Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 29 September 2004

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | /Archive 4

Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming contains the collected discussion on the naming of Saddam Hussein. Please do not attempt to change the use of Saddam's name in this article without reading and understanding the archived discussion. Thank you. The archive includes the following issues:

• "Saddam" vs "Hussein" vs "Saddam Hussein" as the short form of the name in the article.
• Whether there should be some form of disclaimer regards which is "correct" on the article
• Transliterations: Husayn vs Hussain

A collection of images that are not currently being used in the article is preserved for reference at Talk:Saddam Hussein/Images.

Recent additions to section on the 2003 Iraq War

A lot of detail has been added to the section on the 2003 Iraq War, which I removed. I think that it's excessive, more suitable for the article on the 2003 Iraq War, as opposed to a biographical entry on Saddam Hussein. (If anything, the sections dealing with the years before the Iran-Iraq War are the ones that should be expanded-- certainly not the sections on the last couple of years, which are naturally receiving significant attention. The user who made these additions, of course, disagrees, so some feedback on the contending versions of the article is necessary. (BTW, the article already reaches nearly 50K, and is one of Misplaced Pages's longest.) 172 02:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is what I added / modified the "2003 Iraq war" passage to:

As the 90's progressed, Saddam continued to loom large in American consciousness as a major threat to Western allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, to Western oil supplies from the Gulf states, and to Middle East stability generally. The uncertain state of weapons inspections retained fears of Saddam's concealed WMD capabilities, and many continued to believe Saddam was determined to conceal his weapons programs from the international community. Bush's successor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), maintained sanctions and made occasional air strikes in the "Iraqi no-fly zones" or other restrictions, in the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by his many political enemies. In 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act which clearly established US policy towards Iraq as being one to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq" and "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power."

This paragraph is veering off topic in particular, having more to do with United States politics than the career Saddam Hussein and Iraqi politics. 172 04:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The domestic political equation changed in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which bolstered the influence of the strongly anti-Saddam so-called neoconservative faction in the presidential administration and throughout Washington.

The addition of "strongly anti-Saddam" is extemporaneous. No one on the U.S. political scene will be caught dead characterizing himself as anything but "strongly anti-Saddam." This doesn't really distinguish the neoconservatives. 172 04:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In his January 2002 state-of-the-union message to Congress, George W. Bush (the son of George H.W. Bush) spoke of an "axis of evil" comprising Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. Moreover, Bush announced that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government. Bush claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror," said Bush.

On September 12, 2002 Bush adressed the United Nations arguing his case against Saddam, calling Saddam's regime "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront." In response the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441, demanding Iraq resume weapons inspections or face "serious consequences." Iraq obliged, and the inspections resumed. Though the inspections, headed by Dr. Hans Blix were generally regarded as more co-operative than in the past, concerns remained that Saddam's government was still not being fully compliant. The Bush administration pressed for a second, more strongly worded resolution that could presumable authorize military action against Iraq, but veto-holders France and Russia objected. It soon became clear that the United States was determined to depose Saddam's government with or without UN sanction.

As the war was looming on February 24, 2003, Saddam Hussein talked with CBS News anchor Dan Rather for more than three hours—his first interview with a U.S. reporter in over a decade. CBS aired the taped interview later that week.

On March 18, 2003 Bush announced that Saddam and his two sons had 24 hours to leave Iraq or military action would commence. Saddam refused, and on March 20 the invasion formally began. The Iraqi government and military collapsed within three weeks of the beginning of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States made at least two attempts to kill Saddam with targeted air strikes, but both narrowly failed to hit their target. By the beginning of April Coalition forces occupied much of Iraq. The resistance of the much-weakened Iraqi Army either crumbled or shifted to guerrilla tactics, and it appeared that Saddam had lost control of Iraq. He was last seen in a video which purported to show him in the Baghdad suburbs surrounded by supporters. When Baghdad fell to the Coalition on April 9, Saddam was nowhere to be found.

At present much of the context of the Iraq war is missing from the page. My edits only make the page slightly longer by one paragraph and a couple small sentences. It's relevant to discuss the start of war which brought Saddam down, that's as much part of his biography as anything else, considering the role he played in the events. I don't see anything else on this page that describes the UN security council resolutions, or much of Bush's reasoning for the invasion. As well, I made a few small NPOV edits to other words in the section which I believe help the page (for example the pointless bit about how no evidence between 9-11 and Saddam has been found, even though there is no allegation of that by Bush or anyone else quoted in the article.) Personally I think 172 is on a bit of a power-trip with this page. Every edit has to meet his personal approval or it gets instantly reverted. 172: you've already stated your pride that you've written most of the article. Give some other people a turn to add to it or modify what you've written. That's the wikipedia way. No one owns an article. It's long, I realize, but there are a lot of other rambling bits that can be cut back or made more sufficient. Besides, as one of the biggest newsmakers in recent years, Saddam's article deserves to be one of Misplaced Pages's longest. user:J.J.

Yes, it does need to be one of Misplaced Pages's longest. But it does not need to be an article on the 2003 Iraq War. BTW, the personalities of the authors of this article are irrelevant to this disagreement. Let's just wait for the input of additional users. 172 03:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From CBC: The U.S. alleges Saddam's regime killed more than 300,000 Iraqis. So far, the only place I have seen such casualties discussed is someplace in the middle of Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq, but it is politically important today. Shouldn't some sort of mention of them, and explanation of available figures, be added to this or some related article?

Regime

The word "regime" appears fifteen times in the article, more than in any comparable entry I could find. I suspect it is not a coincidence that the US administration has repeatedly used it to refer to Iraq under Saddam. The word has a strong negative connotation, at least in US politics.

Few would dispute that Saddam Hussein's rule was brutal and oppressive, but it seems to me that the article pounds the reader with "regime". Wouldn't words like government, administration, or even dictatorship provide the same amount of information in a more neutral manner? Wmahan. 23:46, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Nah, it's a value-neutral term. There was discussion about this a while ago on Talk:History of the Soviet Union (now found at Talk:History of the Soviet Union/archive 2) Please take a look at that discussion; it sheds light on the issue that you're raising. 172 23:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The BBC have been talking about the Iraqi "regime" post-handover, for what it's worth. Martin

OK, it sounds like there is a good argument that it can be a neutral term. Thanks for the link, 172. I still think the word has taken on a negative character in US public discourse, apart from the definitions as a mode of government or government in power given by dictionary.com and m-w.com. I think that's at least worth being aware of. Wmahan. 19:50, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

UN Sanctions: off-topic?

I'm genuinely curious: if it's OK for 10 paragraphs to be devoted to the Gulf War, why is it "off-topic" to expand the 1 paragraph about the UN sanctions? Particularly considering the sanctions led to the deaths of at least 8x as many Iraqis and devastated the Iraq economy; problems that were very relevant to Saddam Hussein's regime. I just wanted to make this point in case 172 tries to delete my additions again and because I may well add more to the UN sanctions section in the future. -- style 08:06, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

The sanctions are already dealt with in sufficient detail in this article. Further details can be found in the separate entries about the history of Iraq and the UN sanctions on Iraq. (And making estimates of the number of deaths caused by sanctions for our purposes here is opening up a Pandora's Box, as the estimates are going to be tinged with a political motive irrespective of the source.) 172 18:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article currently says : Only smuggling across the Syrian border, and humanitarian aid kept Iraq from humanitarian crisis. To say that there was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq during the time of the sanctions is extreme POV, if not outright falsification. I mean, two UN officials resigned, calling the sanctions "genocidal", and even people like Madeleine Albright did not deny the extent of the humanitarian crisis when she said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions had been "worth it". - pir 18:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was a strong opponent of the sanctions from the beginning. But I still think that this is a matter that requires stronger contextualization than this article can offer, and that if we go into sufficient detail, it'll be off topic. Perhaps the solution is providing a more visible link to an article about the sanctions. 172 19:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. What is the relevant sanctions article? I'll change the sentence I quoted above to Only smuggling across the Syrian border, and humanitarian aid ameliorated the humanitarian crisis. One point that has been made about the sanctions is that they re-inforced Saddam's hold on the country - surely that's not off topic though? - pir 19:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely; the sanctions have been claimed to have strengthened Saddam's regime. The sanctions are a very valid topic for this article, and if you are going to talk about the sanctions, the humanitarian costs cannot be ignored without being completely POV. -- style 21:01, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Argue your case, don't just state your opinion. Why do you consider that the sanctions were "dealt with in sufficient detail in this article" with 1 paragraph whereas the 10 paragraphs about the Gulf War are fine? And of course estimates are going to be inexact and possibly biased; which is why I have included cited upper and lower bounds from both sides of the debate (and both sides are respected organizations or researchers) following NPOV rigorously. And exactly the same criticisms can be made of the Gulf War casualty count (even more so); yet it's still in there. Do you seriously consider this article so perfect that two extra, perfectly factual sentences will ruin it?

And your continual reversion to outright factual errors (i.e. the implication that the UN placed a trade embargo after the Iraq war) is anti-Wiki. And as Pir noted, the idea that the "crisis was averted" in Iraq is also inaccurate and also incredibly POV.

Does this need a vote? Because I would prefer not to forced into a silly edit war over two measly sentences.

Also, there is no article about the UN sanctions on Iraq. Thanks for making me go on a wild goose chase.

There is only one paragraph devoted to the sanctions in the History of Iraq article. -- style 21:01, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

There were no outright factual errors in the version to which I reverted (nowhere did it state that the sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the war), but when I took another glance at your changes, I did find your opening sentence regarding UN sanctions clearer than the original one, so I subsequently restored it.

I'm glad that you alluded to the sparseness of content in the History of Iraq article (hence the need to keep this already 50K article from becoming too long and to direct users to that contrastingly underdeveloped article). That article needs significant work, and I've been meaning to expand it for a while. If you're interested in expanding the section on sanctions in that article, I'll try to see what I can do to help out. 172 21:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the account of the sanctions here should be brief (but not cursory), and the full text should be in History of Iraq (or perhaps a separate article, by itself). I'll see what I can do in future. -- style 02:58, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Change Rumsfeld video link to an equivalent open version

Hello, Presently there is text "Saddam Hussein meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, at the time Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, during a visit to Baghdad, Iraq in 1983. Video frame capture, see the complete video". The link is to a proprietary file in Microsoft Windows Media Video (MS-WMPV) format which us unplayable. Shortly I will change this link to an equivalent copy of the video in selection of modern formats which are not only compatible with Microsoft Windows Media Player. The page will still link to the MS-WMPV legacy copy of the video for compatibility. Please respond on this thread if you disagree with the video being available in a modern open format instead of only MS-WMPV. Cheers, now3d

Heck, the only thing I disagree with is keeping the legacy copy. Open formats are going to be better than closed. --Golbez 17:25, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. I have put the mirror online now with Ogg Theora as the main copy. I have not linked to the legacy copy, just the NSA archive page it originated from. Any problems with the reliablility of the url please contact me at jg "at" jguk dot - org Now3d 13:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh. When I gave my endorsement to this, I thought you meant movie files stored on Misplaced Pages. Hm. I suppose this is okay, though. And no one else cared enough to comment. :P --Golbez 01:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao

I have removed the reference to collectivisation of agriculture as a failure under Stalin and Mao, for the following reasons:

• The subject is at least debatable, and this article is not the place to discuss in detail the effects of collectivisation in countries far removed from Iraq.
• The article did not adequately distinguish Saddam Hussein's policy from that of Mao or Stalin. Indeed, it mentioned that Iraq instituted payment proportional to work performed, which was also a cornerstone of the people's communes under Mao.
• The mention of Chinese and Soviet practices seemed gratuitous. It contributed nothing of value to the discussion of Saddam Hussein.

Shorne 18:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)