Talk:Saddam Hussein

Umm, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those recent changes that I can see. Why do people keep reverting them as vandalism? --Lezek

I'll answer my own question; removal of some information. glad to see some effort has been made to merge the two now. --Lezek

I removed the bit about sanctions. This is (or should be) discussed in greater detail and with more accuracy in a different article. DanKeshet 18:36 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there something funny-looking about the first photo on this page? His arm looks far too small for his head. It's probably better than nothing, but if anybody knows where to get a better photo of him (preferably not one where's he's firing a gun - using such a photo might be contrued as a political comment), then I think it should be replaced. --Camembert

The photo with a gun is a fake, you can see the original at http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june98/1990.html

Thanks Google ! -Ericd 21:52 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

That is not the same photo. His head is at a different angle and the background is different. -◈¡◈

Exactly what i was about to say except about teh background (because that can be changed too) -fonzy

In my opinion they both look a bit fake. At any rate I think the current one violates NPOV. - Hephaestos

I do not understand the concept of an undoctored photograph violating NPOV. -◈¡◈

He's saying it makes him look like he's a gun/bomb/nucelar weapons/ wilding maniac (reminds me of bush). - fonzy

Assuming the photo is undoctored, then showing the photo is akin to representing a fact. Any POV is in the mind of the viewer and not in the picture itself. -◈¡◈

Good, then no one will mind if I put [1] up at George W. Bush. ;) - Hephaestos 22:43 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Speaking only for ◈¡◈, some people may "mind", but I don't think they can accuse the picture itself of being NPOV. -◈¡◈

It is, of course, not the picture itself that's POV, undoctored pictures don't lie. It is the use of a particular picture in a certain context that lends the POV. - Hephaestos 22:47 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these other photos of Saddam holding a gun would be considered more flattering [2] [3] [4] [5]? If some wikipedians suffer from cognitive dissonance resulting from simultaneously having an anti-gun and pro-saddam bias (or perhaps a pro-gun and anti-saddam bias), they could begin by addressing their personal biases. If this isn't possible, a photo such as [6] could be used, although this would be at the risk of offending wikipedians with pro-gun/pro-saddam biases or anti-gun/anti-saddam biases. -◈¡◈

"More flattering" misses the point entirely. What we should be going for is neutrality. - Hephaestos 23:10 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

My point was simply that all undoctored photos are inherently NPOV. That doesn't mean that all photos are appropriate for all purposes. An autopsy photograph of John F Kennedy is NPOV, but it isn't appropriate for being the main image on his biography. -◈¡◈

Right at second look it's not the same photo but a modern press camera will take at least 5 pictures per second.

Here is a fact http://www.nsec-88.org/ruzne/hitler/hitler12.gif

Ericd 22:59 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Why does he have a civilian suit ? Is it a war rifle ? He may like hunting isn'it ?

Ericd 23:05 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

He is most likely wearing a suit because he feels comfortable in it. There is no such thing as a "war rifle", any more than there is a thing as a "war typewriter". The rifle in question appears to be a Lee-Enfield. -◈¡◈

This is a Lee-Enfield No. 4 Rifle captured from a British battalion defeated by Iraqi rebels in 1920.

Ericd 23:27 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the photo. It is to the right for the benefit of anyone who questions whether it should be in there. Whether you want to call it not-NPOV or simply inappropriate is up to you, but in any event, I don't think it belongs on the article for reasons already stated. --Camembert

Camembert, by moving the photo are you admitting to some sort of antigun bias? Unless one sees firearms in a negative light, I'm not sure why this photo would be seen in a negative light. Whatever your reason, I've already pointed out [7] as an alternative. -◈¡◈

I'm not admitting to anything. Guns are associated with violence and our use of this photo might therefore be taken as a suggestion that Saddam Hussein is a violent man. Maybe Saddam Hussein is indeed a violent man, I don't know, but that's a POV and we can't express it. And thankyou for the alternative photo, but it is too large to use as it is, and I don't have the resources to shrink it. If somebody else does, it might be better to crop it to head-and-shoulders rather than shrink the whole thing, by the way (but I'm not really very great with photos, so I may be well off the mark there). --Camembert

Ah, Hephaestos just added a photo better than both the old one and the above-suggested. No gun, no benevolent grin. Thanks, Hephaestos. --Camembert

Ah, I too have done as you requested, Sahib. Personally, I thought the gun was quite a dashing fashion accessory. -◈¡◈

Every picture "lies" or at least can show a POV. Every serious photographer knows. Framing in itself is choosing. Ericd

Thank you for pointing that out. Also lens choice, film stock, lighting, distance to subject rah rah rah.

Exposure, shutter speed, focus. (For instance, after 30 most people look younger slighty out of focus.)

Ericd 01:01 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

We really could use an article on Tikrit and the influence of its citizens on Iraq as a whole. I wish I knew enough to do something other than a very stubbish article. -- Zoe

Please could someone explain the correct spelling of Hussein's name. Googling one can find out that the overwhelming majority of web pages give the full name of "Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti". However only four sources, including Brittanica use "Saddam Hussein at-Tikriti". Someone who asked an Arabist about the matter says the latter spelling is the right one (or perhaps more correct).
Kpjas 19:55 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Generally, the article is always spelled in Arabic as al-, but the l in pronunciation is usually assimilated to the following consonant. So, it is spelled al-Tikriti but pronounced as at-Tikriti. The difference in the English spelling is the philosophical difference as to whether the English spelling of Arabic should reflect Arabic spelling or Arabic pronunication. I don't have a position which philosophy is more "correct." SCCarlson 20:12 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that. See also http://www.worldofradio.com/dxld3022.txt (search for Saddam), where his name is given as "Saddam Hussein al-Majd al-Takriti", with full details on the pronounciation. ( 20:35 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is Saddam married to three women right now, or did he marry and divorce each time? This is unclear in the article. Graft

I deleted the first sentence of the bottom picture's caption. Not out of any political point, but because two sentence captions seem excessive. -- Zoe

From the article: However, Hussein's government is the only one in the world that has rapists on its payroll and uses rape as one method of punishing women who have broke the law. That's such a bold claim it sounds almost propagandistic, and the bad grammar in "have broke the law" makes me even more suspicious of it. Is there any evidence to support this charge? -- Branden

Self-followup: state-sponsored rape, even in the context of a judicial system, is not unheard of; consider [8] this example from Pakistan (and this, we may note, happened during the time when the U.S. was allied with Pakistan in the "War on Terror", so it failed to cause much outrage in the American press). At the same time that instance sounds exactly like the same sort of theocratic court ruling that Hussein is credited in the same article with helping to abolish in quest to "secularize" Iraq. Fact or BS? Anyone? -- Branden

I had nothing to do with writing the above statement, but... The U.N., The European Union's Commission for Human Rights, and Human rights organizations like the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, the Coalition for Justice in Iraq, Physicians for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross and others have documented Iraq's state-sponsored rape for decades. Do a search on the net for "Iraq" and "human rights".. you'll get hundreds of articles (including some by French human rights groups) that discuss this (and other) horrible behavior by the Hussein government. Here's a few links that I see right off hand... [9], [10], [11], [12], etc, etc, etc...