "half" brother. The USAToday.com article [1] didn't specifically use the term long-drop hanging, but it talked about the technique of dropping the body about 8 feet, with the rope slack length adjusted for the weight, and which sometimes results in decapatitation for a condemned man with a large body and a small neck. Wahkeenah 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Arf! And he was the "head" of intelligence... Anyway, I hope this puts an end to the long-drop discussion. Heads don't get accidentally snapped off in a short-drop hanging. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition of articles stating the great miscaridge of justice

I think there should be references about how saddam was a great man and did many good things for the world and benefit of greater society. Also going into detail about how the trial was a showtrial and resulted in the death of an innocent and philantropic leader.

That's funny. Tell us another one. :) Wahkeenah 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't innocent if he was convicted of the crimes. Nevertheless, if you can find some good articles (i.e. credible, etc.) feel free to add the information, or link them here. ~ UBeR 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "miscarriage of justice," but I do think the article may be a little slanted anti-Saddam when there were obviously some more negative reactions to his execution, so I'd support adding sourced credible articles to that effect. 24.6.105.44 08:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"He wasn't innocent if he was convicted of the crimes." Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti and there are several others but I don't have time. Convicted means jack. It was a set-up from the start. 81.178.241.201 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To comment on 24.6.105.44's comment, most of the reactions are negative because most of the reactions WERE negative. Of course, there were those who applauded it, and we have some sources of information in the article that says that. If you can find any more, please feel to add it. 81.179.183.174 if you do not think he committed any crimes, then you're going to have to take serious look at history. ~ UBeR 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts. If this is a discussion page, it helps to know who we're "talking" with.

I would agree with 24.6.105.44 that the media we're exposed to is inherently biased against Saddam Hussein, although even without that bias, the man was a brutal monster. The only positive thing I can imagine being credited to Saddam was holding control of Iraq, albeit with an iron fist. You're of course welcome to add anything you'd like to this article, as are all people, and if your changes are accurate and reference good sources, they'll stay. I have to admit I think you'll have a hard time finding any. ( You might look for quotes from Rumsfeld during the 1980s, though. ) FireWeed 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Slanted anti-Saddam to say the least - and editors patrolling this article and who carry a POV (see above) are making sure that any attempts to encourage the collection of a more varied collection of sources has met with opposition. (See discussions about template removal). On a website where most of the contributors are US-based, there is a high potential of bias in regards to the US vs. the rest of the world. What this article needs is worldwide sources, not the usual Reuters/CNN/BBC bunch, but also media coverage from a "middle-eastern" POV.

It's not about whether Saddam was a hero or a "brutal monster" - as editors of an encyclopedia it is not our place to say. Our job is to create an unbiased and complete article, a task we are failing miserably at. Sfacets 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked (i.e. when there was about 95 sources), over half were foreign sources (i.e. not American or British). So you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that. If you're looking middle eastern POV, then I suggest you read the Reaction within Iraq section we've had for quite some time now... ~ UBeR

There are currently 122 sources, 64 of them are either US media or members of the GWOT coalition - mostly CNN/Reuters/BBC. There are maybe 25 sources which are official press releases from heads of state (only used for World reaction). This leaves a measly 33 sources - from which can be subtracted other US-allies in the invasion of Iraq. You can see how there might be just a little bit of bias seeping into the article. Sfacets 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly facts cannot be biased. What is presented are facts. All facts must be backed by sources, according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. All the facts are backed by reliable sources, which is required. The fact that these facts may be coming from the Associated Press (by far, the majority), quite frankly, matters little.

There are reactions from within Iraq, from both the normal citizen and high political figures. There are reactions from leaders across the globe. And there are reactions from international organizations. The NPOV policy has nothing against which sources are used so long as they're verifiable, reliable, and stating facts. ~ UBeR

No, as I said before, facts cannot be biased. Having a large percentage of one kind of source can produce bias, if the article is built round them. That the NPOV policy doesn't expressly state that an imbalance of sources creates bias is immaterial - you are simply Wikilawyering - it is important to keep a "commonsensical way to achieve the purpose of the policy", and not to use the policy to create obstacles in creating a more NPOV article. Sfacets 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

None of the descriptions there fit me. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies, not much I can help you with there. It still stands, however, Wikipedia has nothing against using "too much" (disputable) of one source. Your arguments are unfounded. ~ UBeR 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think this article is not a strong enough subject to stand on it's own, sure it is juicy, and newsworthy, but this is an encyclopedia, not a news source.Belbo Casaubon 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This article could certainly use a lot of work to tighten it and remove extraneous information but it's enough of a world event to warrant an article separate from the main Saddam Hussein article. --ElKevbo 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should stay separate for two reasons. First, Saddam Hussein is too long already. Merging this in would be like dumping another bale of straw on the nearly-broken back of a camel. Secondly, I look upon the execution, its circumstances, its consequences, and all the rest as an event in themselves. They are far more than just a person and their death now, as the article will easily show. Picaroon 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. It's an encyclopaedia, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper and having an extremely in-depth well-cited look at a topic such as this is a good thing. This will go down in history as a major event, and having a thorough topic on it is a good thing. I also don't see how a merge is possible on such a big article. -137.222.10.57 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This site has the advantage of being flexible. It is never cast in stone, it's constantly subject to editing. A year from now, maybe the extra page will seem excessive. At present, it's not. It's of major importance, at present at least. Wahkeenah 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Saddam's execution is such a momumental event - his being forced out of power, sure, but from that point he became a figure on the periphery of Iraqi politics. People acted out of allegiance to him, or to the power they got from his reign, but this makes Saddam an indirect actor, and he still inspires his followers, even after his death. In fact, I think Belbo Casaubon has the right idea - if these articles weren't so long already, merging would be the right thing to do. Alas, Saddam attracts a great deal of attention, which means long articles, which means the life and times of a thug are spread across many articles. Not that that's a bad thing, as long as they all link to each other. FireWeed 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible. Both articles are too long. Please see WP:LENGTH and particularly WP:SUMMARY. Thank you. ~ UBeR 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Enough.Belbo Casaubon 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: PASS

2. Factually accurate?: PASS

3. Broad in coverage?: PASS

4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL

5. Article stability? NO

6. Images?: PASS

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Sfacets 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Discussion:

I wholeheartedly agree with the NPOV and article stability assessments. Could you point to some specific sections of questionable factual accuracy? Picaroon 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that was supposed to read PASS... my main concern was the NPOV issues, as well as stability. Sfacets 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment wholeheartedly, and if the decision simply lied on your POV, then that's bad. The article has been stable for the past few weeks and no NPOV that contain merit have risen with the current version of the article. ~ UBeR 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the "Images" thing passed the test, but somebody needs a little more revising to make this article a good article. After all, it can't be good without NPOVs. Besides, sources say that Munqith al-Faroun (Saddam's prosecutor) was the one who managed to get the audience to stop taunting Saddam when he was on the point of death. Is that clear enough? --Angeldeb82 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been stable because it has been constantly patrolled by users who engage in ownership over the article, making any new changes by interested editors extremely difficult - if the editors in question were to allow what appear to them to be controversial edits to remain in the article for more than a maximum of an hour so that discussion and concensus can occur, then the article would change a lot more. There are a handful of editors patrolling the article, whereas hundreds have attempted to edit it, and been removed, without any discussion other than perhaps a cursory edit summary. Which brings me to: NPOV has been contested many times, and not all the issues "discussed" have been amended, or indeed discussed in depth, some editors preferring to immediately remove any templates mirroring and directing viewers towards the concerns raised on the talk page.

I am not the only one who has raised concerns over the NPOV of the article, as can be seen either by editors attempting to add the POV tag (only to have it removed immediately), or by those who have attempted to discuss the issue, only to be bullied and forced into submission by editors sharing the same POV and edit tactics. If you can deny these allegations then hey, there is no reason for the GA review to fail, and I would ask you to accept my humblest apologies. Sfacets 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Admittedly there may perhaps be some editors who have removed templates. I've avoided that. My reverts of edits, however, are ONLY pertaining to edits that fail to meet Wikipedia's policies on edits. Nothing I can do there about that. Any new information is welcome. At any rate, your argument of lack of foreign sources lacks merit and has been discussed within several of the archives, along with several other NPOV conversations. Much of the article has benefited from them. ~ UBeR 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for an apology - your analysis is spot on. The bulk of interested editors are simply not allowed to make lasting changes to this article; as you say, a small group of elite editors have taken ownership of this. There have been many discussions about many issues that may or may not merit inclusion in the article, consensus has not been reached on a single one of them, and yet regardless of the discussions, the ruling elite will not tolerate any deviation from their POV, and engage in much ruleslawyering. FireWeed 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You lack any substantiated examples. Your ranting is not needed here. ~ UBeR 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a minor but substantiated example. I believe you meant "Your opinion is not welcome here," though. FireWeed 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

there may perhaps be some editors who have removed templates. I've avoided that.

Is that under oath? [2], [3], [4] are just some examples of your continued and undiscussed (not even in the edit summary!) removal of the NPOV template.

Then of course we have the username Hab bah( an account apparently created especially to edit this article), among others, who time and time again manages to back any decision made by UBer to keep/remove changes or templates. Don't accept my apologies yet, as far as I can tell, this stil hasn't been shown to be a GA... Sfacets 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

no but it's under reasonable memory. Also, please do not throw false accusations at me. ~ UBeR 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I accused no one... Sfacets 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you have forgotten the power of suggestion. For that then, I'll leave you this bit, created by Wikipedia (of course, however, I'm not implying anything): However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.

Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown to be not well-founded. ~ UBeR 23:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be taking this to heart... why is that? Sfacets 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found from bitter experience that constant feuding on these pages does not work. Lively and fair debate can result in consensus. Don't lose focus on the mission, which is to make a good article. Wahkeenah 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect for Sfacets, WP:GA assessment should be done by an "impartial reviewer". Sfacets has made numerous edits to the article and been involved on the talk page here. I suggest letting someone else, uninvolved with this page, to make an assessment. --Aude (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with that - the GA nomination is currently up for review, which will allow consensus based on a wider user input. Sfacets 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Based on one person's POV. ~ UBeR

Regarding the last meal

Lately there has been some change in the "list of famous last meals" section of the Last meal article. Under the subject of the list named "Saddam Hussein", it is stated that depending on his request, the meal was either "chicken and rice, with a cup of hot water and honey", as stated in the "Prior to execution" section of this article, or "a hamburger and fries". Could someone who has made the change in the Last meal article clarify about this? --Angeldeb82 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The news article used as a citation for "hamburger and fries" refers to him eating this during his "last days" and doesn't say he ate that as his last meal. "Chicken and rice" is correct, per the cited source listed here. --Aude (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

UBeR

You've had 589 edits on this article alone, 8x the amount of the next biggest contributor. Don't you think it's time to leave it alone and let other people add their stuff to the article? -137.222.10.67 01:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• UBeR all us. Wahkeenah 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for counting for me! If it wasn't for all the other very helpful contributors, this article would not be possible or nearly as good as it is today. I hope I've made some significant contributions, as well. If you, or anyone else, would like to add some insightful information, please feel free to do so! ~ UBeR 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What the user was saying by "let other people add their stuff to the article" is exactly that: people have been trying, but you have been patrolling. Sfacets 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I patrol this article for vandalism and unsourced information. Correct, sir. ~ UBeR 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from vandalism, give me an example of where people tried to "add their stuff" and it was reverted? I ran into no difficulties whatsoever in adding well-sourced material to this article, re-writing and copyediting sections, etc. I don't have any issues with UBeR's work on this article, and do appreciate all the work he/she has put into this article. I also don't see major NPOV problems. I had gone through numerous Arabic language sources such as Al Jazeera to see if they were reporting anything really different than English-language, U.S.-based sources. I found nothing here that was inconsistent with Arabic sources, and no major POV omissions in this article. --Aude (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reason why article was passed as GA

Execution of Saddam Hussein

result:Promote to GA 5-0

Quite frankly an erroneous and POV judgement. ~ UBeR 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussions on the talk page as well as the above user's edit history. Obviously COI. Sfacets 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend expanding the lead with at least a paragraph on the reactions, at the moment, I question whether or not its an adequate summary that qualifies under WP:LEAD. Homestarmy 14:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded it some, and have asked for others to help in doing so. ~ UBeR

It looks pretty good now, so good as to be Good, Promote. One thing to fix though might be this part: "Although the United States approved of the trial, an attempt was made to postpone, stay, or overturn the execution order. The U.S. government appears to have been concerned with the perception of the legal validity of the execution. Attempts were made to contact the Iraqi government to validate the legality of the execution under the new Iraqi constitution. The parliament, under the notion that the security issues presented a need to act swiftly, dismissed the request". There are no citations, and it doesn't say whom the government appears to, so it looks a bit odd. But the rest of the article is more or less ok, perhaps think about organizing it better in the future, it seems almost a bit haphazard in that there's criticism all over the body and in the actual criticism section, but I don't think its bad enough for this to not at least be a GA. Homestarmy 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be borne in mind that this has been a difficult and contentious subject. Such subjects are harder to encapsulate in good articles than non-controversial topics. As indicated above there is still some work to be done but I think that the efforts of the editors should be recognised by at least a 'GA' and, in due course, after tidying even a featured article could be considered. Promote. TerriersFan 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that some sources did say that prosecutor Munqith al-Faroun was the one who managed to get the audience to stop taunting Saddam when he was on the point of death. Plus, there is more about the story on the Dec. 31, 2006, issue of The Hartford Courant (e.g., Muneer Haddad, a judge on Iraq's appeals court, kept on reading its ruling and the verdict despite Saddam's raising his voice; and the gallows room was very cold). You should look on The Courant online in order to find that issue, alright? --Angeldeb82 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into who said that during the execution, as I know it was noted several times. The fact Saddam may have been talking during his verdict, I feel, is fairly irrelevant to this article. ~ UBeR 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a 2 against 1 review, anyone else want to make a comment before I archive this as no consensus? Homestarmy 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The original GA reviewer wasn't neutral, and as such, should be disregarded. Check the article's talk page. -137.222.10.67 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Promote - I have to say that this is the best sourced article I have seen. Compared to some of the mass of unsourced pages this stands out. Bridgeplayer 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Promote - this is a well-written and well-sourced article. I do not notice any NPOV violations in this article. It should be promoted to GA, and the concerns that have been delineated here are more like those that would be normally raised at an FA. The history of the article is irrelevant, other than the fact that it appears stable enough. The revision of this article, as of now, is GA- (and near FA-) quality. Any instances of non-NPOV should be cleared, understanding that not all sources (and source are that upon which this article heavily relies) are neutral, but as far as I can tell, all have reliability. Gracenotes^T § 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• PromoteSumoeagle179 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to list. Diez2 13:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Why not join this with the general article of Saddam Hussien.I really don't see why an execution of a person needs an entire article.--Nadirali نادرالی

Because it's quite significant and notable. A merge with Saddam Hussein article has been discussed before (see archives). You still may discuss it here though. ~ UBeR 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Functionally, how would it work? Merging a 66kb kilobyte page into a 63kb page doesn't sound like fun, and having separate articles dealing with details and having an overview in the main article is pretty standard Wikipedia fare (such as in World War I). -Halo

Publicity

The Red Herring magazine wrote a small article on this article. You can read it here. Well done, guys! ~ UBeR 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got more news: The March 9, 2007, issue of Rolling Stone magazine parodies the December 30, 2006, incident on its cover, except that it shows a much younger Saddam in a green shirt and purple pants and struggling to break free from the rope, rather than a 69-year-old, bearded Saddam in Goth-black suit with his hands cuffed behind his back and feet tied and neck broken, and with Cartman filling the role of the Iraqi guard. You might want to put it onto the Saddam Hussein (South Park) article, because here's a link to the picture, alright? --Angeldeb82 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Still more news

I have more news that Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to death by hanging almost three weeks ago. If you want to know more about it, read this link, alright? --Angeldeb82 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Taha is dead!

No, I'm not making it up! Taha Yassin Ramadan is dead! Hanged! Strung up! And it all went without an incident! Here's the link if you want to know more, okay? --Angeldeb82 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG

Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

To whom it may concern. Wikiproject:Good Articles in currently in the middle of its sweeps period, where we go over articles that have been passed as good articles and review them to ensure that they still meet the standard. In this case, I notice that a POV tag was added yesterday, but no explanation as of why. If there were legitimate concerns, then the article would have to be delisted. If someone just added a tag without explanation, I will remove it. Please let me know what the case is. Cheers, CP 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to have raised a concern about neutrality, so I will be removing the tag and sweeping the article at a later date. Cheers, CP 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to clean the article up in a bit. Hopefully we can get to FA. (P.S. at least one professional article has been published about this entry.) ~ UBeR (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some general cleanup, but there's much to be done. Still need to really get the "reaction" section on down to a higher quality. Then, of course, need to format the references and try to find substitute links for many of the sources that are no longer working. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. In particular, it must summarize all major points/headings made in the article. Currently, it's missing a lot, most notably from the "Reaction" section
2. All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone, since they severely detract from the article's flow.
3. Some statements require citations:

   "Held in custody by U.S. forces at Camp Cropper in Baghdad, on June 30, 2004, 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. A few weeks later, he was charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal with the mass killings of the inhabitants of the village of Dujail in 1982 following a failed assassination attempt against him." (Trial) You can use the same citation from the main "Trial of Saddam Hussein" article, but it still needs to be cited.

   "The execution took place at the Iraqi army base Camp Justice, located in Kazimain, a north-eastern suburb of Baghdad. Camp Justice was previously used by Saddam as his military intelligence headquarters, then known as Camp Banzai, where Iraqi civilians were taken to be tortured and executed on the same gallows. Contrary to initial reports, Saddam was executed alone, not at the same time as his co-defendants Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, who were executed on January 15, 2007, also without the presence of their lawyers." (Time and place of execution) Most of this is potentially challengeable, so it definetely needs to be cited

   "Another man asked for quiet, saying, "Please, stop. The man is facing an execution."" (Execution proceedings)

   "Major news networks carried official video of the moments leading up to Saddam's execution. The Iraqi government also released pictures of Saddam’s dead body in a shroud." (Media coverage)

   "David MacDougall, a Fox News reporter located in Baghdad, has stated that there has been what is thought to be celebratory gunfire in Baghdad. However, the BBC's correspondent in Baghdad, John Simpson, indicated there had been no more gunfire than is normally heard on the city's streets." (Populace) Also, beginning a sentence with "however" carries the same penalty that Saddam got.

   "A number of Italian political figures and parties have expressed disgust at the execution, and Prodi plans to use Italy's recent admission as a temporary member of the UN Security Council to campaign the General Assembly to adopt a moratorium."

4. In addition, all direct quotes must be cited immediately after the quote, even if it's the same reference used at the end of the sentence/paragraph.

If all these concerns are addressed, I will return to check the references themselves.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Cheers, CP 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the concerns were not addressed. Therefore, I will be delisting the article. Cheers, CP 19:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've missed this review. I will try to address the above concerns. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FA project

I am looking for help at making this article promoted to featured status by December 28, i.e. one year after the creation. Read over the criteria to make sure what's necessary for the article. I think most of the article up to the "Reactions" section is at featured level (but improve it if you see errors). Beyond the "Reactions" section, I think there is much to be done. The quality of that lower half is lacking. We should also try to find dead links and get suitable replacements, where possible. Who's up to it? :-) ~ UBeR (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cadaver?

Isn't the word "cadaver" improperly used is the fourth paragraph? Shouldn't it be "corpse" or body"? Doesn't "cadaver" refer to a corpse being used for medical research? 74.224.149.58 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Why don't we integrate this section into the World Reactions section? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention that he did not break any laws?

As what he was found guilty of was not illegal under what he was charged with. And please, enough with the ignorance, presenting other crimes he may have commited as raeson for his conviction in his trial when they were not introduced as his crimes hold no weight. Under the international law, which he was tried with according to the US, he did not commit any crimes. As the "crime" he was convicted of was the fighting and deaths of rebels. Which themselves were comprised of no specific group other than anti-government forces, which it is legal for a nation to kill.

Not many people might like the fact that, even without technicalities, Saddam wasnt guilty of the crime they convicted and sentenced him with, but that you all choose to ignore it because "he was a bad man, y'all, and deserved to die" is pretty damn sad. 119.11.14.103 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Hi, see WP:NOT#FORUM.  Aar  ►  06:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bush Administration critical of exection

I found this article that could be cited. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/123632.html 174.96.61.61 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Muqtada Al Sadr's occupation

In the article Muqtada Al Sadr is identified as a political and militia leader. Is he not in the first place a cleric?Aliotra (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Taken to dummy?

Surely this is a typo: On December 30, 2006, he was taken to dummy to be executed. Before I made it a link, it said [ [dummy ]] (note the space), but I don't think it should be there. It doesn't make sense. CKyle22 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks cables

on Saddam's death--Dans (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

electric chair?!?

Done by 72.188.94.179 quote "Saddam was executed by electric chair at approximately 06:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on December 30, 2006, the day Sunni Iraqis begin celebrating Eid ul-Adha."

Who wrote this nonsense? It is quite unnecessary to make edits like this- shows ignorance. Jarovid (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

I re-assessed the article for WP:Death, and as the article did not meet the five B-class criteria, I downgraded it to C-class. The article needs something to fulfill "Supporting materials" before it can be assessed B-class. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Image of Hussein accepted in fulfillment of "supporting materials" requirement. Assessment upgraded to B-class. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Stories of his death

Should we merge Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein here, or create a Death of Saddam Hussein article for the rumors and the execution? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Reaction by children around the world

I remember reading in this very article that a few kids committed suicide right after watching the event on TV. It is not there anymore and I wanted to see if anyone knows of sources that has covered the story.

That content is still there (copycat deaths), but there are no sources for it, and there don't appear to be any traces of the noted "Scott Buras" anywhere except on this very article. 66.87.114.77 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation needed

What does "Saddam Hussein was executed due to threats against all Iraq humanity and assassination attempts" mean?122.59.167.152 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)