Talk:Uday Hussein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Iron Maiden

I seem to have found some conflicting information in the paragraph about the iron maiden. Bold statements indicate emphasis added by me.

After the war, a correspondent for TIME magazine discovered an iron maiden of undetermined age and origin in the grounds outside the Olympic building. An iron maiden is a sarcophagus with spikes facing inward that puncture the victim's body. There is no evidence that it was ever used.

"Around 7 feet tall, three feet across and deep enough to house a grown man, the sarcophagus-shaped device found in Baghdad was clearly worn from use, its nails having lost some of their sharpness. It lay on its side within view of Uday's first-floor offices in the soccer association. Ironically, the torture device was brought to TIME's attention by a group of looters who had been stripping the compound of anything of value. They had left behind the iron maiden, believing it to be worthless."

That seems like evidence it had been used, doesn't it? --BDD 12:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Face reconstruction

I think it might be a good idea to link the face reconstruction of his body along with the actual death shots, as it's less gruesome. PirateMonkey 07:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I would replace the Ace of Hearts -picture with a proper headshot, there's a POVish feel to it. The same goes with the with the picture of Qusay Hussein.194.157.147.48 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Plagiarism

A good deal of the text of this article is ripped verbatim from news articles cited therein. I've done a significant rewrite but much more work remains to be done -- particularly in citing some of the more questionable allegations. Furthermore, given the bulleted nature of the list, I propose that the "allegations" be moved to their own separate heading either before or after the "Death" section. On the other hand, shouldn't the "Death" section be merged with the "Biography" section?

Most of the "Biography" section is vague and lacking in transitions. The statement about the purchase of uranium in particular is lacking in depth or background. I think it should be either fleshed out or deleted.

This article attempts to present a NPOV, but overall it's a poorly written melange of snippets from online news articles. When I first read the article, some of the sentences were so nearly unintelligible that I was lead to believe the author/editor probably did not speak English as a native language. --Nonstopdrivel 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Uday's corpse photo

I think the image is too strong and quite controversial. It should be replaced or deleted.

Why? --Nonstopdrivel 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there is a certain amount of respect that should be given to the dead regardless of our POV.

I am sure that we could dig out tons of death photos of noteworthy individuals in Wikipedia. But the question that we must ask is how does that picture help us better define that particular individual.70.55.238.80 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be deleted. It's quite shocking to see...instead, there should be a link at the bottom to that picture.

celebratory fire?

I'm going to clean up the little part about celebratory gunfire. It seems a little self-contradictory to first say that citizens greeted the deaths of the Hussein sons with celebratory gunfire and then ponder whether it actually was celebratory. I'll reword it to reflect the uncertainty. Dkostic 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved in Uranium purchase?

The cited article says that a BBC television program says that one of Uday's assistants says Iraq obtained uranium from South Africa. It does not say anything about Uday being involved, nor does it say that the uranium was enriched. I am removing the offending sentence and reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.181.91 (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Inappropriate material?

I re-added the bit about Uday arriving at a polling place in a pink Rolls Royce. I found the citation (it seemed no more doubtful than many of the other claims about him), and I'm not sure why Tarun1337 removed it as "inappropriate" while leaving much more damaging information. To me it, it seems both relevant and expository of Uday's behavior. Jjacobsmeyer 06:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

medieval iron maiden

Iron maiden is mentioned about medieval torture device, but wikipedia article on iron maidens says it wasn't discovered until 19 century. I think attribute "medieval" should be removed 195.91.64.54 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of atrocities: pov?

The section "Allegations of atrocities" begins with the sentence: "Uday Hussein was infamous for being a man of depraved cruelty and wanton disregard for human life." Even if this is technically correct, aren't there more neutral ways to describe this? Are buzzwords like 'wanton' and 'depraved' really encyclopedic? Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the acquisition of luxury vehicles and the ownership of pornography may be offensive to some, I'm not sure they qualify as atrocities. Maybe these should be moved to the trivia section? Parodygm 18:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Time magazine published an article in 2003 detailing his sexual brutality, which included the use of LSD." I have read the source article and there is no reference to LSD, and have searched around for any other clarification which turns up nothing other than hearsay on a few message boards. I suggest removing this part until there is any concrete evidence. 3dom 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have gone beyond "allegations" when it comes to Uday's atrocities. It is proven that Uday committed atrocities.Mdriver1981 19:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources

There are presently 14 references for this article, and the majority, if not all, of the text relating to Uday's background is unreferenced. 192.206.151.130 (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the Death Paragraph

04:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many Discrepancies in the Death paragraph.

1. There was no Lamborgini present at the house. At the main gate was a blue luxury BMW, and a black one in the garage, but no Lamborgini. There's plenty of photographic evidence to prove this to be true. 2. Air support present was one OH-58 Kiowa helicopter. There were no A-10's in the area at all. 3. The four bodies were not all found in the house. The body guard was across the street in a pink house, rumored to be a house of prostitution, but that can not be clarified. There is also photographic evidence of the house that was fired upon during the standoff. From sources on the ground during the battle, Qusay was found in the lower level garage, the child was in the upper right office room, and it is unclear where Uday was found and killed. 4. The number of troops present is unclear (although one can probably look up military records of the event and gain much more information), but there were a significant number of soldiers placed in blocking positions, as well as areas to keep civilians away from the area due to safety reasons. 5. Types of munitions used in the stand-off: TOW missiles, MKII grenade launchers, .50cal machine guns, various small-arms fire.

I do not know where the information came from that produced this article, but it needs to be changed. I do not know how to edit these wiki articles, so I'm putting the revised info here.

Death proposal

Wierdly all the death info is here and none at Quday, I suggest we create a new warticle on both their deaths and link to it here and at the Quday article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing reads like someone was wildly typing whatever was coming out of a cable news channel. If you have good sources and want to start a new article, GO FOR IT! --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of corpse

The photograph of the corpse was previously only revealed by clicking the show tab, this has now been removed. I would propose that this be reinstated. When the images were released in the exceptional circumstances to proof the deaths of Uday and his brother, news agencies warned viewers before showing them onscreen. Online news articles also contained the images but only within links so as not to force readers to see them without wanting to. Wikipedia should respect that not everyone wants to see a graphic image such as this. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the box, there is absolutely no reason for it. There are countless WP articles with similar or (possibly in some people's opinion) worse images which are not hidden. This is an encyclopedia, it is our job to enhance human knowledge, not hide the facts of life from people. It's not my, or any other editors, fault that death isn't pretty. The site-wide content disclaimer clearly states that there may be pictures that some 'object' so people have been warned. Likewise, there is no reason to start enforcing censorship because, frankly, that's not what we do here. If there is a legal reason for the pictures to go then they should be deleted, there isn't, so they stay. Collapsing the images doesn't some into it. RaseaC (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it is your fault that death is not pretty as you put it, but I am arguing that not everyone will have read the site disclaimer. I can't see how including the show tab would hide the facts of life from people. People all know about death, and to try and suggest that Wikipedia making it optional to view an image will in some way hide this from them is a strange suggestion. I was not advocating the removal of the images either, just the addition of the show tab. This is not censorship, it is just respecting other people who would choice not to view the images - it is about giving some level of choice to our readers. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree for the same reasons I disagree with using a show tab on the Muhammad article. I can't be bothered to re-type every argument I've made, but feel free to look through the archives. Again, it's not my fault if people don't read the disclaimers. I think the image should stay as it is for the sake of consistency with other articles that include similar images. RaseaC (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then we agree to disagree. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the picture stays as is. RaseaC (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality of the article

Almost all of the fact of his person and "brutality" are these circulated by INC members, the same that provided all that "evidence" about the Iraqi armed forces, Saddam Fedayeen, WMD etc. Almost all information "provided" by them has since been dissmissed as false, so i would think the article here too needs some serious clean up of false claims and have the facts checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.198.108 (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

International Law Allegations concerning Publishing of Death Photo

I removed the quotes around closure as this adds nothing to the article other than a sarcastic dig which is not appropriate for encyclopedic content. I've also removed the statement about it contravening international law as the cited article (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=289854) has no indication of being authored by any expert in international law and the sourced article reads more like an editorial. I suggest that this statement be re-added with a source of an actual international law expert/source - not an editorial which does not cite a subject matter expert - not a writer merely asserting their own opinions. (Kittensof1984 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Removed note on propaganda

I have removed the statement after the allegations made by ABC TV channel in 2003 which states that '(Note: These allegations could be propaganda by Hussein enemies)' because it is not necessary at all. Any news report can be propaganda and we dont need to be reminded of that fact. It seems that the statement I deleted was in itself designed as pro-Saddam propaganda. Anyway, we can let the reader decide for themselves.

I've rarely read so much speculation in any subject. "he stole 1200 luxury cars" - 1 a week since he was 10, yeah likely. Reference some of this junk.

      Is it not possible that he ordered the seizing of hundreds of cars at a time? 84.13.20.209 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Condoms

There were rumours about condoms found in Uday's possession when he died. I think this should be clarified. I don't know if it's true or not, but if someone has a verifiable source, this information should be added. The fact that he had condoms with him or not is not significant. What's significant is the rumours. --Ronweezlee 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably no. Condoms are often found in possession of many men. A case could be made that Iraq, an Islamic nation, banned contraception. However, ownership of condoms ranks pretty low when taken into consideration Uday had an extensive wine collection, porno stash, firearms stockpile, and more cars than Avis. 69.143.110.86 (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

look-alike

The mentioned look-alike may be Latif Yahia. He has written the book "I Was Saddam's Son" which describes his work as Uday's double. Perhaps his book should be linked in this article? 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I recommend removing the statements that this was a true body double, and simply note this person's effort to capitalize on the notion that he was Uday's double. Although the article mentions criticism, the critical pieces do more than just cast doubt. For example, Mr. Butler's article states that verified former employees deny that Yahia served as a double. In addition, several other claims made in the book appear to be provably false, and his interviews on the topic are contradictory. I don't think that stating these claims as fact, even though he said them and technically is his own highly suspicious source, meets Wikipedia's quality standards on factual statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it seems pretty clear Uday never had a body double ie http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.192.78 (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

completely bogus attempts by claimant to profit

COMPLETELY clear that Uday Hussein never had a body double. I am shocked that this has not been removed since apparently 2006? First of all the language in this section is atrocious and misleading and reads more like a 'story' than factual data. Notice the attempts to talk about the life of the double and insert narrative? That stated: There has NEVER been any verifiable evidence that Uday Hussein used doubles other than claims made by the alleged double himself, who now is attempting to profit off his story by selling copies of his book (and since January 2011, a movie). On the opposing side, there is a very fine investigative piece done by Ed Caesar which collects sources and evidence that the claims to the contrary. The CIA, and people close to Uday Hussein have been interviewed and give commentary, as well as evidence of an alleged 1990 arrest of an impersonator --- big surprise: same guy.

Ed Caesar's article: http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55

You can add a section about a person trying to capitalize off pretending to have been a double for Uday Hussein, and having created a bit of a stir, but I'm not sure that is even appropriate for this wiki page. I'm pulling the trigger and recommending REMOVAL until actual. verifiable. evidence. is presented, and not the stories of a con-artist trying to make a buck. We need to be better than this. Keep an eye on this page to make sure this misinformation doesn't sneak back on thereTrickietrickie17:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Potentially Libelous

Link to movie 'the devil's double' on this page imparts fictional film with an air of credibility. Not likely lawsuit material as Uday is dead, but shouldn't there at least be a caveat if that link is to be there at all? I just got done (re)editing the page of the guy making wild claims relating to this, his allegations being the inspiration for the movie, as it were. Trickietrickie (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper naming convention

The main article should be named Uday Saddam, since Saddam Hussein is his father, not Hussein Abdulmajid, with "Uday Hussein" being a redirect to "Uday Saddam". Same thing with "Qusay Hussein", the children would be named (given name) Saddam, not (given name) Hussein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.2.66 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is named correctly. It should be "first name" then "family name". His "first name" is "Uday". His "family name" is "Hussein".

Uday Hussein, lover of Air Bud

So, we are trying to alert the world to the fact that Uday Hussein owned three copies of the American family/comedy film Air Bud, and apparently other people are as well, since some other anonymous user has re-inserted our edit, but a certain editor keeps removing it as non-notable information. We feel that this fact, the owning of three copies of Air Bud speaks to a certain aspect of Mr. Hussein's character that might otherwise remain obscured by his crimes. At the present, the impression this article makes is that Uday Hussein was a monster, but perhaps his love of Air Bud speaks to a childish simplicity or even a small spot of innocence within an otherwise dark soul. As such, we believe that the fact that Uday Hussein owned three copies of Air Bud is definitely notable and should, nay, must be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.190.135 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable, especially since this is no more trivial than, say, Adolf Hitler's fondness for playing Cowboys and Indians as a child. So, let's do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.216 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Utterly trivial, and the initial comment indicates that this is not a serious issue. Please stop adding trivial details to the articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it "utterly trivial?" What is the definition of "utterly trivial"? And why do the comments indicate that this is not a serious issue? You assert claims but offer up no evidence or reasons. And can you please answer why the information I offered up about Adolf Hitler (which is on his Wikipedia page) is any less trivial than this information about Uday Hussein, because I can find no reason. Please, offer up a rational reason why this is too trivial for Wikipedia (which has a number of pages dedicated to all of the Pokemon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.216 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"perhaps his love of Air Bud speaks to a childish simplicity or even a small spot of innocence within an otherwise dark soul"? Speculative, editor opinion, prohibited by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Furthermore, why is it relevant to the character that he owned that film over any other film in his collection? Reading through the references,it is clear there are far more notable issues involved with the tape collection than a copy of Air Bud. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you've pointed out why the comment was wrong and why it the fact is utterly trivial. Good, you are halfway there. All you need to do now is explain what "utterly trivial" means and why this fact is any more or less trivial than the other two facts I pointed out (for a refresher, they are Hitler's love of playing Cowboys and Indians and lists of every Pokemon). Also, now you have an extra question (hopefully you can handle one extra question) to answer, which is, "Would the Air Bud fact be permissible if included along with the other facts about his video collection?" I ask, because your only objection to the fact seems to be that there are other "more notable issues" in the article. Or are those also too trivial to include in the article. Also, I do believe, based on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, speculation and editor opinions are only prohibited from articles, they are not prohibited from being the motivation for an edit; no speculation or editor opinion was included in the fact as it was presented in the article - the fact was presented neutrally so that any reader might draw from it whatever conclusion (s)he might draw from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.216 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you not know that it is considered rather rude to ignore people who ask legitimate questions about your tenuous positions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.51 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz, the edit has no encyclopedic merit and is completely un-notable. To briefly allay your concerns with the Hitler article, the reference to his playing cowboys and indians is in the context of his childhood upbringing, a pasttime of his. You need to stop edit warring, it's against WP policy. You should discuss your concerns here. With regards to my last point, you may find other editors are more willing to enter into discussions with you if you were a little more civil towards them. I have reverted the edit and will have to report you under WP:3RR if you re-add the content. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So, according to you, it is find to add a completely trivial, un-notable fact with no encyclopedic merit as long as it has context. Is that correct because it seems to be what you state? Well, the edit about Air Bud is in the context of the discovery of his video collection. If it would please you more, we can add the fact into his life at an earlier point, before he died, to give it context. And if all the context we need is (using the Hitler article as an example) "During this time, the young Hitler attended school in nearby Fischlham. As a child, he played "Cowboys and Indians" and, by his own account, became fixated on war after finding a picture book about the Franco-Prussian War among his father's belongings," that should be rather easy. Though, in my opinion, this is not so much context as a flimsy pretext for including a trivial fact - context would be if there was an extensive discussion of his childhood practices or what the life of a youth in the period, in that region of the world was like of if this fact had some bearing on his later life (which, of course, there is no way of knowing, but it would appear that playing Cowboys and Indians had little lasting influence on the man). I would also ask what the context is for including a list of every single Pokemon (which, despite my love of the series, is a list of utterly trivial facts)?

However, that is somewhat besides the point. One of my original questions, which was never addressed, was for the definition of "utterly trivial" to be explained. Apparently, it has something to do with "context." So, now, I am asking you, if you would be so kind, could you explain what "trivial" means in Wikipedia terms (I am assuming that Ckatz was using the term "utterly trivial" to be kind and civil towards my opinion, since hyperbole is often a sign of respect and civility)? Also, can you explain how what the definition of "context" is according to Wikipedia policy (I believe I have voiced genuine concerns about context in the Hitler/Cowboys and Indians case) and how "context" relates to whether a fact is "trivial"? I believe it will be difficult (if not impossible) to discuss this matter without definitions (Socrates would surely agree with this notion), so please, for all of our sakes, give me definitions within which I might work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.157.70 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding Hitler and Pokemon should be directed to the relevant talk pages. In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of Ckatz, the fact that Uday owned several copies of a DVD is trivial, especially given that this isn't a particularly in-depth article. Your only justification for including it, as far as I can tell, is WP:OR and so you need a stronger argument to justify inclusion. If you are unsure of the meaning of any word I or another user have used you will probably find that a dictionary can explain better than us. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My concerns regarding Hitler and Pokemon are directed at you and Ckatz because I want to know why you find the information about Uday to be not worthy of Wikipedia while you find those other facts to be worthy of Wikipedia. If you want a reason for including it, that would be because it is a fact about Uday Hussein, and a fact which I believe to be not trivial. It was only original research only inasmuch as we found that this information used to be on the Air Bud page, but was deleted for, what we believe to be, no reason. Also, how does Wikipedia measure the reason for including any bit of information? If one is defining research so loosely that it includes a quick Google search, then yes that is "original research," however by that metric every bit of information is original research (that is, it requires no effort or actual research, as a physicist, mathematician, historian, or social scientist might define it).

The Oxford English Dictionary defines trivial in this wise: "Of small account, little esteemed, paltry, poor; trifling, inconsiderable, unimportant, slight." Of course, none of us should be surprised by this definition. However, what this does not provide is any standard metric against which one might compare a fact to determine whether or not it is trivial. So, I would ask you, how do you and Wikipedia determine that a fact is or is not trivial? Are we each to use our own beliefs? Most people in the world would find the excessive detail of Wikipedia's Cher article an exercise in triviality. A Platonist or Neoplatonist would find any description of the material world trivial. A humanist or Ciceronian would likely find the indepth descriptions of animals and physics to be trivial (as Petrarch finds the study of natural philosophy to be in On His Own Ignorance and That of Many Others). So does that give those individuals the right (on Wikipedia) to delete what they find to be trivial? I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so what the most find to be trivial and not trivial ought not to matter, what ought to matter is what is objectively trivial. And so, this leads to the still unanswered question of how trivial is defined by Wikipedia and her editors - unless I have the right to delete the Cher article (given as how I find that information a trifle).

I would also note that the OED definition of trivial has no relation to the word context ( and to allay your concerns, I assure you that the definition of context has nothing to do with the word trivial). And so, I would still like you to explain how a fact is made trivial or not trivial based solely on context.

It has just occurred to me that if you cannot define a term that you insist on using (which your deference to other sources indicates) then perhaps you ought not use that term. And if you are using that term, the meaning of which you are unable to explain, as a justification for you actions, then you really ought to find a better justification for your actions. Though, perhaps when you finally reply you will have a definition and I will be forced to eat these words. And I have one last after-thought to add - if you continue to think that my request for workable definitions from you and your associate is merely a ploy by which I can dissect your criticism of mine, rest assured that I will question your definition for flaws in it, but it is by this same method that Diotima brings Socrates to a definition of love in The Symposium and so I beg you to forgive (for my sake) and indulge me (for both of our sakes).

It is tragic that you have neglected words for rash deeds. I feel as though we have no recourse left. I have attempted to reason with you, to engage you in intelligent discourse, but you have responded curtly with no thought to your words or deeds. You have continued to lay down your mandate, that this fact is trivial because you deem it trivial, with no attempt to define triviality or to argue for why this fact fits that definition. You have failed to answer my questions as to how two facts that seem equally trivial are not both considered trivial. And you generally failed to consider the views and opinions of others. I, on the other hand, attempted to engage you and come to a definition. But now, I must lay down my mandate, that this fact is not trivial because I deem it not to be trivial. I will use your logic in determining my actions, and we will see how this all unfolds. It is not too late, however, to attempt to reason - frankly I do ont believe it is ever too late to engage in friendly discourse. But I weep, for I doubt that you will bow to a master such as reason. Congratulations, you have brought me down to your level - Rule 14 is truly correct, I have allowed you to win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.155.182 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, real world called. If you have a look at WP:TALK it will tell you how best to use talk pages. I have no intention of reading all of that and I'm not sure many other editors would either. Try and be more concise and I'd be happy to continue our discussion. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for attempting to write with any style. The Oxford English Dictionary provides a definition of "trivial" that does not lay out what it is with any objectivity. This means that "triviality" cannot be grasped in any real way. Please tell me how to identify a trivial and non-trivial fact based on what Wikipedia thinks is trivial and non-trivial. Without a definition of what is and is not trivial, all facts on all pages are at risk at being considered trivial by one individual or another or one group or another. Also, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, what is thought to be trivial or non-trivial by the majority or implied social consensus holds no weight, or at least it shouldn't. My long writing listed examples of already potential trivial things Wikipedia has in its pages (which is germane to this because it shows the objectivity of triviality and that this example is not especially trivial), a description of how many groups would find many things trivial which as a society we should agree are not trivial (again, pointing to triviality's subjective nature), and then an explanation of how definitions are used in discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.118.4 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By trivial I (I'm not sure about any other editor) mean that the matter is of so little importance and value that it merits no consideration. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that your definition still provides absolutely no objective definition for what is trivial, do you not? Or if you think it does, then how do you decide whether or not something "merits no consideration" or who decides that something "merits no consideration"? Can I delete this entire article because I deem Uday Hussein to "merit no consideration"? Or can I delete the Cher article for the same reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.197 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I literally defined trivial. There is absolutely nothing else I can do on that matter. In my opinion the fact that he had two copies of Air Bud in his collection isn't relevant to this article or him as a person. If he had gone through life preaching that Air Bud is the worst film ever made and executed anyone that disagreed with him and these actions were well documented then it may, arguably, be relevant. As it stands that's not the case so I really can't see why it's a relevant fact. WP is a collaborative project and as such the community as a whole (or at least interested editors) considers what is and is not worthy of mention. Look around on a few talk pages for big articles and you'll see what I mean. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You defined trivial through the use of a tautology, which is to say you did not define it at all. It was as though I asked what is the world and you answered the globe - it is a useless definition. You could try to come up with a definition of trivial that relies on It is a relevant fact because it speaks to what Uday Hussein enjoyed, as it stands this article does not speaks only of Uday Hussein as a monster, not as a full human being with interests outside of violence and sadism. Do his film interests not depict some aspect of his personality or of his interests or likes and dislikes?

Also, while "Its [Wikipedia's] primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion," you and other editors only seem interested in calling something trivial without actually looking at the nature of triviality and looking for how we might come to a useful definition against which we might hold the Air Bud fact. Also, it is hardly a consensus if there are three people removing the fact, especially since there are two people putting it back in - how has or can consensus be reached? I propose that we seek the core of what is triviality, from which we shall be able to agree on some standard of triviality and through which we might reach a consensus. What I currently see is no attempt at a constructive dialogue, but the repeating of a single fact (that this is trivial), which you have defined tautologically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.87 (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing semantics with you. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. I do, however, have an interest in discussion lexicology, particularly inasmuch as it relates to triviality and this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.133.169 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

When I was a kid in the 1960s, Hitler was constantly being demonized.

He was a secret fag (that word has since gone out of fashion). He had the wrong number of testicles. Etc., etc.

But there was no need to demonize him; you had his actions of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, which were acts of self-demonization.

What needed to be explained was how this inhuman demonic figure with a long tail was able to take a party with 20 guys and then become the leader of a major industrialized state.

That was what was important, and that had nothing to do with his testicle tally.

What you needed was a balanced picture so you would recognize a Machiavellian demagogue the next time one reared his head, e.g. Robert Mugabe, who seemed normal enough when I stood 30 feet away from him some decades ago. Then he spoke, saying, "Democracy is not for Africans."

In the case of Hitler, I have a book here called Hitler's Private Library: The Books that Shaped his Life (2009), which tries to understand the man through what he's reading.

In the modern age, I don't see why you can't have a book that analyses someone through his DVD collection.

Air Bud, yes, it's trivial. In a way.

But it's also incongruous. An evening's programme of torture tapes and Air Bud.

Is that a psychotic personality?

If I am interested in forming a balanced picture of someone, then a list of dates of official appointments alone does not create that picture. I am interested in a psychological profile, and I may get that more readily from some items of "trivia".

Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would note that this IP address is not contected to the editor Varlaam, but with the IP address located above. I would also note that while I agree with his/her overall argument as to why this information is not trivial, I have no opinion on what should, could, should not, or could not be part of a book. I am more concerned with what the definition of trivia/trivial is, how that definition can be reached, and why Wikipedia does/can not define it. This statement is directed at NebY, though I suppose it will do for anyone curious as to either this IP address's identity and this IP address's opnion on book content. 24.126.83.200 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material as NPOV and propaganda

167.187.101.241 has removed much material from the article, with edit comments "NPOV" and "NPOV U.S. pro-war propaganda". Among other things, all mentions of torture, rape, murder, profiteering and conflict with his father have been removed. This material was sourced and no sources have been presented here to show that it is false. If such reliable sources do exist, then their presentation in the article together with the original material would serve WP:NPOV; simple removal does not and is unhelpful to the reader. In any case, we need to follow the WP:BRD; 167.187.101.241 has made a Bold edit, I have Reverted it and it should not be repeated without Discussion. NebY (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding death

During the ongoing battle, it was described as being totally one-sided — practically an assassination — with the occupants of the house having small arms, and the attacking force firing over 20 missiles into the house, when a little gas would have done the trick.
The article now contains no detail to allow you to draw your own conclusion. Varlaam (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So, now there is a Warthog involved in the action as well.

"Four hours of battle" against a handful of guys with small arms.

This sounds like a not uncommon bank robbery scenario.

There were two war criminals who could have been arrested, tried fairly, and hanged until dead, but were not, and the description of the battle still sounds distorted or ridiculous, take your pick.

Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is described as an attempt "to apprehend the inhabitants of the house". 200 soldiers, jet aircraft etc is not an attempt to apprehend, but overkill intended to ensure no survivors. As the USA invasion was illegal, there was no legal basis for arresting these civilians, much less for killing them. This was a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. That should be noted in the article.122.59.167.152 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Is any of this true?

...or is it all part of the wartime propaganda against Saddam? 2601:5C4:0:C:8144:1B6C:4742:E1F8 (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Uday or his father?

Only later, Iraq was allowed to import certain commodities such as food and medical supplies legally under the UN Oil For Food programme). This program turned to be a scandal as Saddam managed to corrupt the program to his benefit. Saddam Hussein exploited the program, earning some $1.7 billion through kickbacks and surcharges, and $10.9 billion through illegal oil smuggling, according to a 2004 Central Intelligence Agency investigation. Wide-scale mismanagement and unethical conduct on the part of some UN employees also plagued the program, according to the UN Independent Inquiry Committee.[22] There were individuals who were reported by CIA that involved in Saddam scheme to corrupt, including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., a prominent Texas energy investor with a long history of dealings in Iraq, received vouchers for 29.7 million barrels, according to press reports. Benon Sevan, the UN chief of the Oil-for-Food Program, received an allocation of 13 million barrels. Charles Pasqua, a businessman and former French interior minister, received an allocation of 11 million barrels. Megawati Sukarnoputri, the former Indonesian president, was allocated 6 million barrels.[23]

Was any of that regarding Uday, or his father?Banaticus (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uday Hussein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20021209223535/http://www.desert-voice.net/saddam_sons.htm to http://www.desert-voice.net/saddam_sons.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Absurd Hyperlinks

I removed a number of absurd hyperlinks to common words such as "father," "spine," etc. Anyone reading this article in English knows what a father and a spinal cord are. There's no need to hyperlink to a dozen perfectly common words that even a child would know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8400:672C:FDCE:C102:CACC:18D (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

His name in arabic

Hello @Tradedia: I undid your edit because it was so wrong, please keep your contribution in english and other languages which you know, and leave arabic, you have no idea of what you are talking about, again I am talking about the family name in arbic not english, do not measure Arabic by English --Abu aamir (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abu aamir: أخي الكريم ، أنا عربي وأعلم اللغة العربية جيدًا. أعلم أن اسم عائلته باللغة العربية هي حسين. اترك اسم حسين في المقال وركزعلى مقالات أخرى... إلا إذا كنت تبحث عن مشاكل Tradedia^talk 02:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tradedia:, ما أبحث أنا الا عن الصواب وما ذكرته انت خطأ فادح --Abu aamir (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tradedia: this is the citation https://www.yaum8.com/2019/02/19/بالصور-لاول-مرة-الكشف-عن-وثائق-شخصية-ل/

اسم عائلة صدام هو المجيد وهذه حقيقة يعلمها كل عراقي الآن صححت الاسم وذكرت المصدر إن قمت بالتراجع عن تعديلي بدون أن تأتي أنت بمصدر يثبت أوهامك فسوف أشتكي عليك عند إدارة ويكيبيديا --Abu aamir (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Gegeo Murder

"Gegeo had recently introduced Saddam to a beautiful, younger woman, Samira Shahbandar, who later became Saddam's second wife. Uday took this as an insult to his mother (his father's first cousin)." <-- That makes no sense. Which Saddam is in reference? I'd assume Uday, because that is who the article is about. Therefore, what did Uday take as an insult? Jachin 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC) It is your question "which Saddam is in reference?" that makes no sense. There is only one Saddam. I do think a lot of the allegations do not make sense and are based on one man's last minute interview. However, the original's author's statements that Gegeo introduced Samira to (President) Saddam and that Uday was insulted because Saddam married Samira are perfectly clear. Again, there is only one Saddam in this story. Saddam is a first namea; so the only Saddam is Saddam Hussein, the father and former Iraqi President. The son's first name is Uday - not Saddam. Sons take their father's first name as their middle name name. So, Uday Saddam Hussein is the son, and Saddam (with no need for any other clarification) is the father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B049:EA38:C393:B1F0:CF5D:8A59 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)