Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein

Archives

---

Higher numbers refer to more recent archives.
Archive 1
Archive 2

What Happened to the Link to the Cell Phone Video?

It appears to have disappeared. The video is already out. Don't try to censor it. Censorship sucks. Give people all the information.

See the discussion below titled "protected." Some admin thought it prudent to remove perfectly valid links. ~ UBeR 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcc5zJcCNFM

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)

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. --Ryan Delaney ^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? [1]. 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)

List of Ip's vandalizing this article

May I make it here? Pipe752 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

193.238.48.194 Keeps putting F#cking US or Bush

218.186.8.10 Keeps spamming the external links

82.17.65.109 put "lol" on democracy

Pipe752 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"lol" on democracy? lol.--Shtove 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

64.107.220.181 ~ UBeR 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Taliban World Leaders?

A Talibani reaction was moved to the World Political Leader section. It seems a little rocky to be categorizing a Taliban member as a world political leader. Also I don't think putting him under Palestine is correct at all. ~ UBeR 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it along with the Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia reaction. Though, these had been grouped by general sentiment. The section needs to be fleshed out more. --Aude (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about the Taliban.Why is the Taliban's sentence is put in the support paragraph.Judjing from their sentence,it looks like the Taliban opposes the execution.Dimts 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. It's corrected now. --Aude (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister Maliki ratifying the death sentence

Since my previous comment on this issue was deleted and I think that the question might be relevant to the article I restate it:

Does anyone know, why Prime Minister Maliki ratified the death sentence? According to article 70 of the Iraqi constitution this seems to be the prerogative of Iraq's president Talabani. Gugganij 10:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I believe your comment was moved to the archive, or perhaps it was indeed deleted. Anyway, the reason, I quote, is as follows: "here was one final hurdle: Would President Jalal Talabani, a Sunni Kurd who opposes the death penalty, object to the execution? A phone call later Friday between al-Maliki and the president ended with a decision that Talabani's signature was not needed. No explanation for the decision was given." Perhaps it should be included? ~ UBeR 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting aspect. Gugganij 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal video

Is there any way we can get in trouble under US law for linking to the mobile phone footage, which apparently was taken illegally? [2] [3]. I'm guessing not, but it seemed like it would be safer to mention. -- Pakaran 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Mostly because this video is not "illegal" in the United States. I do not believe it was "illegal" in Iraq, only that there are investigations into who recorded/released the video. Perhaps there may be prosecution against the filmer (in Iraq), then again perhaps not. ~ UBeR 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's what I suspected. If anything, it seems more likely that the filmer will shortly be unemployed. I just thought it was worth mentioning. -- Pakaran 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The video seems to be brewing up tons of controversy, however. ~ UBeR 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A better question than "who leaked it" is "who allowed it to be filmed in the first place?" Did nobody in the witness gallery notice this one guy aiming his cellphone at Saddam during the entire sequence of events? I still think this was done on purpose, as a way for al-Jazeera to prove to everyone that Saddam was dead, which cannot be determined for sure from the "official" videos and photos, which are sanitized for the sensitive viewing public. One interesting side aspect is where you can see flashes of a photographer's camera bulb from time to time. I'm assuming those were "official" photos, but we'll see what turns up in Time and Newsweek and so on. Wahkeenah 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they caught the guy. ~ UBeR 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, on USAToday.com. They aren't saying for sure, but a name has been bandied about. The official video is silent and shows only the preliminaries. I think this bootleg video is an important piece of journalism, because it shows it like it was. It tells the truth about it, grim as it may be. I don't speak Arabic, but the last word spoken by Saddam was clearly discernible as "Muhammed", just before the loud "clunk" of the trap being sprung. Just more ugliness in this whole ugly situation. Wahkeenah 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be silly if the links to the video were illegal. But then again, the filmer did the world a favor and showing what the news channels refused to do: show Saddam actually getting strung up with his own method of execution. If I were to meet the filmer, I would thank him. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some cable news outlets are also now saying that those being arrested are being scapegoated. Imagine that. Wahkeenah 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have one opinion regarding the removal of the execution link: Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. (Opinion stolen from WP:CENSOR) Reswobslc 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As for whether the cell phone video is illegal in the United States... well, it most certainly is not. Otherwise it wouldn't have been aired by the news stations. Certainly the news stations removed the actual hanging portion of the video in order to not offend their viewers, but if there were some legal concern as to whether the video could not be showed, the news stations wouldn't be showing any portion of it for that same reason. There is absolutely no reason why the link to the video shouldn't stay. Reswobslc 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be responsible under US law but editors must obey the laws of the country in which they find themselves, SqueakBox 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true. However, the video does not violate any U.S. laws. ~ UBeR 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Criticism into Reaction

Based upon the section headings, the article is too biased against the execution. We already have a "Reactions" section and some of the reactions are crtitical. Therefore, a seperate "Criticisms" section is not needed. It should be merged back into Reactions so as not to favor POV against the execution. Johntex\^talk 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it is not the same issue discussed above, I have moved your comment to a new section titled "Proposal to merge Criticism into Reaction". --Hab baH 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this as well. However, I feel there is a distinction between opposing the death of a political leader because you are against the death penalty and opposing the execution for the reasons listed in the "Criticism" section. ~ UBeR 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Long drop?

Someone had posted that this was a "long drop" hanging, then someone else removed it on the grounds of "original research". Maybe so, but according to the definition, the long drop is 6 feet or more, and since the video clearly shows that Saddam dropped at least the length of his height, and apparently more, that would seem to qualify. Maybe someone with more expertise on the fine art of hangings could weigh in. Wahkeenah 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, but Wikipedia is verifiability. ~ UBeR 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but I heard on CNN that he dropped approximately 15 feet. -- THL 11:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly diagree. 15 feet would have decapitated anyone. The British executioners for example, when they still executed people by long drop hanging, used a Home Office issued "table of drops" with a range from about five to eight feet. Further argument: When Saddam Hussein was shown in the video standing on the platform with the noose round his neck, you could clearly see that the rope which came from the ceiling made a bend at round about the standing man's knees and then came back upwards to the noose. So the drop was no longer than twice the distance neck-knees, or about eight feet to eight feet six inches. Further details on hanging (in general) upon request. It's one of my research items. --Kauko56 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

His neck was at right angles and there was blood - not far off too long a drop?--Shtove 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• That also squares with where the "underground" video was taken. It was at ground level looking up, and concludes with a ground-level zoom-in on the "guest of honor". So 6 to 8 feet is verifiably the distance, which qualifies as "long-drop", right? And not that it's worth an edit war, which it isn't. He's dead either way. Wahkeenah 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is very much a matter of opinion or expertise in the subject of hangings. That is why I removed it as WP:OR. Previous discussion is here. --Hab baH 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he dropped at least the length of his own height, that is indisputable, not original research, because anyone can verify it by looking at the video; along with the fact that he's clearly unconscious and his neck twisted, just seconds later. The question is simply whether that adds up to a "long drop" hanging or not. Wahkeenah 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only did he fall below the trapdoor level (=more than his own height) but his neck clearly broke immediately, as seen in the phone video. That's indisputably a long drop. No guesswork is required, and it's not original research to state the obvious. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hab baH: I still do not understand which statement you qualify as "matter of opinion or expertise". There is indeed a recognized definition of what qualifies as "long drop". Everyone who saw the relevant videos or stills is able to see that the method of execution used in Saddam Hussein's case falls under this definition. Open to opinion or expertise is only whether this method kills instantly, by which mechanics, whether it is humane, painless or whatever.

The "long drop" method was introduced into British execution practice by William Marwood (successor to William Calcraft). Calcraft used a rope of about three feet length and did not aim at breaking the neck of the delinquent. Marwood started to use drops of much more length with exactly that objective in mind, as did all his successors: Berry, the Billingtons, Ellis, the Pierrepoints... In all and every literature on the history of judicial hanging in Britain and the US I found one recurrent use of the term "long drop" hanging: "A hanging with a drop of five feet and more intended to break the delinquent's neck and, by this injury, either kill him instantly or send him into deep unconsciousness so that he does not consciously experience the subsequent strangulation".

If you need any "original research" on the validity of this definition, you have to go to the library and read the (auto)biographies of Calcraft, Berry, Ellis, Pierrepoint (which I did already for you). And I simply do not understand what "original research" you need in order to prove that the execution of Saddam Hussein did follow the method as described above. Since we do not have a medical (post mortem) report, I agree that any statement on his cause of death, or duration of suffering, must be evaluated as speculation. That the method to dispatch him was the one known as "long drop hanging", however, is beyond dispute, and your qualification of this statement as WP:OR is arbitrary, to put it mildly. --Kauko56 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that if someone asked me what method of hanging was employed in the execution of Saddam Hussein, I would have to respond that some editors on Wikipedia watched the video and concluded the method was long drop hanging means that original research has taken place. You have analyzed the video and synthesized this analysis with a chosen technical definition of long drop hanging to draw your original conclusion. I appreciate your interpretation of the contents of the video, particularly in light of your area of research interest. It may very well be correct. But it is also original research. Accordingly, at this stage it does not pass WP:V. If this seems arbitrary, that may be because the burden of evidence is on the editor or editors who wish to add an edit. Adding "long drop" hanging to the article and citing the video as the source does not pass this hurdle. Another editor cannot verify that that primary source shows a long drop hanging just by watching it. They have to be supplied with another source showing the definition of a long drop hanging. The necessity of synthesizing the information between these two sources to draw the conclusion that the video shows a long drop hanging is why this is original research. If the edit is left with just the video as a source, it is unverifiable. Fortunately, since this is not the subject of an edit war, I do not expect the material to be reinserted into the article. But if it is, please note that the original reason it caught my attention was that it added more detail than necessary to the article's intro paragraph, so I would object to its inclusion there on separate grounds. --Hab baH 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, it would be valid to observe that he was dropped 6 or more feet (assuming that was his height), but to specifically define it as a long-drop hanging would be a stretch? (Pardon the ironic metaphor). Wahkeenah 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It would pose problems of verifiability to add your interpretation of the video to the article and cite the video as a source. Once you have to look up Saddam's height and use that as a source in concert with the video to draw your conclusion he dropped six or more feet, you have performed original research by synthesizing information from the two sources. --Hab baH 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Technical, would it be safe to say he was dropped at least his own height? Wahkeenah 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hab baH - the phone-camera images aren't sufficient to draw the technical conclusions about the long-drop method. Maybe that was the method intended by the executioner (whatever, it was a cocked-up ceremony). But the images are patchy at best, and WP shouldn't infer measurements from them.--Shtove 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this would qualify as OR; this is obviously verifiable (look at the video) and long drop hanging should at least have a note somewhere in Wikipedia, if not its own article. As it is a descriptive noun, and I can't see possibly disputing it (as it is very verifiable from the video itself), I think it is quite justified to put it in as a long drop. Titanium Dragon 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the end, I think it's fairly trivial information, but that's just me. But it still stands, Wikipedia is verifiability. ~ UBeR 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And too trivial to care about, in the end. Wahkeenah 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah: I would appreciate it if you would cross out the name calling in your earlier post. Titanium Dragon: To conclude the hanging was of the long drop method, you have to interpret what you see in the video. This means looking to a second source to provide the technical definition of long drop hanging. If you already know what a long drop hanging is and can recognize it in the video, you have expertise in the subject matter. Your expertise in interpreting the subject matter does not provide verifiability to other editors. Just because you assert the video shows long drop hanging is not convincing. Since a second source is needed to verify the claim a long drop hanging did indeed occur, and neither source independently verifies the claim (unless you are an expert), you are conducting original research by synthesizing the information from the two sources to draw the conclusion you wish to include in the article. So, yes, I do dispute the claim the hanging was of a long drop method because I cannot verify it without doing original research. --Hab baH 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the term "Mr. Technical", consider it a compliment. :) Wahkeenah 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the post, it could be considered a taunt. I am not going to look up the rules, but hope that you would consider how including such a term in future posts may incline others to be less responsive. --Hab baH 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the OR policy. Frankly, you have to interpret the video as a hanging too, but honestly, are we going to say "This video is described as showing a hanging?" No, that's just dumb. Its a long drop hanging, there's no need for more "interpretation", and it is an accurate description - and accuracy is important and adding in two extra words which are verifiable via the video is a good idea if it adds clarity. I think the real issue is whether it is notable or not; I don't know if it is. But it is certainly verifiable. Titanium Dragon 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hab baH. It's nice to see new uses show interest in defending Wikipedia policies. Please do take another look at the policy on original research. Here we have primary sources: two separate videos of the same event, both of which show that a long drop occurred; Saddam is shown climbing a gallows, falling a length greater than his height, and having his neck clearly broken immediately, rather than dropping a short distance and strangling slowly. The broken neck is also clearly seen in the later pictures taken of his corpse. This is not "a novel narrative or historical interpretation." It complies with the policy to "only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." This is a clear case of a "descriptive claim." We can see the whole thing. Reasonable, educated people are not unfamiliar with the basics of hanging; specialist knowledge is not required; we don't need to know the exact length or composition of the rope or the force applied, whether a wedge was used, or anything about the trapdoor mechanics.

Please be civil. To say anyone can now this is long drop hanging just by watching the video is a bit naïve. Hab Bah is correct; some people do not know the different types of hangings. You may; I'd suspect most don't. I didn't even know there were various names for the different types of hangings. ~ UBeR 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, stating that this is a long-drop hanging is a rather unimportant point; all hangings are, at least in jurisdictions that aspire to due process. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, long drop hangins are designed to break the neck, whereas short ones are designed to produce asphyxiation. This is clearly the former. ˜˜˜˜

and this information is not readily verifiable. ~ UBeR 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article [[Nuremberg Trials says "“The death sentences were carried out by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop. [23] [24]” These references say only "On October 16, 1946, ten men died in the courthouse gymnasium in a botched hanging that left several strangling to death for as long as 25 minutes” (footnote 23, Smithsonian Magazine, p6) and "“the experienced Army hangman, Master Sgt. John C. Woods, botched the executions. A number of the hanged Nazis died, not quickly from a broken neck as intended, but agonizingly from slow strangulation. Ribbentrop and Sauckel each took 14 minutes to choke to death, while Keitel, whose death was the most painful, struggled for 24 minutes at the end of the rope before expiring.” Footnote 24, Flagpole magazine. So for consistency we should allow this article to call it a long drop or remove reference from short drop in the Nuremberg article, which is as true as the claim of long drop in this article. [4] and other sources say they dropped from sight, arguiing toward a long drop. Edison 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe there are more than two types of hanging, however? It'd be oversimplified to say because the Nuremberb was standard, then these must be non-standard. ~ UBeR 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Official Table of Drops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Table_of_Drops a long drop hanging is between 5'5" and 8'0" based on the weight of the person (a lighter person needs a longer drop). Saddam's hanging appears to be within this range. 24.255.24.239 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Burial" Question

I have a question: I have uploaded the picture of Saddam's funeral two days ago, so do you think it's okay if I post that picture onto the "Burial" section? --Angeldeb82 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If it does not violate any copyright, that is fine. ~ UBeR 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vatican reaction

The article states that a vatican spokesman expressed "disapproval" of the execution - but the citation at fn.72 doesn't show this. Catholic teaching, as far as I know, is that the death sentence is justifiable but should be used sparingly. Anyone got a better citation? It would be interesting, given JPII's condemnation of the coalition invasion.--Shtove 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on appropriateness of a link (no, not an external one)

I noticed a somewhat problematic edit earlier. It was grammatically awkward and unusually selective (specifically, selecting Britain). 195.158.69.190 made this edit, which I disagreed with. My rationale was spread over two edits, which you can see here. I removed the text, and added a link to Multinational force in Iraq (to address the concern that the soldier in Iraq were not just Americans). 66.99.0.193 removed that link in this edit. Since he or she appeared to remove it for a reason (I hope), and I do not want to go against another's unexplained and non-obvious will, I would like a smidget of consensus before adding the link to that page back. Gracenotes^T § 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay away from political debates and such issues, and have been uninvolved with any Iraq-related articles (aside from this page). Has there been discussion of this on other pages? The "Multinational" force page has a tag on top. It might be helpful to look at a handful of news articles from a truly worldwide sample of sources and see how they describe things. What does Al Jazeera say? What do American sources say? Reliable sources in other, less involved places? --Aude (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I don't think that this is a political issue; plus, I'm apathetic indifferent enough to be NPOV on nearly everything. I am familiar with RS, and this isn't the issue either. (Always worth mentioning it, though, in case I wasn't.) The IP I mentioned above was confused by what "US-led" meant. The article I linked to, the "Multinational" one, clarifies it denotatively. As to the worldwide tag -- it was added here. I don't believe that it any longer applies -- in fact, I don't believe that the issue was even discussed on the talk page. Since Multinational force in Iraq equates "US-led" with the whole force that was active in Iraq, I thought that it might be useful to link to this article, to clarify what "US-led" implies. (Yes, the statement is unsourced in the "Multinational" article, but this was enough to assuage my qualms about the statement's veracity.) Gracenotes^T § 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that user from that IP switched it with his vandalism. It has since been reverted to reflect your edits. ~ UBeR 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, how selfish of me, I didn't even look at the other changes that the IP made. I wouldn't exactly call it vandalism... it's more non-constructive (and possibly POV-pushing). I would have changed it back myself; I simply didn't want to get into an edit war with that IP. Hence this request for a bit of consensus. Gracenotes^T § 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! references

I don't have time at the moment ... but there are several references that link to Associated Press news stories on Yahoo! Those Yahoo! links tend to disappear fairly quickly. We should try to find other sources which have the same AP stories and link to those instead. --Aude (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression they deleted articles at Yahoo! But if they do, by all means, they should be replaced with identical articles from elsewhere. ~ UBeR 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A note: a search on Google with the article title in quotes will do the trick for finding an identical article, it appears to me. Or a search on Yahoo, if you must :) Gracenotes^T § 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. All of the Yahoo! links have been replaced, I believe. ~ UBeR 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What about his execution being illegal?

I heard on the BBC World Service that according to Iraqi Law it is illegal to execute anyone on any Muslim holy day. Does anyone else have any information about this?--70.243.108.229 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little unclear whether the holiday began at sunrise or at sunset on the 30th. Either way, theoretically they got the job done before the holiday began. Maybe an Islamic expert could weigh in on this. Wahkeenah 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well advocates for Saddam's death say he was killed before the holiday. In Islam, days start with the sunrise and ends with the sunset (from what's been explained to me). Sources range from being executed slightly before to slightly after 6 A.M. local time. Now, for Sunnis, the holiday began on the 30th (the day of the execution); for Shias it began on the day after (Sunday). So it definitely came before the Shia holidy, but the question is whether it came before the Sunni holiday. Some protest saying that it occured on their holy day, on which executions are bannished. Some protest that it even occurred so close to their holiday. Others simply say (as the Iraqi Prime Minister did) that it posed as a security threat to hold off the execution and that, in fact, it had occurred before the holiday began. ~ UBeR 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hence the persistent question of what the exact time of the execution was. Days go from sunrise to sunset? What happens to the nights? Which day are they a part of, the one preceding or the one after? Wahkeenah 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. My presumption is that after sunset, the night becomes the night of the preceding day. Makes most sense to make, anyway.

However, according to this Web site, sunrise came at least a full hour after the execution. ~ UBeR 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim dates start at sunset. Muslim days start with the sunrise. Thus, the night of a date comes prior to the day of a date, as oppossed to Western culture (and I suppose every else), where the day is sandwiched between parts of the night on any particular date (i.e, midnight - sunrise - midday (noon) - sunset - midnight....). Anyhow, from what I understand, the Sunnis held Eid al-Adha on Saturday December 30, meaning the holiday began at sunset the night before (i.e., sunset on the 29th.) and the first day of Eid (it is 3-days long) ended on sunset on December 30. So, if Saddam was hung (hanged?) at ~6am December 30, it fell on the day of Eid. Pepsidrinka 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Then he was hanged on the holiday, hence the complaints. It sounds like the Muslim calendar works the same as the Jewish calendar, i.e. when a holiday is stated as being on a certain day, it actually begins on the previous evening. Wahkeenah 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article on the Islamic calendar: The Islamic and Jewish weekdays begin at sunset Park3r 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Copycat deaths

There are reports of children seemingly mimicking the scenes of execution shown on television, resulting in their own deaths. In Houston, Texas, a ten year-old boy was found dead with a slipknot around his neck, shortly after watching a news item about the execution. The video also apparently influenced a nine year-old boy in Pakistan to hang himself from a ceiling fan with the aid of his sister. A fifteen year-old girl from Kolkata, India was reported to have hanged herself after becoming extremely depressed by watching Saddam's televised execution.

References: http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4443091.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070101/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanchildrensaddam_070101120149 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bengal_teenager_hangs_herself_over_Saddams_execution/articleshow/1052172.cms

I know the one story of the nine year-old was added under the media section then removed partly because someone thought it was "trivial". However now that three such incidents are being reported and widely discussed, it's surely looking less "trivial".

Problem is I don't see a suitable section for it. It would probably make most sense in a subsection of its own under a section of the reaction to the media coverage, or in a subsection under the world reaction. But that might be giving it too much importance. So I'm just going to note it here for reference in case anyone comes up with a solution. (Winnow 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

I didn't remove it, but I sort of agree with it. People hang themselves by the hundreds every year, if not more. I doubt Saddam was the sole reason for their suicides. ~ UBeR 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OR, whereas the claims are backed by reliable sources. Sfacets 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I concede. ~ UBeR 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this copycat section should be moved to "Copycat effect", which is a sparse article as it is. And the reference to the Saddam copycat hangings should be reduced to a one-sentence mention somewhere under Reaction, which links to the article Copycat effect. It is largely irrelevant to the political ramifications of Saddam's execution (especially 6-12 months from now), but is highly relevant to the Copycat effect article. 71.81.237.90 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we must watch for recentism that may seem very exciting to add at first, but unsubstantial in the long run. Currently I'm indifferent with what to do with that section. ~ UBeR 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Uber user problem

Warning this guy keeps on inventing his rules and gives his own definitions,reverting lots of links, clearly has his own agenda, many users like this use some wikified excuse but that is empty.. The execution should not be here (the link to video), the death of the kid, clearly he watched the video, he asked father what happend, he was angry at something... Saddam's last words and the other link clearly links and explans execution, so current version should stay. It is clear that this guy keeps on screwign around this particular site 100 times per day. Not only that, but keeps on reverting time of death and official time saddam died 6:05. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html

Thank you for you blog source, but please see below and discuss (although this has already been discussed before...) ~ UBeR 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Time of Execution

Since some people are too lazy to look in the archive (random IP vandalizer), I'll renew the discussion. Executed at 06:00?[5][6] 06:05?[7] "Short after 06:00"?[8][9] 06:10?[10] Best to leave it at approximately 06:00, so as not to place a very specific and contradicting time. ~ UBeR 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links & Spam?

Please remain civil. I reverted your edit because you removed (vandalised?) links:

• Boy Hangs himself 12/31/06 -copying saddam execution
• Saddam died a Holy Martyr as he wished, on a most Holy day
• Saddam's last hours

Sfacets 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But please conscious of other edits you are removing when you doing reverts. As per WP:EL, links that are to be included and considered include: 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. And consider 1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. 2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. 3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. None of those links fit this. These can be incorporated into the article rather then being spammed in the External Links section. ~ UBeR 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam, few links like that, the exact nature of what happend, the facts should not be in general article but part of external links, now you will reply wiki is not a depository for links, of course not, but did you notice how some articles are, some are not? It's all about the situation and the person.

I am not going to argue, you are simply placing these links here, the links which should be on the main page, by pointing out my links, you are making a bigger idiot that you are, those links clearly point out to execution and are of importance and they deal with execution, i totally reject your childish claims and your vandalism. Civil? You are the one who started this. Ok, you can remove the word as he wished, but if you look in his last letter, he did point out he wanted to be a real martyr. So again, you have no point and waste my time.

You aren't getting my point. You're right, they may have some pretty interesting and valid points. What I'm saying, however, is that these links are not appropriate for the External Links section, as per Wikipedia's own External Links policy. These can very easily be incorporated into the text as a third party source rather than just being a random spammed link. ~ UBeR

What's wrong with you, spam, what spam, just because people in india wrote that, you have something against them because they are not americans or something?

and death was after 6...http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html

You have time on your hands to argue, so argue with yourself.

Ugh... No. I'm saying they're good sources (well at least two of them are). Almost half, if not more, of our sources in this article are foreign. And I know the Hindu times is used at least once or twice. They're good sources. They're not appropriate for the external links. Please read what I wrote. They can be incorporated into the text, rather than simply being placed in the EL section without context.

P.S. Please see above section for discussion on time of death. One blog won't cut it. ~ UBeR 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask iraqi government, it's in the books 6:10. If you want to add execution link you can add cnn, after death footage is ok.

I don't know what you just said. However, for a discussion for the time of execution, please see above section. ~ UBeR 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You just want saddam to hang and others to see that disgusting image?

u may have a point, but videos were not allows, also wiki does not allow or any civilized site things and videos which spread violence, hatred, putting somebody down

I don't have an agenda other than to present the facts relevant to this article. As for the video, it's already been discussed. See the discussion. I can't help you other further than that, other than explaining official Wikipedia policies. ~ UBeR 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, the wiki does. Please read WP:CENSOR; anything is allowed as long as it's appropriate for that article, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. (Note: neutral point of view may not mean what you think it means. See the link if you have any questions at all.) I'm not positive what you mean by "videos were not allows", either. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free, accurate compendium of information, not to be the pope.

Any moral judgments you or others might make should not stop Wikipedia from being complete. Also note at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer that "Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics." If reading Wikipedia makes someone spread hatred, Wikipedia is not responsible for that. This is not to say that spreading violence is correct in all cases; but Wikipedia, as I said, is not here to judge whether things are morally acceptable or not. (Of course, in some cases, WP:OFFICE might need to be enforced; also, breaking of Federal laws on Wikipedia should not happen.) Note that this is redundant; see above discussion. Gracenotes^T § 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, it is a requirement that you remain civil, failing to do so violates the No Personal Attack policy.Sfacets 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're better off discussing this with said unsigned user above. It's a fact I don't know what he just said. That's exactly a reply to the content, not the editor. All my statements are coming from Wikipedia policy. If believe me saying Wikipedia is not censored as a personal attack, you're best off revising their policy page. ~ UBeR 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I protected it, due to excess reverting. I also removed the video links, due to excess tastelessness. Discuss... William M. Connolley 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I'd like to point you toward our previous discussion of the issue. Granted it was discussion on putting a "WARNING" disclaimer, no one even mentioned the validity and merit it contains and contributes to this article. All are in agreeance that the video is an important contribution. You may see the discussion at the following link: Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#Warnings.2C_Again. Officially, Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel this video is shocking, please see Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. For other discussion on whether this presents a historical and accurate description of the events of December 30th, please refer to Archive 1. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure I'm correct, which is why I left a note on WP:AN about this. If I'm wrong, some admin better at policy will correct me William M. Connolley 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how virtually all news sources have posted the images/video of the first link you removed (video of noose going around his neck; nothing further), I would wholly assume it's suitable for Wikipedia. It's not censored. Please see the discussions. Your decision to leave it to the admins, I believe, is imprudent (see ElKevbo's comment below). ~ UBeR 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, uber simply says everything comes from wiki policy, twists few things in his way and then makes it look he is right, he removed saddam's last hours link, placed ugly site of execuition, insted of putting the cnn version, reverted important things and argues with everybody else, why is this guy here i do not know.

Please learn to sign your messages (with ~~~~); learn a bit of wiki syntax (blank lines not paragraph tags) and above all constructively discuss the article content rather than attacking others William M. Connolley 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... Honestly out of 1000 administratos, may be just may be 10 should be here. Attack others for trying to correct death to 6:10pm., whatever, fine, i attack others, but that still can never change the fact and official truth... This is killing my time, uber has personal agenda against something... I did everything what's right and on talk page but to no avail, this version should be as follows... Saddam died at 6:10, this guy kept on reverting and making things wrong... Iraq official death certificate is 6:10, died 6:05... http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/01/wld02.asp

Yes. That's one source: dailynews.lk (reuters). Thank you for that source. However, many different sources ([11][12][13][14]) say differently. I don't have an agenda other than to present the facts relevant to this article. So, please, remain civil. ~ UBeR 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So couldn't we write something like "the reported time of death differs"? Even in the sources provided by UBeR (thank you) the time is not stated exactly. but written "sometime after 6". Sfacets 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC) According to WP:EL, links should be tasteful, the video obviously isn't, and so the link to it must be removed. Sfacets 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's your own POV. That's fine. We had a discussion and the consensus, not just one person's opinion, is that it documents accurately historical events. ~ UBeR

According to WP:CENSOR, Wikipedia is not censored. I find the video relevant and tasteful, no less than a photo of a mushroom cloud is relevant to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reswobslc 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. I haven't followed this article with a microscope but I have been following it and I was under the impression that we had a pretty good consensus regarding the video. That some may want to edit war over the link is no indication of a lack of consensus and to assert otherwise is a logical fallacy.

There are clearly some other issues over which other editors are edit warring and I reserve judgment on those issues. But in the issue of the video I believe it is silly to bow to the wishes of a few whose POV wants to prevent us from linking to a video of significant historical significance and contemporary media interest. --ElKevbo 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just wait for the WP:AN input on this matter. Discussing is obviously getting us nowhere. Sfacets 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Administrators are welcome to give their input and their voices will count towards establishing consensus. But unless this is a matter of policy (and I vehemently deny that it is) then it's our right and obligation as editors to continue the conversation and work towards consensus. --ElKevbo 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, pay attention... Uber wrote... Time and place of execution Saddam was executed at approximately 06:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on December 30, 2006. Ok, if he wrote some time after, that is different, there are 100;s of sources that say it was after 6, what uber is inputting, is information that was correct only first day or in the first hours after execution, again are you challenging the official death by iraqi (puppet) government, it is legal and binding. Wiki is open place AND I DISAGREE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SHOW SOMEBODY'S DEATH, HOW WOULD YOU FEAL? Anybody can go on google video and find that, but when you are doing a research on saddam, why should you watch something ugly and horrific, what good does that bring, i mentioned many times in the past and i honestly am wating time here... wiki can not be uncivil, meaning spreading hate thru ugly hanging videos, where are your morals? There are many links which point out he died at 6:05, pronounced dead at 6:10!http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=5873023&nav=RmOibfFz

If you object to the link, don't click on it. It's that plain and simple. It's clearly labeled as what you'd expect to see. It's not like it says "Click here to see poignant moments of Saddam" or something. We're not tricking you into seeing this hanging. It says "Execution--Cell phone video of hanging, including final moments". It's your choice to click on that link or not, if you do click it, you know what to expect.. I'm not a fan of the content of the link, by the way, I think it's pretty ridiculous, but it exists, so I think it does have its proper place in the article. For an example, see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where it was decided to allow the photos to stay, even if it offends people. Metros232 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user can't even listen to an admin, I wonder if trying to engage in a discussion with him is futile? User, unless you can find a source of the Iraqi government's death certificate for Saddam, then your claim is unsourced. Already, I have presented multiple sources that differ from your statement. Thus, it is appropriate to say he died at approximately 06:00 local time. (See the approximate? It eliminates the problem of conflicting reports. All reports agree he died at approximately 06:00.)

Again, if you feel you are shocked by the video, then please refrain from watching it. The description factually described the video contents (i.e. "Execution . . . including final moments"). It is your POV that is a horrific video. The consensus, however, it that is historically and accurately depicts a landmark event in the history of Iraq. ~ UBeR 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"excess tastelessness" is given as the reason for deleting the videos, which basically throws away "Wikipedia is not censored." It is ugly and hateful. So? So are executions by of Garrote lynchings Hangings Execution by firing squad Guillotine Assassinations, all of which are illustrated. No one is forced to look. Edison 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The simple heart of the matter is that Wikipedia IS censored, because it contains policy that limits what we can or not put into an article. Sfacets 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to change the context of the policy. Your point is moot. Wikipedia's policy on censorship isn't about their guidelines on style and other blatant content. To clarify, here is what they state: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." The policy is in reference to your POV judgments that the video is "tasteless." In all, Wikipedia is not censored and the video demonstrates factual and historical proceedings in a NPOV. ~ UBeR 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:EL? Come back when you have. Sfacets 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Have you? ~ UBeR 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which version did you read? My version says only to include tasteful external links. Sfacets 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring the same points that have been repeated a million times, but you only do it this time with a personal attack. "What to link: 1. Is it accessible to the reader? 2. Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? 3. Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?" 1. Yes it's accessible per Wikipedia's accessibility policy. 2. It is in very proper context (it is useful, tasteful, informative, and factual, etc.). 3. The link functions. Your POV of the issue is outvoiced by the consensus of this article's editors. I'm sorry. Regards. ~ UBeR 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole debate is on whether the link is tasteful. Of course they have been repeated (perhaps not a million) many times. Perhaps it is your' POV opinions that it is tasteful? Sfacets 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets and William M. Connolley: WP:EL says to consider several things when adding an external link. One of these things is, "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" Links to online video of the execution of Saddam Hussein are proper in the context of the article. Is it useful in the context of the article? Yes, especially for researchers and those wanting to see what the controversy of this subject is about. Is it tasteful in the context of the article? Linking to video of the specific subject of the article can hardly be seen as less tasteful than the subject. Is it informative? Indisputably, the video contains tons of information about the subject of the article. Is it factual? It is an actual video of the fact Saddam Hussein was executed. I hope you will come to understand that in the context of an article about the execution of Saddam Hussein, linking to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein is proper. In another context, it might not be. Here it is. William M. Connolley: Removing the external links you do not like and then locking the article is disruptive. --Hab baH 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the article is not sposoring any one version. William M. Connolley was right in blocking the article for a period of time while the edit warring was at it's highest earlier. I don't care one way or the other, all I was doing is providing a link to WP:EL and pointing out a section to benefit the debate. Not allowing the debate to form à la UBeR is more disruptive. Sfacets 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, and remain civil. I have not disrupted or hindered the debate. I've stated the facts and allowed you present your opinion. I agree with Hab baH. Though the lock does not sponsor the current version, William M. Connolley did lock the article and remove the links afterward. Whether you consider that disruptive or not, that's what he did. ~ UBeR 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets: Locking an article and then removing the content you do not like has the effect of sponsoring the version of the article without the content. As explained above, WP:EL does not support removing the external links to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. The consensus of this debate has been to keep the links. It should be noted that prior discussion of the external links has implicitly supported the retention of the external links to video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. Removing the links without discussion and locking the article is unnecessarily disruptive. --Hab baH 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: The official Wikipedia policy for protecting a page says: "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice." After protecting the page, you edited the protected page twice: (1) once to remove content you did not agree with and (2) once to add a protected page notice. Removing the content you did not agree with after the page was protected is a clear violation of the protecting page policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy for protecting a page says: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Please act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.--Hab baH 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive William M. Connolley had not been active on the article prior to the block. He decided to block it when it became apparent that there was overwhelming edit-warring going on, and removed the disputed content. He did nothing to contrary policy. Sfacets 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the policy (emphasis added): "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice." The removal of content after the page became protected (performing an edit) is explicitly contrary to the policy. The policy is sound because otherwise an editor can use the page protect feature in combination with a subsequent edit to endorse a particular view of what the page should be. In this case, the protecting editor, William M. Connolley, removed the video links due to his belief they represent excess tastelessness --Hab baH 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the protocol, I'd like to mention that I am against the inclsion of the video as well. 80.178.43.136 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing your reasons. --Hab baH 07:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, let me make it quite clear that I know its against policy to edit protected pages. But it happens, on occaision. Nonetheless, the page is protected now. I suggest you don't get hung up debating this point - it will do no good - but instead use the period of page protection to discuss the state of the article William M. Connolley 09:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"I know it's against policy but I did it anyway?" Poor show. We expect better from administrators. --ElKevbo 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, though: why are you not complaining about the other 3-4 edits made after protection? William M. Connolley 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't notice them. I don't expect administrators to blatantly ignore and violate policies so it's not something for which I police articles. WTF? I'm taking this to one of the admin notice boards as this is completely unacceptable. --ElKevbo 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SADDAM, PRESIDENT?

WHY IS SADDAM REFERED TO AS THE "PRESIDENT" OF IRAQ? HE WAS NEVER ELECTED, HE WAS SELF APPOINTED. HE WAS A DICTATOR AND A MURDERER!!! NOTHING LESS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.197.130.215 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Because that is what he was. Why do you think President and democracy have any connection? Why does his murderous tendencies not make him a President? He was the President and dictator is a weasel word that only creates strife on wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, MAYBE WE SHOULD REVIEW THE DEFINITION: PRESIDENT (noun) the chief official of a country that is a republic. A DICTATORSHIP IS NOT A REPUBLIC. HE TOOK OVER CONTROL OF IRAQ, HE DID NOT BOTHER WITH AN ELECTION.

See WP:NOT#OR, number 5. He is generally referred to as president, and Wikipedia does not go against convention regarding there sorts of issues. Gracenotes^T § 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT. Thank you. Sfacets 02:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Saddam was indeed a dictator. That much is pretty much given. A president can basically be broken down into the definition of "one who presides." Did Saddam preside over Iraq? Yes. Overall, the point is moot. ~ UBeR 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And remember the minefield that the word dictator presents. To some people Saddam is a hero, SqueakBox 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Even that shouldn't be an issue. One can be a benelovant dictator. So, there really should be no issue about calling Saddam a dictator, either. "Dictator" is not a POV term. "Tyrant" is. -- Ch'marr 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. ~ UBeR 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys have it all mixed up

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

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

Straw poll about Video Inclusion

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

Support inclusion:

• Support: support because the previous consensus was support (see "Warnings," and "Warnings Again" at the top, as well as Archive 1 and 2). Support because Wikipedia is not censored. Support because WP:EL supports the inclusion of these links. Support because Wikipedia is not biased toward those offended by what they may consider disturbing (please see Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer). Support because the videos are unbiased (videos represent facts). Support because the videos are very relevant. Support because the videos demonstrate a landmark and historical event in Iraqi history. Support because the videos are factual, accurate, and historical. No warning should be given; only factual and accurate descriptions of the video should be included. ~ UBeR 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support inclusion as per consensus above and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The inclusion of links to content precisely related to a topic is a major reason for having an online encyclopedia. Warnings, on the other hand, are not encyclopedic and they do not adhere to WP:NPOV. -- Hab baH 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Gdavidp 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC): Disagree with censoring video, historical event, but must include "Explicit graphic content warning".

• Support - Wikipedia should not censor, nor should we practice auto-censorship. Even though there are two policies that contradict themselves, Censorship creates deplorable encyclopedias. There should not be any type of warning to indicate graphic content, it is up the the reader to use his/her discernment, and the accompanying text is already a preliminary warning. Is there any other article which contains such a warning? Sfacets 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of the links to the video. Wikipedia is not censored. I'm not against a warning though - I think a warning would be the best way of keeping everyone happy and IMO doesn't stop it from being encyclopaediac. -Halo 07:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of the links, Wikipedia is not censored and it should not be censored. The video links should not have a warning either, the naming of the video link is enough warning to the reader that it is going to be graphic. --Borgarde 08:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support but with explicit warning. I really can't understand the fuss against a warning. A warning is not censorship. A warning is not POV because it is easy to find references demonstrating that videos of deaths are disturbing. A warning costs only a few characters and hurts no one. If warnings are not encyclopedic, then neither are spoiler warnings, and WP is full of them (and are appropriate for the same sorts of reasons). A warning is not a bad precedent - I'd have no problem with warning against any link which substantial amounts of users would find disturbing. Rocksong 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support with wording like this: (Caution: Graphic content). To not have any kind of notice is imposing our own point of view on the user. "Warning" is also kind of POV-pushing. "Caution" is fair. It's like having a rating on an HBO movie or whatever. Wahkeenah 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support with explicit warning. Pepsidrinka 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support w/ exp warning as per above. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support before and after, Strong Oppose the camera video: read the upload comment - Originally posted as a link on the Something Awful forums, I saved and uploaded it to google video before it died. Per WP:COPYRIGHT we Do not link to material that infringes copyright. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Might be worth noting that Iraq have no copyright laws according to Wikipedia:Copyrights - seems that's very out of date.. Either way, I think it's important to let the content hosts deal with this, particularly as it could easily be argued as fair use and a million other things and isn't a clear cut case. -Halo 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. --ElKevbo 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• So you're happy to link a grainy video with gross content uploaded by someone who freely admits to having no right to upload it, and whose justification for uploading it was that it was likely to be pulled by those who do. And this is good in what way, precisely? Guy (Help!) 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to attempt to arbitrate copyright disputes. In general, we're a mass of (legally) uneducated non-lawyers with at best a poor grasp of copyright and related issues and laws. My support is not for this particular copy of the video but for the video in general.

The quality of video is a non-issue - the material is of such historic importance that we take what we can get. I'm not sure I'd want a nice, well-lit, high-definition copy of an execution, anyway... :) --ElKevbo 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support with no warning but a clear description. A clear description should be more than sufficient to notify readers that, yes, this is an uncensored video of an execution. A warning on top of a clear description is not only overkill but an insult to our readers' intelligence. --ElKevbo 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support with no warning; just a description, per rationales mentioned in previous sections. -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support for all videos, with a clear description- including the fact that the video contains someone being killed.Fishies Plaice 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support clear description of what's going on, maybe to the extent of mentioning that there is blood. I am not in favor of an explicit warning because it must be written in the second person, which is (in my opinion) unencyclopedic. (i.e., "Warning" or "Caution" clearly must be directed at the reader to be efficacious, and "Viewer discretion advised" implies a link between this "viewer" and the person actively deciding whether to click the link or not: once again, second person. A possible exception to this rule might be Introduction to special relativity, which is more wikibooks-like than encyclopedic anyway.) I have not seen the video myself, but am aware of its content from descriptions by several sources within the media. Gracenotes^T § 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose inclusion:

• Oppose -- not from a reliable source. Jkelly 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, you question the validity of the videos? ~ UBeR 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

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

• I like to use the expression "Edit Jihad", and it certainly fits here, ja? :) Wahkeenah 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the only thing that is still being argued about is the time of the execution. However, I would like to clear up this issue first, in an organized manner, so that we don't have to be concerned with arguing about it anymore. Also, the caution tag issue needs some resolution. Gracenotes^T § 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer to "Who released the video"

and if you want to know who first released it: it was the head of security in Iraq.

Latif Yahia, who acted as a body double for Saddam's son Uday received the controversial camera phone footage in an email from the head of security in Iraq. "Two hours after the execution I received an email from him saying: 'This is the footage of your dad being hanged, ha, ha, ha." [15]

I will leave it to you (i.e. any editor) to add this information to the article - ClemMcGann 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

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

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

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

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

Crimes against humanity

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

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

Under the trial section it says: "Saddam Hussein and eleven senior Ba'athist officials were handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide." ~ UBeR 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is exactly what I mean. We're told Saddam is responsible for as many as half a million of his own peoples' deaths. He was sentanced for 142 of them, but if that's all he was guilty of, there never woulf have been an intervention. 142 summary executions ( mass murder ) is less brutal than what's going on today in Azerbijan. Genocide in particular seems like very important context. You're right that it's mentioned, but perhaps it should be "above the fold?" FireWeed 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right. It'd be appropriate to note the significance of the crimes he was accused of (genocide, etc.) in the trail portion. Mostly because this is about the execution of the Saddam. It'd be more appropriate to go into depth about the accusations in Saddam Hussein article. But because this is mostly about his execution, I don't think we shouldn't get too bent over his genocide mentions. ~ UBeR 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. ~ UBeR 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please notice that mister or miss "rediculous," making these silly arguments and not signing them, is someone else. Just because it's being posted under a section I created ( about the depth of Saddam's crimes ), please don't associate them with me. FireWeed 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. He is IP: 66.99.3.118. He's been asked by an admin to sign his posts, but he doesn't listen. ~ UBeR 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which version of the video to use?

So, youtube and google have two different versions of the mobile phone video of the hanging.

• [16] The video on you tube. Advantages are that it has a transcript of the conversation, and doesn't feature superimposed writing on the video.
• [17] The video on google. Has "Anwarweb.net" superimposed on the video.

I think the youtube version is better, and switched to the youtube version on the main page, but was reverted. So thought I'd bring the discussion here. Fishies Plaice 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Video

Uber and 64... put warning under video, if it has to stay here. Also 64 has a point, i put back important links!added warning under execution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.125.116.198 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

All right, this is currently debated, so any changes you make now may have to yield to final consensus. (See above for a straw poll: feel free to cast your opinion.) Thank you very much for being bold. Gracenotes^T § 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the current consensus is and has been no warning. ~ UBeR 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct Link to Full Video

I really think that we should not have a link, direct or not, to this website http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org which contains jems such as "retarded asian porn" Not to mention, who knows how long that site will host the file.

I found a link on Digg to box.net hosting the file, which is ad free and permanent, and much more PG to visit.

I suggest replacing http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/download/index.php?Saddam-hung.wmv with http://www.box.net/public/enwiki/static/lpg6ob997l.avi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magic5227 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Lol good point. However, there are two problems. Box.net doesn't seem to be any more reliable to keep hosting the video than contemporaryinsanity.org does. Second, I'm not sure how compatible avi's are compared to wmv's. ~ UBeR 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue with the reliability. They seem to exist completely to host files :: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=contemporaryinsanity.org

Also, i'm not sure about the WMV, that could be a whole other argument im sure. But anyways, they seem to have that version as well.

http://www.box.net/public/enwiki/static/k7vrrx91is.wmv