Talk:Qusay Hussein

---

This artical claims that Uday Hussein remained single his whole life, while the artical on Uday says that he was breifly married. Which is true?

---

Why is this article called Qusai Hussein, and not Qusay Hussein? A quick Google search gives 980 hits for Qusai against 2720 for Qusay. And both the BBC and the New York Times write the name as Qusay. D.D. 21:05 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Can someone please provide proof of this statement:

"even though the U.S. military would have entered Iraq regardless of whether they left"

I agree...it's not factual

add the US administration "wanted", and it becomes factual

---

Is there any evidence at all that he was gay? I think that was added by a vandal, and now we have adopted it. P3d0 12:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• On Google 'Qusay Hussein homosexual' yields Wikipedia first and nothing beyond that was relevant. I will remove the line unless there's some evidence.

Picture

I would replace the Ace of Clubs -picture with a proper headshot, there's a POVish feel to it. The same goes with the with the picture of Uday Hussein.194.157.147.48 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

His family.

Iraqi experts might consider adding more personal details — his wife, children, etc. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"he was shot by U.S. forces upon entering the room"

In regards to Qusay's son Mustapha, I think there is a NPOV violation here. It makes it seem as if Mustapha was just summarily shot as U.S troops entered. A quick google search on "Qusay's Son" will reveal that many reports claim that U.S troops were fired upon entering the house. Other reports claim that there were no survivors of the battle. The Washington Post even quotes a commander that claims that "They all were dead" when they entered the house suggesting that Mustapha died in the 6 hour battle, and was not shot when U.S Troops went to recover the bodies.

It wasn't as if there is full on proof that they killed a white flagged surrendering hostile. Considering the high profile of the people in the house, it would also make sense that U.S troops would want to keep any survivors of the gun battle alive for questioning, and that executing any survivors would be a major PR downfall in Iraq.

All I ask is for contributors to cite their sources, especially with claims like "so and so was executed as U.S troops entered."

I have edited the section to read:

There were reports that Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha was the last one to die in the battle. Brig. Gen. Frank Helmick, the assistant commander of 101st Airborne has commented that all occupants of the home were dead before U.S troops entered the home after the fierce gun battle.

I have also noted my sources. If someone can find a reason why this should not be edited to read like above, please comment. Joseph 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Arabic spelling of Qusay's name

I can't be certain of this, but I was told that Qusay Hussein's name as it is spelled in Arabic in this article – left to right – is, in essence, just a jumble of letters, as Arabic is read and written right to left. Uday's name is supposedly spelled correctly though. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Cromag 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadaams death, and qusay's death

"Saddam was buried at his birthplace of Al-Awja in Tikrit, Iraq, 3 km (2 mi) from his sons Uday and Qusay Hussein, on December 31, 2006" This is a quote from the sadaam execution page,

"Died July 22, 2003 Mosul, Iraq" This is what is stated as quasay's death.

So Qusay Hussein rose from the dead to bury his father in 2006, considering he died in 2003? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klorkurou (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The information in the article on Saddam Hussein implies that the location at which he was buried is not far from the graves of Qusay and Uday. Cromag ^{talk to me} 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someome could load a better picture. The current one is somewhat distorted. Odin1 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute

I hold that publishing Qusay's post-mortem photo is not in keeping with a neutral point of view. I also hold that the photo may violate the Geneva Convention, as contended by the International Committee of the Fourth International and discussed in the 24 July 2003 issue of The Independent and Issue No. 649 of Al-Ahram Weekly (31 July-6 August 2003). Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that NPOV is relevant here, please expand a bit because your argument that it contravenes GC is incorrect, because it doesn't. According to one of the sources you have provided GC prohibits publication if it is for the reason of humiliation or ridicule, the pictures are not published on WP for these reasons and therefore I think we're safe. A little more could probably be said in the article about why the images were published and done so so quickly but I see no real argument for removing them. In summary:

• Please elaborate on the NPOV argument.
• I believe the publication does not contravene GC

RaseaC (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, if the publication of the photo is so controversial that sources can be found to state that it violates the GC, certainly this raises POV concerns for Wikipedia. Please read the sources I provided, as there are other points of view which can be found within those sources. NPOV is a higher standard, in this case, than GC; even if the photo does not violate GC (itself a debatable proposition, and one on which we Wikipedians cannot possibly judge), the photo's employment as a propaganda tool by the American government should most certainly give pause to a sincere effort to provide a neutral point of view. We would not tolerate the copying of government propaganda directly into the text of an article, without at least incorporating language respecting other points of view. (Any government; I say this as an American who generally supports his government.) If a picture is worth a thousand words, this picture is essentially a one-sided diatribe we are allowing to remain unchallenged in the article by publishing with the mere caption, "Photo of Qusay Hussein's body after his death." The stark finality of the caption and photo combine to a highly offensive assault upon the opinions of some outside the United States. The sources I provided demonstrate this. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources you provide don't say it violates GC, at best some say it may. If there's something in the GC saying 'don't publish pictures of dead people' or something to that effect then the images should be removed, until you provide that, they should stay. I wouldn't say this is propaganda any more than a picture of a soldier handing out sweets to kids is, that is to say what does and does not constitute propaganda is, for the most part, POV of an individual editor and therefore would be difficult to use as a single reason for removing the images. It sounds as if you want to remove the images to avoid offending people. That's not what WP is about. If the images offend you don't look at them. As it stands I still don't see that you're giving any real argument for their removal. RaseaC (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's the wrong approach. We are not to judge whether or not the photo actually violates GC; that it may violate it is reason enough for the photo not to be included as part of this project, absent any compelling reason to keep it. Think of this as building a list of "pros and cons": The sources above serve as arguments against including the photo in the article. And on the pro side...? Can you demonstrate that the photo doesn't unnecessarily promote a particular POV? Whether or not the photo is offensive (again, not my place to judge), you haven't yet given us a compelling reason for the photo to stay. Photos and other media need to contribute something positive to this project. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It could violate article 23 of UN resolution 6891 (probably not because I just made that up) but you see how silly it is to exclude something because it MAY contravene some rules, my argument is that unless someone shows that it does contravene GC, it stays in. I'll be the first to delete the photo if that is the case, until then shitting ourselves about something that may not even be the case is pointless. The sources above cancel their usefulness out, because most of them could be viewed as both an argument for and against inclusion, so we'll just ignore them for now. I've saud that the article should have a bit more info about why the image is noteworthy. If nothing happens in the meantime I'll add that info in the next couple of days when I can be bothered. RaseaC (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll be very interested when you do add that info, because that could eradicate POV concerns. Honestly, Rasea, my beef with the photo is not really the graphic nature of it, but the fact that it practically assaults the reader without providing any context. Why is the photo necessary? Without any context from us Wikipedians, we're left with the arguments from the American government itself on why the photo is necessary, which becomes a POV justification for killing Qusay. I look forward to your edits. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New approach

Editors who have voiced concerns that this photo does not belong in the article now run 2-1. It is therefore insufficient to simply add it back in, as consensus is opposed to including the photo in this article at this time. Rasea, if you want it back, the onus is upon you to add it with the accompanying edits you promise above. If you fail to do so, I will consider the addition of the photo to be vandalism. Regards, JeffBillman (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done RaseaC (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a few minor changes; hope you approve. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that works better. I've made a few corrections. I had forgotten about adding that info until the article popped back up on my watchlist.RaseaC (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)