Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

POLL ON HOW WE SHOULD REFERENCE SADDAM HUSSEIN

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Why is it locked?

• Can someone clarify on this discussion page why the article was protected. Was the reason for that the disagreement about the proper name format? (doesn't sound like a big deal to me) Or was it something that is already moved to discussion archive? (If yes, what was that, why was it moved and does the page still needs to be protected?) Paranoid 12:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • There was an edit war and User:RickK protected the article. He's following the discussion on the talk page; and I trust that he knows when to best remove the protection. 172 12:28, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, you may trust him, but it is totally unclear to visitors to the talk page what is the status of the discussion. If some parts need to be rewritten, supported with references, etc., people may want to help, but there is no discussion on the talk page (only in archives) of what needs to be fixed. Paranoid 12:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's locked because of the edit war as to whether the use of "Sadam" is offensive. It's up to Lir. If he wants to participate in this discussion and to abide by the consensus, I'll unlock it, but if he plans on reverting as soon as the page is unprotected, then there's no point in unprotecting it. RickK 19:13, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin

THe omission of Saddam Hussein's fascination with Stalin in the article in inexcusable, IMO. Paranoid 05:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What are your ideas regarding how to best address this matter? 172 05:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tell about when he was introduced to Stalin's history, his books and ideas. Tell about Saddam Hussein's library (the whole collection of Stalin's works that he read a lot). Give some Saddam's quotes about Stalin. Tell about how he adopted Stalin's strategies, methods and even appearance.

I didn't have enough sleep today, so I can't write this myself right now. :) Paranoid 06:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with these assertions. When it comes to adding them to the article, I guess that it comes down to how weighty are the most credible references, as we have to be a bit cautious. The bulk of the personal anecdotes that can be added to the article are likely true but unfortunately come our way through rumor, circumstantial evidence, unsubstantiated defectors' testimony, propaganda, speculation, psychological profiling, and the like. Was this library collection discovered while his palaces were raided? (I don't remember hearing anything about this lately, but this may be my ignorance.) At any rate, whenever we get around to working on this matter, I think that a note on Stalin may fit well in the section in which this paragraph appears:

Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. He had one of them read out the names of members that Saddam thought could oppose him. These members were labeled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one-by-one to face a firing squad. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. [We could then go on to note how many analysts have seen this as coming from Stalin's playbook.] 172 07:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think finding sources will be a very big problem, as Saddam was very open about his attitude towards Stalin. Some references can be found in numerous interviews with him, some in interviews with his former friends and subordinates (many of these interviews were friendly and made before the invasion, so they can be trusted to a large extent). There may also be articles by some historians/political scientists, etc. As for the library itself, I don't think it was that big of a deal (for it to be reported). Stalin's (and Lenin's) works weren't in short supply during the Soviet time. I had a complete collection of Lenin's works at home (50 volumes at least), for example. At any rate, I'll try to look into this later today. Paranoid 08:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. I've read many such comparisons by historians and political scientists. But this is a biographical piece, as opposed to a work in comparative history or comparative politics (and this is out of my league, as I am not a professional Middle East specialist). When I was bringing up the need for solid referencing, I was thinking about the biographical stuff, such as him having his own personal library on Stalin. At any rate, I'll also try to look into this later today. 172 08:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After "... We got him!"

Who said "Saddam Hussein was captured Saturday, December 13, at about 8:30 p.m. local in a cellar in the town of Adwar, which is about 15 kilometers south of Tikrit." ?

Is this worth adding with attribution?

An attribution can't hurt. I'll go ahead and add one. 172 09:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How much oil?

"Tensions with Kuwait" calims that Iraq+Kuwait=20% of World reserves, while The Gulf War claims 20% of Persian Gulf reserves. Which is correct? Rich Farmbrough 12:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Saddam article is correct. For a reference on Kuwait, see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ku.html. For one on Iraq, see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/oil_4-24-03.html. BTW, would it be helpful to add these links to the notes section? 172 01:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

It is convenient that the cabal has archived discussion in which other users agreed with my position. The article must bear a prominent notice that there is academic dispute over the best way to refer to this individual. Lirath Q. Pynnor

But is there an academic dispute? Is anyone making a serious case that Hussein is his surname? If not, it is only those who falsely make that assumption who may think the use of the short form Saddam is inappropriate. And for those, I agree we should have a note explaining it. We currently have a footnote linked to the name right at the beginning. If this is not prominent enough, I suppose we could move it up. Gzornenplatz 01:33, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Lir, let me know why my edits ((mention which Bush and who he is)) were reverted. Jay 19:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir once again defies consensus

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

updated saddam hussein images

Can anyone locate some images taken today that we can use here? Kingturtle 20:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

added one. Paranoid 21:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pursuit and capture

I am not sure we should include that image in that section. It is degrading to Saddam Hussein and we do not appear to include images of other people taken during their time in prison (check out Nuremberg Trials, for example, Alfred Rosenberg). I think the image should be removed. Paranoid 20:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree (though not strongly). That photo was circulated far and wide and was a major news item, and it seems quite appropriate in the "capture" section. It's not even horribly unflattering. VV 21:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily's right. Of course these pictures belong in this article. After all, this is a biographical entry and Saddam Hussein himself is the one in detention. This is the culmination of his life as a political leader, and these visuals are just as important as, say, the picture of Saddam talking with his Bakr. 172 22:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you both to some extent. The photo was a major news item (though only because the US military chose to release it and not some other pic - this photo has "psyops" written all over it). But the photo is clearly as POV as an image can be. It tells us "Saddam is a broken man, the mighty US army defeated him, nobody likes him anymore". But this is extremely biased and so is inappropriate. Saddam was not convicted of anything yet. He still remains the last popularly elected leader of Iraq. He is defiant, he probably has enormous control over the process by means of the compromising information on Bush and his cronies. Saddam's tale is far from over and so the image is a misleading piece of official American propaganda. 172, why don't you think that something else was (or will be) a culmination? May be Saddam will force Bush to resign? :) And let me repeat that in other Wikipedia articles such images were not included. If we don't include the photo of Rosenberg's with his brains splattered over the walls (wouldn't that be the culmination of his racially superior Aryan life), there is no reason to include the photo of unshaved Saddam. Paranoid 22:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I should've called it the most recent chapter of his career. :)Anyway, I see your point; we'll need to strike a balance between properly illustrating every chapter of his political life and avoiding U.S. propaganda. I didn't see anything wrong with the pics of him in custody right now, but I'd like the input of other users. 172 22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how a picture can be any more degrading than the facts spelled out in the text of the article. Besides, the image is perhaps the most famous single picture of Saddam in existence; if for no other reason, it belongs in the article for the purposes of documenting changes in the perceptions of the man. Any POV that might be inherent in the picture can be negated by an explanation of its full context in the caption or article text. We shouldn't ignore the propangda, but rather defuse and explain it. -- Seth Ilys 22:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture should be included. Lirath Q. Pynnor

the picture can be complemented by the propaganda portraits of him. I don't see why it's okay to include propaganda portraits on not this photo (which can be considered opposing propaganda). Pictures dont lie. I support adding it back. --Jiang 01:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would appreciate if those who support inclusion of that pic would explain what is so special about Saddam Hussein article that warrants it. Why don't we include screenshots from Paris Hilton video in the article about her? The image was a major news item too as well as the culmination of her life as a celebrity. I'd like an explanation why not include it, but include Saddam's pic. Let me repeat, I am not saying that there are no reasons to include it (there are), I am just saying that doing so would be contrary to Wikipedia practices and NPOV policy. Paranoid 05:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who would have guessed that Saddam would look so dapper and "in command" at his court appearance a few days ago? A shot of him in his pin-striped suit, with no tie, and his new short beard would have so much more significance if it followed the shot of him after his capture. This discussion here has only considered how a photo plays against earlier photos, but now we can see how it can play against subsequent photos. Since we can't predict what photos will be taken in the future we might as well include any shots that have value as cultural artifacts, and allow future contributors to build on those.

Trial material

Why was the trial material deleted just now? --Gary D 01:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because of Lir. See below. VV 01:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming matter

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Please add...

When this dispute is settled, would someone please add this article to Category:US-Iraqi relations? Thanks. --Beland 01:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Origin of 'Saddam' name: Conflicting versions

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Project Babylon

I think we should mention Project Babylon here somewhere, since this is the man who commissioned it... -- EmperorBMA|話す 07:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"sometimes spelled"

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Gzornenplatz's Compromise

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Censorship of trial procedings

Should this information be included in the section on the trial?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20040701/va_ne_al/sounds_of_silence_3

68.156.75.40 13:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. And perhaps we need to get ready for a huge article specifically about the trial. Paranoid 14:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Photos

Using those images is a possible COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Stop this madness. --Cantus 05:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cantus and Guanaco:

The photos that are being flagged for "possible copyright vios" are fair use. The original sources of the photos and videos in question are released by/leaked from Saddam-era Iraq (not international media sources like AP, Reuters, BBC, etc.). But I doubt that Saddam's going to sue us, and every single international media outlet that has put them on file. 172 05:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very well then. Add the exact source for EVERY photo flagged with a copyvio and then you can start uncommenting them in the article. --Cantus 05:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is fair use here. Pics like Saddam/Rana, Saddam/Bakr, etc. were taken by regime photographers. There is no single source that can be found for them. Countless international media outlets have put them on file and have reproduced them countless times. 172 05:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Put that info into the Image's pages and then uncomment each in the article. --Cantus 05:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cantus, please, ordering people around is not going to help. This can be best addressed by deliberating on the talk page first, and opening the discussion up to more users. Not only is there no no practical need to make sweeping changes to the article without first deliberating on talk, doing so risks causing confusion and edit wars, which we both do not want. 172 05:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco was the one that started it after he didn't find copyright information. This needs to be clarified. WhisperToMe 06:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, for now can we all recognize the pics called into question released by/leaked from the old regime as fair use (Saddam and Rana, Saddam greeting the crowd in Baghdad, Saddam and Bakr, Saddam and Cuellar)? The pics that were recently added (and which I recently removed) seem to be the copyright problems (e.g., the mural of Saddam shooting the rifle). 172 06:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cantus, Some of the recent changes have been good. However, please stop replacing the portrait pic toward the top with "Saddamstoic," which is less recent. Also, the pics that you want added to the 1991-2003 section and the section on secular leadership don't seem to bear a relationship with the coverage of the text in these sections, and make the page too overcrowded with pics, 172 08:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172, a portrait pic does not need to be a recent one. Saddam stoic.jpg is much more NPOV than your pic of Saddam sitting on a throne. The other pics of Saddam with the flag were not placed arbitrarily, and are not out of context. They were carefully placed in those categories, and even in chronological order. --Cantus 08:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to remove the picture of Saddam sitting on a throne, which contributes nothing to the section in which you keep on adding it. 172 08:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172, it is related on how he ruled. He sat on a throne like a king and acted kingly. WhisperToMe 23:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172, will you please stop reverting this article? You insist on putting a smiling photo of Saddam on top, instead of the more NPOV photo in military outfit. You changed the very good trial image provided by the DoD with a small screen grab from CNN. This is nonsense! Please stop this. --Cantus 02:45, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cantus, WhisperToMe: I don't believe a portrait (that is, the opening picture) is the right place to express views on a person. He may have acted kingly, but that can be said in the article. The portrait is to show what he looks like; putting up an unflattering portrait is like calling him Saddam "Insane" Hussein. So, I don't understand how a military uniform portrait is more NPOV. I similarly resisted attempts to put in a portrait of Bush that made him look like a monkey and one of Pinochet that made him look like "Darth Vader" (as another user put it) - although many have strong feelings on those people as well. However, I'm too confused by this edit war and what it's even about to get involved right now. VV[[]] 04:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with VV that this is silly. Should we replace the image on Dick Cheney with an old one of him speaking for Halliburton because of his facial expression? Guanaco 05:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Gzornenplatz's compromise

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Image

172 and I cannot agree on which images to use for the Intro and Trial sections. Your input in necessary.

What is the better image for the intro:

1) This image:

File:Saddam stoic.jpg

Votes:

1. Cantus 01:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I didn't want this to become a poll, really.
2. Quadell (talk) 12:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) - This isn't a strong opinion, but I think this one is marginally better.
3. While it doesn't belong in the intro -- it does belong in the article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Brief Arguments Against:

• Saddam is not orange. (Lir)

2) Or this image:

File:Saddam Hussein (107).jpg

Votes:

1. Lirath Q. Pynnor
2. WhisperToMe
3. Gzornenplatz
4. Guanaco 04:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Brief Arguments Against:

• He looks goofy. --Cantus 05:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the better image for the Trial section:

1) This image released by the DoD to the press:

File:TrialSaddam.jpg

Votes:

1. Lirath Q. Pynnor
2. Cantus 01:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. WhisperToMe
4. Gzornenplatz
5. Guanaco 04:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) The image use policy states that we should go with the free image.

2) Or this screengrab provided by CNN:

File:Saddamtrial.jpg

1. Quadell (talk) 12:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) He looks less goofy.

--Cantus 00:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion:

I think that both of the top images are good. I would place 172's at the top, and Cantus' in the "Gulf War" section.

172 himself doesn't agree with a lot of pictures being used in the first place, but I think this page needs just a bit more pics. As for the bottom ones, I would choose Cantus' simply because it is less grainy. WhisperToMe 01:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We do not want to be adding pics gratuitously. Nine right now is already more than enough. Nor is my position limiting it to eight or nine really extreme. A while ago Adam Carr, e.g., wanted no more than two. Still, at least messing around with this article diverts Cantus' attention from removing the clitoris image over and over again. [1] 172 01:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So full of rage aren't you? But I digress, I believe the first image fits the intro better, as it is more pleasant to the eye, and much more portrait-like. --Cantus 01:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The issue is which image is more up-to-date and appropriate for a biographical entry, not which image you find more "pleasing to the eye." At any rate, Saddam apparently stopped wearing his green military fatigues in public in the late 1990s. He appeared in public in Western business suits until the 2003 Iraq War, when he gave a couple of addresses on Iraqi state TV and greeted the cheering crowds in Baghdad as coalition troops were closing in on the city. According to some reports, he chose to start wearing Western suits when Kofi Annan told him that it would make him appear more like a statesman during his trip to Baghdad as a mediator in 1998. The current portrait pic was taken during his last couple of years in power, is representative of the post-First Gulf War era of his regime, and is a more appropriate portrait for a biographical entry. If this picture is replaced, it should be replaced by a more recent one, not an even more outdated one. 172 02:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are completely wrong on this one. There is NO need to put the most recent picture of person as a portrait. See entries for Saddam at Britannica [2] and Encarta [3]; none of the pictures there are recent, yet the articles are very much up to date. WhisperToMe also makes a good point below. I believe the picture of him in military outfit is FAR more REPRESENTATIVE of who he was in Iraq for more than 20 years, than your recent washed-out Westernized version. --Cantus 03:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we get "real real recent", we would have pics of people as old men at the top of the article. I think, however, that the pic 172 is pushing should be at the top while the pic Cantus is pushing should be in the Gulf War section, as that uniform became well known during the Gulf War. WhisperToMe 02:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Gulf War section already has the picture of him meeting with Cuellar, and he is wearing the green military fatigues in that picture. 172 03:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is meant by "personally modified" -- did he personally alter the flag, or did he merely order someone else to do so? Lirath Q. Pynnor

He made a capricious decision, as he so often did, to have the Arabic for "God is great" inserted into the flag (despite the fact that he had been very secular for decades) in order to drum up support among Muslims against the U.S. during the first Gulf War (in 1991). He ordered it modified. Quadell (talk) 12:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

For the trial image, we should use the DoD one, since it is presumably public domain. Snowspinner 02:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

July 2004 protection

Is there an ETA on unprotection? There's been little discussion here. --Golbez 07:28, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Latest protection

This article was protected by User:WhisperToMe just a few minutes ago. Why? I have no idea. There was no ongoing edit war AT ALL. Maybe he saw my BIG COMMENTS in the Summary and thought there was an edit war going on. Too bad he didn't bother to actually check the article history before wrongly protecting the article. --Cantus 23:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seemed like one to me. Calm down and work things out here first. WhisperToMe 23:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was absolutely no edit war going on at the moment. Things have already been worked out. See above Talk. Keep in mind this article was protected the last 5 days. Please unprotect. Thanks. --Cantus 23:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cantus, unlike the photos of Saddam meeting with Cuellar and his Baghdad walkabout during the 2003 Gulf War-- two important events that warrant mentioning in a biographical entry about Saddam, the image you find so "pleasing to the eye" contributes nothing to the article. Your capition states that he's wearing his familar green military fatigues, but this is the case regarding several of the photos already placed in the article. Please, give it a rest. 172 23:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you realize the George W. Bush article has 17 (!) images and a lot are not directly related to the surrounding text? Why can't we have one not-completely-explicitly-directly-related-to-the-surrounding-text image without you immediately removing it? --Cantus 02:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Problems with one article don't require us to create problems here. 172 04:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that's a really lame argument. I expected better from you. --Cantus 06:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the picture should stay, unline in paper encyclopedias, images are easy to add and pleasing to the eye. They also make the text block smaller and thus easier to read. Saddam is on the photo, it should stay. -- Solitude 09:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hussein was not an army officer

I don't object to the inclusion of the photo; however, I do believe that the first image should be of Hussein wearing civilian attire -- if the first image shows a military uniform, that gives the inappropriate impression that he was primarily a military officer. Showing him in that manner, would be akin to Bush's first photo showing him in his air force uniform. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Safe to unprotect now

The only reason this page was protected was because I insisted on adding a picture and 172 insisted on removing it.

Well, I have given up on readding the image, so it can be unprotected now.

Sigh.

--Cantus 08:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Speaking as the one who protected the page) - the current edit war was only the last in a long line of edit wars on this page. I'm really tired of seeing this page constantly the subject of an edit war, so I'm going to leave it protected until *all* the issues are sorted out here. →Raul654 08:14, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Funny you say that, because the image issue was *the* last issue left and is now gone. --Cantus 08:17, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wish there could be a discussion of substantive matters for once. Earlier today, for example, I rewrote much of an entire section [4], but no one seems to comment (or seems to care), but trivialities like pictures and intros are the sources of edit wars. I mean, I wrote almost the entire article, and hardly anyone seems to be concerned with that, but almost everyone is preoccupied about a single footnote and what images are used where. 172 08:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe it. You now want people to revert your text additions? You aren't happy until you get involved in a good ideological war, are you? Crazy. Be GREATFUL people has not reverted your text additions. That means they are WELCOMED. Sheesh. --Cantus 08:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I said I wanted a substantive discussion of the article. I was making an interesting observation that the pictures seem to matter more than the text, that's all. The text seems to be going unnoticed while the pictures get all the attention. 172 08:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, well, I see you've been quite busy over at Fidel Castro. 50 reverts nonstop over one word in a period of 2 hours. I'm speechless. --Cantus 08:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was even busier on History of post-Soviet Russia last week, where I could rewrite and improve an entire article in peace without having to deal with nonsense. 172 08:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172...if you want to discuss your writing so bad, start at the beginning -- New Imperialism...we can get to post-soviet Russia in due time. Lirath Q. Pynnor

BTW, good work on consolidating Images of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps we can start working on expanding the captions there. 172 08:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding birthdate footnote

Seems like good info, but where then did the date of Apr. 28 1937 come from? I presume the date was remembered by the family even if not officially recorded, or otherwise chosen at random? Also, it might be a good idea to add a similar note to al-Bakr's article, since his birthdate actually is given as July 1. Everyking 10:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addition and deletion of Saddam's health scam

172 removed my addition of the following:

Conflicting reports of Hussein's failing health circulated in different media during the last week of July 2004. Al Jazeera, The Times of India, and The Mirror report that he has suffered a stroke and that the International Red Cross has stated he had a brain scan to discover how badly the stroke affected Hussein. More recent reports [5] indicate that a possible prostate problem requiring X-rays was exaggerated. CBC in Canada reports that Muin Kassis, spokesperson for the Internation Red Cross, said on July 29th that there is no evidence to support claims of Hussein's failing health.

172's summary comment was "I don't know if this article should be a dumping ground for every news story that comes out in the tabloid media about Saddam Hussein". I added this after removing an anon's link to the hoax being presented in many middle eastern press. I found the hoax and its truth to be relevent to the trial as a means of gaining sympathy. It seemed like a ploy by supporters to get public view on his side.

I really don't feel any need to fight for the paragraph I created but wanted to record this to prevent the anon user from continuing to create links to the hoax press releases. - Tεxτurε 18:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if we should go into the subject of his health as of yet. As of now, we're still dealing with rumor, speculation, and conjecture. We must be careful to keep this already lengthy article biographical, focused broadly on his entire career, as opposed to a bulletin board of every recent news story that comes out about Saddam Hussein. (BTW, perhaps there can be an article along the lines of "news about Saddam Hussein." Just an idea.) 172 18:39, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

However you guys work it out, this items seems sufficiently noteworthy to be included somewhere. --Gary D 18:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps on the page about the trial, to be kept (if found to be ture and significant) or later deleted (if found to be false or minor)? Andy Mabbett 18:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)