Talk:Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fonzy added the following, with no summary of the edit: The tape had also clearly been edited as their were jerks in the film.

So, which was it, tape or film? Is the idea that Iraqi officials used film cameras, had the film developed, and then telecined a projection onto videotape? People shouldn't mindlessly repeat the claims of what could be war propaganda (whether it comes from the U.S. or Iraq, and no matter whom it claims to come from -- ever heard of "black propganda"?) in the Wikipedia. Discontinuities in the source material are clearly cause for skepticism of the alleged recordings of Hussein, but the confusion of videotape with film, to say nothing of the sloppy usage of "their" when one means "there" provoke my skepticism of Fonzy's edit. -- Branden
Fonzy has a history of sloppy grammar, even when his underlying premise ultimately turns up to be true. Be gentle with him. -º¡º
Okay, but I'm more concerned about how "tape" is obviously edited due to "jerks" in the "film". That's what caught my attention. What is meant by "jerks"? Gate jitter? A damaged sprocket in the projector? Sudden camera movement? Jump cutting with no transitional "blended" frame? I'm not even an amateur filmmaker and the remark is incredibly suspiciously vague to me. I haven't seen all of the video in question, so I don't know what Fonzy is referring to. The external link is dead now, too (just goes to a useless generic MSNBC page), so I can't even tell if the source material for this article made this assertion, or it's just something Fonzy made up without any support. When editing articles on controversial events, especially wars (where "truth is the first casualty", it is said), I think Wikipedians should hold them to very high editorial standards. I certainly do not think we can expect objectivity from a news outlet like MSNBC, which is part owned by NBC, which is wholly owned by General Electric, which is one of the U.S.'s largest defense contractors. (<rant> yes, I know I'm leaving myself open with this remark to criticisms as some sort of Naderite nogoodnik who refuses to patriotically believe that megacorporations never act with anything but the best interests of all mankind in mind, especially when there are billions of dollars at stake. Surely there are no PCBs in the Hudson River valley, and the retirement plans of non-executive Enron employees are doing better than ever</rant>). I'm just peading for a little critical thought and independent verification. -- Branden
Branden, I'm do not say that Fonzy is speaking the truth, just that he often speaks unclearly. My point was meant to be that by knowing this is his way, it is more likely the unclarity of his statement stems from his use of words and not his intent to mislead. -º¡º
Okay, understood. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it. -- Branden
I thought jerks might refer to the men in the film. Saddam and his cronies are 'jerks in the film.' ;) Kingturtle 21:37 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

On the other hand, German intelligence says they don't believe that the video shows a double.


Cite or external link, please? -- Branden

Another tape provided only vague references to the progress of the war and could have been prepared in advance. It also praised a military leader for an attack, although that leader had already surrendered to US forces.

Ditto. It'd be nice to know what tape this refers to. Martin

I'm in timezone hell regarding the date of the attacks - if I've screwed it up, could someone correct? Thanks! Martin

This is a useless article. If I want news, I'll go to CNN. Chadloder 22:57 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Not news any more: the rumours about his death were around the 22nd - so it's already in the category of "recent history", the way the 24hr news coverage works... ;-) Martin
Sort of. But it is essentially an assassination attempt on a world leader. And assasination attempts are usually important enough of a world event to be covered in an encyclopedia. Sure the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan does not have it's own article, but I think this one should eventually be merged into the Saddam Hussein article. --dave
I agree, this is not what I would expect to find in any sort of encyclopedia. Bryan

This is a superb and encyclopedic article on why the western nation-states speculated that they had killed Saddam Hussein. Dietary Fiber

Note that I said "eventually be merged". Not now. It is good to have a separate article for now. Makes it easier and quicker to edit. Then later it can be merged with the Saddaam main article. 10 years from now, I really don't want to see an article called "possible death of saddam hussein" still lingering around. We might as well have possible deaths of all sorts of people. How about "possible death of Slobodan Milosevic". (the US attempted to kill him in the same way according to media reports, but failed). dave 17:59 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't think the subject stands on its own very well. It should be merged into the Saddam Hussein article as Dave suggested. Bryan

Doesnt matter to me as long as you arent deleting stuff. Dietary Fiber

I'm not 100% convinced. Unless confirmed, these rumours tell us more about spin and fog of war than they do about Hussein. But I won't oppose a merge if someone does it. How about attempted assasination of Saddam Hussein - would that be more time-resistent? One could imagine an article on attempted assasination of Slobodan Milosevic, I guess. Martin
However, Baghdad has been bombed many times since, and there is still no hard evidence pointing to Hussein being still alive.

Yes, Baghdad has been bombed since, but chances are he's not even in Baghdad any more - and if he is, he's underground and untouchable - and the military haven't told us about any more assasination attempts. Further, there is very rarely any hard evidence pointing to Hussein being alive right now, because he doesn't tend to make public appearances. I just felt this was misleading. Martin

There should be something in this article about Saddam's bodyguard who was seen guarding someone other than Saddam in one of the recently released videos. "Iraq Experts" were shocked to see this guy away from Saddam - supposedly he was never seen away from Saddam's side. This definitely fueled some of the speculation that he may have been killed. -216.229.90.232

This article starts out dubiously. "The death of Saddam Hussein was reported as a strong possibility by analysts associated with the US military"....what analysts? please quote them or refer to them by name. And what does 'associated with' mean? Are they former military personnel interviewed on CNN? Are they people working for the State Department? Provide details to back up this sentence or re-write the sentence. Kingturtle 21:34 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

[1] "As recently as Friday, the word from one senior Western intelligence source was that Saddam Hussein might well have been killed." - for example.
That news story challenges the accuracy of the Western intelligence source: "If he was dead or incapacitated, he could hardly have known about Umm Qasr. He even mentioned the name of a unit fighting in Umm Qasr, the 45th Battalion of the 11th Division, thereby adding a touch of detail for credibility." Furthermore, an unidentified source is not a detail. Details entail named sources and evidence -- at least, how I see it. I'm sounding like a hard ass, but articles need specifics, rather than references to possibilities by unnamed analysts. Kingturtle 16:06 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
But Kingturtle, the entire presumption would be that IF he were dead or incapacitated, THEN the person on television wasn't really him. No matter how many specific details are given in a speech, if one doubts the person speaking is Saddam then things are still muddy. -º¡º
Fair enough, although the CIA has verified that it has been Saddam's voice in broadcasts...a fact that is mentioned in said news item. My main point is that named sources and detailed evidence are preferred. Kingturtle 17:08 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
... are preferred... and don't exist. Frequently in politics important stories, opinions, ec are "leaked" or given by unnamed sources. This is one of these cases. I think it's a dirty way to do business, but that's politicians for you. Martin

What difference does it make what "most commentators believe?" Kingturtle 17:31 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

What difference does it make what "most wikipedians believe?" -º¡º
(actually, I don't disagree with you)
Well, I'd prefer to have just said he's alive, given that that seems to be the opinion of both the Iraqi leadership, the US leadership, and everyone else who's got any kind of informed opinion, but I suspect had I done so then people would have complained about bias. So I weaseled out of it with "most commentators". Martin

RE: Jerks in the films

Jerks meaning jolts, jumps like the classic ealry 20th centuray films. It was very clear to see that the film jumped at points. EG: His head was looking down at the scipt the camera changed angles and his head was looking starght a head. -fonzy

A camera angle change would surely be a "cut" rather than a "jerk"? Martin
The phrase you are looking for is probably "jump cut": a cut between two similar scenes. The Anome 13:00 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

commentators are an encyclopedic source. Dietary Fiber

Then specific commentators should be mentioned, with their specific comments. Kingturtle 00:18 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


Comments below made after it was known for sure that Saddam didn't die during the war

Here's a page that could use some editing eh. Anything to preserve here? Wetman 13:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

do you mean this talk page, or the article this page talks about? Both seem to be usefull, though the old conversation on the talk page could be archived. Gentgeen 15:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article should now be abolished, since it discusses a non-existent issue (the possibility that Saddam is dead). Its material should be divided between Saddam Hussein (the biographical bits) and 2003 invasion of Iraq (the war history bits), or possibly a new article called 2003 bombing of Baghdad or Attempts to kill Saddam Hussein or something similar. Adam 04:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • An encyclopedia is (among other things) is a historic reference. The speculation that took place regarding Saddam will be of interest to people in the future. I think it says something about the society at the time. Kingturtle 04:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia today would not have an entry called Possible whereabouts of Adolf Hitler in Argentina, because we now know that Hitler did not escape to Argentina. It would perhaps include mention of the speculation that he had done so its Hitler article. Similarly, now that we know that Saddam is not dead, this article's title makes no sense. I am not saying that its contents should be deleted, just that they now shouldgo somewhere else. Adam 05:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A difference is that some of the possible death speculation came from the U.S. government. Kingturtle 06:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wiki is not paper. The reason most encyclopedias would omit an article about a wild ass guess about the whereabouts of some notoriuos person is because they don't have room. Hard drives are cheap. Perhaps this article should be moved to Speculation about the possible death of Saddam Hussein, or some other wordy title (maybe Propaganda or theories, hmmm), but a seperate article seems to be fine. It was front page and lead story material for much of the world for many weeks. Gentgeen
The text should be substantially shortened (remove fluff like "master of survival") and merged into Saddam Hussein.—Eloquence
I will have a go at it later. Adam 07:11, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The page got moved to "Rumours of...". I think "speculation" would be a more precise word but could make for a lengthy title ... Speculation about the possible death of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq ? Any better ideas? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think my suggestion of abolishing this rather overblown article and incorporating the useful bits of it into Saddam Hussein is a better idea. Adam 14:08, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. --Jiang | Talk

Well - anything Jiang and I can agree on must be the truth. Adam 00:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"I'd love to just forget that so many people were all that gullible"... um, no. This article should stay. - Hephaestos 00:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is that a quote from someone? It's not much of an argument. Adam 01:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article is almost 10k in length. By the time its "useful bits" are incorporated into the already overbloated Saddam Hussein either that article will be completely out of hand or important information in this one will be lost. - Hephaestos 01:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually I think Saddam Hussein could use a major edit as well. Adam 01:56, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of what's there could be parted out into separate articles. Like this one. - Hephaestos 01:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, no. It might be divided into two articles, Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein in the 2003 Iraq War or soemthing, into the latter of which parts of the this article could be incorporated. Adam 02:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Keep This Article

  • Wikipedia should keep this article. It is useful, because of its wild rumours. It reveals what people will say when they don't know what they're talking about. I personally think Saddam may have been killed earlier, and replaced by the "frito bandito". (Oct.)