Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Spelling of Name

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

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

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

There is no one correct way of transcribing from arabic script to English lettering.

This was a problem when it came to listing the names of the September 11 hijackers. There were several different ways of spelling their surnames - no one way being "right". There does, however, seem to be a prefernce to including the (for me) hitherto unsuspected silent "l" in their names. I'm not aware of any instances where the said hijackers had their names spelt as , say "An-Nami" or "Ag-Ghamdi" and I have read a lot on this topic. Arno

Why call him Hussein?

A question: Why do American contributors call him Hussein? Some time ago there was a row in the Irish media over how to refer to him and the official advice from linguistic experts was to never say Hussein, as that isn't a surname. If not using the full name, He should be called Saddam. That is generally how the European media refer to him. Yet the US and US contribitutors still write Hussein. Why? ÉÍREman 02:46 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't our linguists. :-) Besides, George Bush the Elder always called him Sodom. -- Zoe

ZOE!!! I've had a couple of pints, I come on here and you tell me that Daddy Bush calls him Sodom! How do you expect me to sleep tonight? I've laughed for five minutes! I'll be giggling all night! ÉÍREman 02:59 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

ÉÍREman's right. I had been using "Saddam" but people jumped all over me saying that the tone wasn't formal enough. But nobody believes me. 172

I doubt I could answer the "why" without going into a diatribe on the current state of U.S. mass media, but of course "Saddam" is correct, and was used to refer to him almost exclusively throughout the U.S. during the Gulf War. Hephaestos 02:51 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Then come on, guys, lets change this article (and others) and hold the line against the current state of the US mass media. We are an encyclopædia not friggin' NBC!!! (and we haven't had a good edit war in ages!!!!) ÉÍREman 02:59 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I almost got into an edit war over calling him "Saddam", but I quickly backed out and changed everything back to "Hussein" at Mav's behest. He's an authority over me around here and I was just following orders. 172

Encylopedia Britannica calls him "Hussein". See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=42559&query=saddam%20hussein&ct=eb == Zoe

As someone who works as on a contract basis as a copy and facts checker for an encyclopædia (a paying one, not here) please allow me to confirm that they by their own admission get things regularly wrong. A good encyclopædia aims to have a 93-95% accuracy rate. (On big name one is regarded in the business as having a less than an 87% accuracy rate. (Though not as bad as one rather famous dictionary, which has many errors it is called the "most expensive jokebook on the bookselves" in some shops!) On this issue, EB is factually wrong. In 1991 this was checked out by major broadcasting networks and newspapers in Europe. They were all told Saddam is 100% right, Hussein is 100% wrong. Hussein is his father's name which is attached to his. It is not his surname. It would be nice to think that at least on this issue we could be better than EB. But obviously we want to be wrong too. Unfortunately, given that most of those who say Hussein are Americans (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, various newspapers) while the rest of the world says "Saddam", it looks like another case of wiki americocentrism. If Americans think it is right, then it is, even if the rest of the world says it is wrong and use the correct version. Oh well. Another lost opportunity for the wiki to get things right rather than American. ÉÍREman 01:33 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

That a fight lost in advance Jtdirl. As long as there will be more americans here than not, americanocentrism will win here, and I fear it will be forever. It's even more tasty when EB is the one setting the standard ! I hope wikipedia will be standard one day (this day, it will be Hussein). And...yes, here, we say Saddam, not Hussein. Hussein is King Hussein of Jordania. Curious hein ? Ant

And here I thought Abdullah was King of Jordan. -- Zoe

Abdullah ?!? ha, we call him Abdallah. But Hussein was king for such a looooong time, that Hussein is this one, not Saddam really...

Eh? "Saddam" was the name his mother gave to him and his sons are named Uday Hussein and Qusai Hussein. How can "Saddam" be his surname? All I want is for us to use his real surname when referring to him - I really don't care if it is either Hussein or Saddam but the available evidence is pointing to "Hussein." --mav

Ah, but mav, that's your Americocentrism again. Funny how anti-Americanism can creep into every article and talk page. -- Zoe

maybe is it not the right way for arab people to be known by their surname ? Let's see...american people for example are very used to use second name (or at least the initial) attached, we do not. Russians also do not use names, surnames, lastnames the same way than you do. From Europe, all the available evidence is pointing to "Saddam". Eh :-)

And what evidence might that be? --mav

When I read an article for example, on british news (or french news, but I suppose it would not count here), some of the article says "Saddam Hussein", a lot of the article is refering to "Saddam" said this, or did that. Nowhere do I read "Hussein" appeared on TV today. So, my evidence is pointing at "Saddam". I suppose american news are more often using "Hussein" reference since you think it is your evidence. I can't really see how this can be solved, unless we do always use the full name all the time. I would be interested to know how iraki people refer to him though...

I added Saddam to List of people known by one name :) Kingturtle 01:59 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me what is going on is that Saddam doesn't really have a "family" or "last" or "surname" as we would call it. If I understand, Hussein is his patronymic, not a family name, and he would be referred to on second reference as Saddam, not Hussein, much as Leonardo da Vinci is Leonardo, not da Vinci. (da Vinci is also not Leonardo's family name; he was from Vinci.) - Montréalais

Mav, check out [1], which explains that neither Saddam nor Hussein is a surname. (It also explains that his son's name is Odai Saddam Hussein.) SCCarlson 02:16 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Funnily enough, in the http://www.globeandmail.ca website, the Canadian newspaper calls him "Hussein" in the summary of an article and "Saddam" in the full story. Compare http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030420.wnabb420/BNStory/International/?query=saddam with : "
Three wanted Iraqis arrested
Online Edition: Sunday, April 20, 2003 07:01 PM
Hussein's son-in-law, top bodyguard and the former Iraqi minister of higher education and scientific research all apprehended" --- Zoe

If the Globe works anything like CBC, the summaries are written by web staff and the articles are written by journalists. - Montréalais

Okay, guys. It shoudl probably be Saddam ibn Hussein al-Tikriti (Saddam son of Hussein of Tikrit). We're imposing Western naming standards on non-Western people. It is convenient for journalists working with the mass media, but not necessarily an accurate representation of the name. Still, it sure is convenient for English speakers. Besides, if Western naming conventions penetrate Iraq as they likely will, Hussein will become a last name. Danny

He, I found this also

http://www.terredescale.net/imprimersans.php3?id_article=165

It explains that Saddam has forbidden the use of surnames in his country. The reason given would be that it was a western habit ! (now the page is too long for me. Good night ant)

Well, if we want to be pedantic, shouldn't it be at-Tikriti? -- Zoe

And Lenin should be Dzhugashvili. Kingturtle 02:30 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well, no, that would be Stalin. :) -- Zoe

According to the article in the link I provided above, if you want to be really pendantic, al-Tikriti is the clan name, while al-Majid is the closest thing to a surname, and is rarely used only. SCCarlson 02:33 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Archive 2

We Westerners can be terribly ignorant at times. We insist on thinking about things from other people's cultures as if all we need to do is translate the words on a surface level and of course the basic underlying concepts are the same. The way that we Anglo-Saxons make a name is we take the father's name as our 'formal' name, and then tack on another name or two in front of it by way of disambiguation.

John Smith has a son.
The son's formal name is always "Smith" or "Mr Smith", same as the father's.
So, to avoid confusion, the son is given an informal name - a given name or Christian name, and becomes "Adam Smith".
If we want to be sure that we have the right Mr Smith, we add on a bit more information again. If Smith has a second Christian name we use that too, to make "Adam J Smith" or "Adam James Smith".
But what if we need to be more certain - after all, there might be another "Adam James Smith" in the next suburb over. We add Smith's location as well, and say "Adam James Smith of Suburbtown".
If that still isn't enough, we might add his age too. This is why, when you open your newspaper and see a crime report, they don't say "Adam Smith was charged with armed robbery". If they said that, and your name happened to also be Adam Smith, you could sue the newspaper for defamation (and rightly so).
So the final step (in newspapers and the like) is to add the age as well. They say "Adam James Smith, 24, of Suburbtown was charged with armed robbery". They are not putting the "24, of Suburbtown" in because they think you, the reader, wants to know where he lives or how old he is, they are putting it in because if they don't include enough detail to identify the particular Mr Smith in question, some other Mr Smith will have his good name blackened and sue them. In courts or on legal documents, we do the same thing a different way: we use the full name and exact address: "Adam James Smith of 24 Brown St, Suburbtown".

Now the point here, of course, is that other cultures have the same need for disambiguaton that we do, and tack on extra information to the name much as we do, but they don't go about it the same way. Let's say our Mr Smith is from eastern Asia. (I'm following the practice in Bangldesh here, or at least the practice as explained to me by my Bangladeshi partner of many years ago, but I daresay it is broadly similar in many other places.)

John Smith has a son. He calls him "Adam".
The son's formal name is always "Adam" or "Mr Adam". He is "Adam" in a way that is rather different to the Anglo-Saxon way. In the west we "share" our names two different ways: we share "Smith" with our brothers and sisters and fathers and grandfathers and sons and daughters, and we also share "Smith" with anyone else who happens to be called "Smith". In the East, only the latter applies: your name is your name and is not shared with anyone (except unrelated people who also happen, through coincidence, to be called "Adam").
For informal use, the son is given a family name: "Bruce". Inside the family, he is always called "Bruce". His wife calls him "Bruce", perhaps his closest friends call him "Bruce" too. But no-one outside the family ever calls him "Bruce" for any reason. That name will never appear on a legal document of any kind.
To avoid confusion, the son is also given what we might call a "disambiguation name". There are lots of ways that this can be done. One is to specify the family relationship, with a word that means, more-or-less, "the son" or "the daughter", which would make Mr Adam something like "Mr Adam (the Son") Another way is to use the father's name. So our "Mr Adam" becomes "Mr Adam Smith" or "Mr Adam, (the son of) Smith".
If we want to be sure that we have the right Mr Adam, we might add on a bit more information, and say "Mr Adam Smith of Suburbtown". This is done to avoid confusion with other people called "Adam". His name is Adam - not "Smith", let alone "of Suburbtown"!

(Posted via edit conflict) Tannin 02:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry, Tannin, the article was getty mighty long. -- Zoe

No problem, Zoe. :) And, alas, my tendency to wordiness was not helping it! Tannin

except Danny Saddam is the version used in most of the world, including most of the western world. It is a particular US phenomenon to use Hussein (with Canada and a few other states following, for obvious reasons). Curiously, in 1991 the US stations used Saddam also. It is just this time they decided to choose to use Hussein. It is the US that made the change. The rest of the world stuck with what they chose on advice to use in 1991. ÉÍREman 02:42 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Nah, you see, I lived in the Middle East for twenty years, including during the '91 Gulf War, and I have seen him referred to as both. Actually, the most common form Is the single word version: SaddamHussein, as in al-rais SaddamHussein. The question I would ask is when his name is used with his title, what is he called: President Saddam? President Hussein? or President Saddam Hussein? Apologies if my understanding of this isn't based on "American biases". At the age of 39, I've lived in the States less than three years of my life all told. Ma'asalaam Danny

Non-Americans go looking for things to complain about. -- Zoe

If only we *had* to go looking for them it wouldn't be so bad. Trouble is we keep on getting our noses rubbed in them. Still it's better just to fix them than to complain about them. -- Derek Ross

Derek, I spend half my time on wiki de-americanising articles. That seems to be my principal role sometimes. If we don't kick up a fuss to try to remind Americans that this isn't Ameripedia but wikipedia, the american-orientation of this encyclopædia is going to keep growing and a lot of non-Americans are simply going to give up on it. It is in wikipedia's own interest to keep being reminded to avoid over americocentrism. It is because people care so much about wikipedia and getting the balance right that some of us keep raising the issue, rather than doing as so many non-Americans have done and give up in despair. ÉÍREman 16:12 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)~

Thank you, Derek, that's what I keep trying to say. -- Zoe

Re: SCCarlson cite link. Thanks - Saddam it is then. All I wanted was to avoid using a name which would be too personal in nature because this is both rude to the subject and makes us look amateurish. But since names work differently in the Arab world then the given name of "Saddam" is good enough. --mav

And quite rightly so, Mav. We need to take care with these things, and avoid the overly personal so far as possible. Here is SCCarlson's link again for thse who missed it Tannin

Can we please stop calling people from the United States Americans? Use U.S. citizens or United Stateseans or monoliguals. Kingturtle 02:52 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I call myself American and will be cold and dead before I stop. I'm sure our British users have similar views about their incorrect adjective. --mav

Right on, Mav. Call me British or Scottish and I'll be happy. Call me English and I won't be. -- Derek Ross

NO, we cannot. I am an American. Nor am I monolingual. How many languages do you speak, Kingturtle? -- Zoe

Dunno, but I live in the US and I speak six modern and a couple of dead languages. Danny

I am a United Statesean, born and bred, and my French couldn't is as good as Goddard's is bad. Kingturtle 04:20 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian. If you call me an American, I will correct you. While it is mildly unforunate that "American" has come to mean "from or of the United States of America", it has. I suspect "United Statesean" or "Usian" will achieve a level of popular usage somewhat below GNU/Linux. :) Now, what really bothers me is calling Wikipedia "wiki" as if it was the only wiki in the world. ÉÍREman, are you listing? ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 20:00 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

How does one interpret this name? Some say Saddam is a surname. Others say Hussein is a surname. Others say al-Tikriti is a surname and both Saddam and Hussein are not. (anon)

as I understood what was concluded from above.

American (and a couple of others countries such as Canada) are more used to call him Hussein
other western countries are more used to call him Saddam
From a westernish point of view, the surname (if he had one) would be al-Tikriti. Both Saddam and Hussein are not surnames. Hussein appears to come from his father, and Saddam is his regular name.
But, in Irak, there is no tradition of using the surname. If it is similar as Algeria, which I know a bit, the tradition is more to say xx, son of yy from zzz (here Saddam, son of Hussein, city of al-Tikriti). The real true name is Saddam.
In Irak, he appears to be rather refered to as Saddam Hussein

So, in the end, maybe does it not matter at all whether one name or another is a surname or is not. Either it is decided to call him the way he is called in his country (and what most people seem to agree with in any case) (Saddam Hussein), or it is decided to call him to way enblish-speaking people call him and are used to hear him called to in media. Which goes back here to a sort of US/british debate. Wikipedia states that both are acceptable. Then, let's have british and co write Saddam, while american and co write Hussein.

I would favor Saddam Hussein. Ant

I would find it redundant however to repeat Saddam Hussein over and over. Is not Hussein a surname? (anon)

Read what Tannin wrote above . Or the other posts to the same effect in the archived talk page. Of course it's not a surname. It's not a Christian name either. They don't have surnames. What colour are the feathers on your cat?

Tannin 12:59 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've read it. How is it not a surname? If Uday has a son named Calai, will that child be Calai Hussein? I don't believe that they don't have surnames. Now sure, Saddam made a law that surnames don't exist, but the fact that he made that law seems to indicate that they must exist. If I had two children, I wouldn't name them both Hussein, unless Hussein was a surname. You said:

the tradition is more to say xx, son of yy from zzz (here Saddam, son of Hussein

however; he didn't name his kid, Qusai Saddam, no its Qusai Hussein. I suspect that Hussein al-Majid was a man with the surname of Hussein, who was from Majid. In any case, Saddam seems to use it as a surname.

Also note that Saddam means "one who confronts", surely that is a first name then. If Hussein is not a surname, then what does it mean? Are there Iraqis named Hussein Smith al-Baghdad? How does an Iraqi phonebook list names?

What about Barzan Hasan, Sabawi Hasan, and Watban Hasan? Would one still argue that Hasan is not a surname? (anon)

His son's names are Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti and Qusai Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. Who said anything about Saddam making a law to ban surnames?!? Mintguy 13:41 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I said it...that's an article reference I found yesterday. It is at the bottom of the archive. But, that is hardly surprising. It was the way until recently in north african countries. I know it was the case in countries such as Algeria, Marocco some times ago, but they followed the more westernish habit to have name + surname as it is more consistant with today world in terms of identification.User:anthere

Yes Uday and Qusai are from Tikrit, if Qusai has a son will he name his son Jack Qusai Saddam, or Jack Saddam Hussein al-Geneva, or perhaps Jack Qusai Hussein al-Geneva? Something tells me that the Hussein wouldn't get dropped because its a surname. (anon)

No, the child will be Calai Uday or Cali Uday Saddam. And if that child has a son called ... er ... Tannin ... (i.e., Saddam's great-grandson), then he becomes Tannin Calai. At least that is what would happen if they stay with the patronimic (sp?). I don't know about Iraq in particular, but quite often the added-on part of East Asian names is pretty flexible, and the added-on part of the name might be different. Why do you keep insisting on imposing this Western concept of a "surname"? Tannin

There's a similar thing in Iceland. I'm quoting from an Iceland tourist guide here "If, for example, Einar has a son named "Petur", the son's name is Petur Einarsson (Peter Einar's Son). If Einar has a daughter whom he names "Margret", she becomes Margret Einarsdottir (Margaret Einar's Daughter). Members of the same family can therefore have different "last names", which often causes confusion to foreigners. If you are looking for someone in the phone directory, you look them up by their first name". Mintguy

true. Not only Iceland. This is the way in many northern europe to transmit surnames that way. In my country, the surname of a kid is not necessarily the surname of the father (though that is the most frequent case). It is now legal to give the surname of the mother, or the surnames of both parents at the same time. User:anthere

I would think, considering the war and all, that you would be able to find some kind of source discussion this topic. (anon)

How about this http://www.arab.net/arabnames/, it took me 15 seconds googling to find. Mintguy 14:27 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC), and this which is more pertinent to this particular discussion http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html Mintguy 14:45 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

at least, this very interesting article is totally consistent with what I said above. I notice that my feeling that Hussein is reference to Hussein of Jordan, rather than Saddam for many people, is confirmed. :-) ant

Wow! Quite long dispute. I know from specialist that former Iraqi president full name was Saddam Hussein at-Tikriti. (simplifying to western people first name, second name and surname). In mid-70's he resigned from at-Tikriti because many people used this name to help their careers (they called themselves at-Tikriti) and made call him just Saddam Hussein. This specialist (arabist from Poland) told that it is right to call former Iraqi president just Saddam because this is his name, Hussein and at-Tikriti are to help not to confuse him with other Saddam's. Silthor 15:54 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

That is what the BBC was told, ITN was told, Reuters was told, AP was told, the Irish Times was told, Independent Newspapers was told, what academics say, what linguists say. Using Hussein is a largely unilateral choice of the US media which wikipedia should not follow. Someone once told me that using Hussein is the equivalent of calling Queen Elizabeth II II. But wikpedia on the issue of Saddam's name seems to follow the American line rather than the right one, which is disappointing but not surprising. ÉÍREman 16:12 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

let's make a putsch...

Um... I'm a bit confused as to what this argument is about. The article seems to call him what I'd expect when I'd expect. Where is he called just Hussein? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Deb 16:19 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hep correctly changed the single name references to Saddam, which is what they should be. Previously they were Hussein which is wrong. But on previous occasions, when the correct name was inserted an edit war resulted with some contributors insisting that Saddam should be replaced with Hussein. Hopefully this time another attempt to revert and put in the preferred US word (preferred largely in the US media) won't happen, and we will leave the correct one in. Forget political correctness, this is a victory for linguistic correctness. ÉÍREman 16:28 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Only I would comment that it's not necessarily "wrong" to call him Hussein, any more than it would be wrong, in an article on, say, Cliff Richard, to call him "Cliff" rather than "Richard". (Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that article does refer to "Cliff".) It would only be wrong if it called him "President Hussein" or "Mr Hussein" rather than "Mr Saddam". Deb 16:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hussein is a disambigulation word, not a surname. Using it as a surname is the equivalent of, in the case of Queen Elizabeth the Second, treating 'the Second' as a surname. It isn't. It is a disambigulation ordinal. ÉÍREman 16:40 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe that the above discussion is quite correct. In Egypt, native Arab speakers addressed Gamal Abd al-Nasser as Nasser, and Syrians addressed Hafiz Assad as Assad, in formal and informal contexts. Saddat's entire name was Muhammad Anwar al-Saddat, but his first name Muhammad was rarely used while his second name Anwar, which is his father name, was familiar more than his first name.

He was Saddam Hussein at-Tikriti, but he resigned from at-Tikriti (it was to popular) in mid-70's. From that time correct is using Saddam, not Hussein. Silthor 07:58 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Moreover, it is more often the son's name, not the father's name, that is the "disambiguation word." Thus, a man is likely to be addressed as "Abu ..." (or a woman, as Aum ...), that is, "Father of X" or "Mother of X."

In many Middle Eastern countries Arab-speaking people do in fact have surnames, distinct from their fathers' names. I am told that in Egypt many people prefer to use the patronym as a surname, gecause the surnames are so sommon (thus, the patronym has the disambiguation function in this case. But this does not mean that there are no surnames in these cultures.)

I suspect that people who prefer "Saddam" instead of "Hussein" do so for one of two (or both) reasons: it is a less common name than Hussein, and it connotes power and violence (sada means something like "defeated the enemy" and saddam glosses as being in conflict). Given how common a name is Hussein, it is hard to imagine it functioning as the disambiguation term, and not the far less common Saddam.Slrubenstein

It isn't a case people preferring Saddam over Hussein, it is the advice of academics, the advice of linguists, the advice of experts on name usage, the usage of the Iraqi diplomatic service, the usage of the Iraqi opposition. The universal advice, given to the BBC, given to ITN, given to EuroNews, given to RTF, given to RTÉ, given to RAI, given to Tony Blair, given to the Pope, given to the United Nations, given to the European Union, given to the Council of Europe, given to Independent Newspapers, given to the Guardian, given to the Times, given to the Irish Times, given to Examiner Newspapers, given even to George Bush senior who said Saddam (or rather 'Sodom') not Hussein. Tony Blair was shown on BBC earlier today referring to an earlier comment on what he wrongly called the "execution" of two British soldiers. He said Saddam. Sky News had an Iraqi opposition spokesman talking about Saddam. RTÉ three days ago showed a clip of an old interview with a diplomat from Saddam's regime. And what name did he use? Hussein? No. Saddam. Only America and one or two places use Hussein. The rest of the world says Saddam. Even the earlier Bush and Clinton administration said Saddam. And the State Department still says that. How more universal do you want it to be, Sirub? The guy's name could hardly be more clear-cut. BTW Al Jazeera also used Saddam.

Boy are you screwed up -- if you read what I posted, you would see that it too argues for Saddam. I was simply disputing some factually incorrect assertions on the talk page, abut Arab language and surnames. Stop being so defensive. Slrubenstein

The link which MintGuy provided says this:

A man's name is Ali Al-Fulani.
He is called Ali by his friends and family.
His family name is Al-Fulani

It would then seem that Hussein has a last name, Al-Tikriti; however, this name is not commonly used. Thus, Saddam is referred to in a manner similar to a "rock star" or the like, where he is referred to by his first name "Saddam", or "Saddam bin Hussein -- contracted to Saddam Hussein". (anon)

So . . . international diplomats, academics and the BBC are basing their naming of Saddam on how you name rock stars? I don't think so. ÉÍREman 23:26 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

The second article states:

With clan and tribal terms eliminated, a name had to be picked from the two remaining choices (Saddam or Hussein), and Iraq's ruler endorsed the first. Virtually everyone in the region knows him by this name, not by "Hussein," and he encourages its use - cultivating a sort of Grand Uncle persona to go with some of his other roles, including Direct Descendant of the Prophet.
The BBC, for instance, noted that before Saddam's last "election" victory in October 2002 - there were no other candidates - telephone dial tones were replaced in many areas with the campaign slogan "Naam, naam, Saddam" (Yes, yes, Saddam), followed by a recorded message: "Saddam is the pride of my country."

In short, Saddam is used as Oprah is used. Saddam=Oprah. President Saddam is inappropriate as is President Hussein. (anon)

This being said, is it appropriate to have article at Uday Hussein and Qusai Hussein when we know that Hussein is not a surname? (anon)

There would be no problem in moving the articles to Uday Hussein al-Tikriti and Qusai Hussein al-Tikriti, of so desired. Just remember to fix any double redirects. -- Egil 14:18 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

An Essex girl goes to the council to register for child benefit.
"How many children?" asks the council worker
"10" replies the Essex girl "10???" says the council worker.. "What are their names?"
"Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne and Wayne"
"Doesn't that get confusing?"
"Naah..." says the Essex girl "its great because if they are out playing in the street I just have to shout WAAAAAAAYNE, YER DINNER'S READY or WAAAAAAAYNE GO TO BED NOW and they all do it..."
"What if you want to speak to one individually?" says the perturbed council worker.
"That's easy," says the Essex girl... "I just use their surnames"

hah! I'm roaring with laughter. That joke has made my night. At last, a light side to Saddam, though I am damned if I know what it has to do with him. maybe one of the kids was called Wayne Saddam Hussein. ÉÍREman 17:20 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I am glad. That gave me a good laugh too. The relation is about Surname and name...was it not most of what was discussed on the Saddam talk page recently ??? Ok, some black humor, if you feel like it, is here. Cheers.

Arabic

(صدام حسين) is just "Saddam Hussein", none of his other names. And I warn you, Arabic text are very difficult to deal with in most places (since it runs the opposite direction), so you need to paste it into, say, FrontPage, to work with it. Otherwise it'll completely slice up the English words in ways unimaginable. --Menchi 06:44 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Surname: "Saddam" or "Hussein"?

All I know about Arabic naming conventions I learned here --- but:
- It seems that the last name is the surname/family name, just as in USA/Britain/etc.
- The article consistently calls him "Saddam" as if it is his surname. This seems to be his given name/first name because of the above.
If that is true, the article should be changed to use "Hussein" (or "Mr. Hussein" "former Iraqi president Hussein," or similar) instead of "Saddam."
The USA media have consistently called him "Saddam" (without "Hussein") but I think that most were copying the manner of US military spokesmen, who may (speciuation here) have intended to show disrespect by calling the man by his given name only. This practice dates back to press conferences during the first Gulf War. Can anyone resolve this issue? --- hajhouse
- Hussein is his family name; Saddam his given name. His sons were Uday Hussein and Kusey Hussein. You're probably right about the intention to show disrespect to the enemy.
- I've updated the note on his name at the top of the article. It seems that Saddam doesn't necessarily show disrespect; even Iraqi people under his rule used the appellation. See, for example, [2]. Wmahan . 06:12, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
- Well, it seems like there is little consensus on the issue; for example [3] gives an opposing view. Would anyone object if I changed every reference to Saddam Hussein, à la The Washington Post? Wmahan . 04:19, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Hussein is the name of Saddam's father. The father's name just "passed along" with Saddam. The true family name is Al-Tikriti. WhisperToMe 04:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, although note that he used neither al-Majid nor Al-Tikriti as ruler of Iraq. I think the note at the top of the article is pretty clear (thanks for the help of the anon. user), but the question remains how to refer to the man within the article. I would suggest Saddam Hussein, which while perhaps long, is unambiguously correct. Wmahan . 04:28, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

Saddam -> Saddam Hussein

User:172 reverted my change of Saddam to Saddam Hussein, commenting "For our purposes brevity is a higher virtue than respect to Saddam. I mean, the guy's used to a lot of disrespect anyway." I don't think it's necessarily a question of respecting Saddam Hussein, but one of which is the more accurate name (please see the discussion at the top of this Talk page). I also don't think the fact that others have disrespected him has any bearing on the way he should be portrayed in an article written from a NPOV. By the way, I think at least one of your changes of "Saddam Hussein" to "he" is grammatically incorrect, because it introduces ambiguity as to the antecedent. Thanks for your collaboration, Wmahan . 19:12, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

"Saddam" as used in article

This page is biased towards the degrading method of referring to him as "Saddam". It is completely inappropriate. I will continue to revert it until the issue is dealt with. I will revert all edits to the article, until the issue is addressed. I apoligize if this makes things difficult for you; 172's reversion has made things difficult for me, and I am left with little choice. If you edit the version of the article which I am reverting to, it is far more likely that you will not be reverted (by me, at least). Editing Saddam Hussein

Two things:

Can you sign your name with ~~~~ please?
If there is an ongoing issue, I would suggest going through Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution instead of doing an "edit war". It seems there may be a legitimate reason to use "Saddam", as in this quote:

Hussein may not be a surname in the Western sense; however, as his children also bear the name "Hussein"; it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Hussein family does use a Western surname, and that they chose Hussein as that surname.

I don't care either way ... but I think your dispute should be resolved using the usual process.

Xamian 12:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is... interesting.

A (five-minute) piece I heard on a BBC radio programme, prompted by someone querying the use of 'Saddam' to describe someone that might in Western culture be described as 'Mr Hussein', which made clear that, at least in the view of the BBC, the most correct way of referring to him was indeed 'Saddam', that 'Hussein' was but one of his names, highly ambiguous, and a disrespectful by which to imply referring to him, as well as noting that Saddam himself used such a system for his self-nomenclature.

Given that this was given by one of the Arabic department, and that the BBC has been broadcasting in Arabic for several decades, I would imagine that the speaker would know what he was talking about.

Of course, this is all as ISTR...

James F. (talk) 06:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You might also want to read the following from CTV news in Canada, addressing just the same area: [4] -- Karada 14:40, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Calling Saddam Hussein, "Saddam" could be consider racist in my opinion, because Saddam is a comman arabic name. --Yuna 06:34, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Umm, like we call OBL "Osama" and that's racist?

The reason we use Saddam is because of "Saddam Hussein", the most common short-form of his name, "Saddam" is more representive of his name than Hussein, his father's name, is. (His family name is al-Tikriti). WhisperToMe 10:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is some reason to believe that Hussein is used as a surname; not the least of which is the fact that he appears to have given the name to all of his children. It is rude and condescending to refer to this person by his "first name". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, parents names ARE passed down, yes - But that doesn't make it the surname/family name. E.G. Uday is Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. Hussein is his grandfather, and Saddam is his father. al-Trikriti is the family name.

As for Saddam, "Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti" - Hussein is his father, and Abdul Majid is his grandfather. WhisperToMe 00:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think "Saddam" is a perfectly legitimate way to refer to Saddam Hussein because even he did it. When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, the Baghdad International Airport was called the Saddam International Airport. Chris N. 01:35, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or was it the "Saddam Hussein International Airport"? Sources disagree, which is why this page should have a note at the top. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you have no idea what you are talking about, then please don't speak. Read the damn archives and first section of this talk page. --Jia ng 07:35, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that you are resorting to personal attacks; it is clear that communication on this page is not going to be productive. I hereby refer the matter to the mediation committee. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, stop putting the disclaimer up, please. And yes, Jiang is correct - you DO have to read the archives and crap before coming back. WhisperToMe 05:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I read these archives before you were ever a member at the Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter whether Jiang is "correct" -- what matters is NPOV, and Im not the only one who objects to the usage of "Saddam"; thus, the disclaimer will be put back up. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You are the only one (sans anonymous users) so far who does now. The people who did back then now believe that "Saddam" is the best way to address him. Surely you either have not read the back archives, or you are ignoring them, something you shouldn't do. WhisperToMe 06:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but this is Lir's common modus operandi. Once something has been established, he comes in and DEMANDS and kicks and screams that the consensus be changed to the way HE wants things, or else he reverts to vandalism. He's been doing it since day one, and even though he seems to have been gone for a while (though I somehow really doubt that), now that he's back, he's at it again. Rick K 06:29, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

I was reading through the archive, and there was never a definitive answer given to the question of Saddam v. Saddam Hussein v. Saddam Hussein al-Tikrit. (although the Wayne joke was pretty good) I find calling a historical figure by her first name unprofessional (ala Emily Dickinson). But, in the Middle East, Hussein really refers to King Hussein of Jordan. For the sake of neutrality, I suggest the wordier (but correct) Saddam Hussein should be adopted in all cases but the most formal of usages (where it should be Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti). Additionally, and as a completely personal suggestion, maybe some of the folks here should try and demonstrate some wikilove. Getting this worked up over semantics can't be healthy. ;) Stargoat 14:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1. In this case, Wikilove is only given back when one gives it in the first place: Lir has been making sock puppet accounts recently, and my "Wikicolleagues" and I aren't too happy about what he has been doing. 2. Most Westerners do not know about the "Al-Tikriti" stuff or his full name. 3. It's chunky using "Saddam Hussein" over and over again in that context. It's ok to use it a lot in the article, but sometimes we have to shorten THAT somehow. So, we have to choose between "Saddam" or "Hussein" for a "one-name" representation of him. And Saddam clearly wins. WhisperToMe 16:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We should also show everyone Wikilove. Even sockpuppets.

Saddam does not clearly win, as this discussion is proof of. And even if it did, I'm not sure you should be making that decision. WhisperToMe, you seem to be awfully partisan on this issue. Furthermore, you might want to reconsider some of your choice of words. Calling a person's work "crap" is not the best way to win friends and influence people. Let's try and be polite. We're all part of one big happy Wiki-Community after all. :)

On the issue of Saddam v. Hussein: Technically, Hussein is more appropriate, given Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Saddam Hussein was not King, so according to the manual, Hussein or Saddam Hussein is the correct usage. I haven't seen anyone here actually even look into the manual yet, so I bring it up. Stargoat 17:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Calling Saddam "Saddam" shorthand has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the discussions above. Read them first before coming back, please.

"Saddam Hussein" is the accepted shorthand, yes. "Saddam" is his first name, and "Hussein" is his father's name! While "Al-Trikriti" is his family name, most shorthand forms of his name don't even have that.

Now, I don't think it's "appropriate" to call him by his father's name.

For more information, see Arabic name. WhisperToMe 18:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It sounds right but I am wandering: why do we call Yassir Arafat Arafat and not Yassir? Looks like inconsistency to me. Andris 18:50, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat was born as "Muhammad Abd ar-Rauf al-Qudwah al-Husayni" - And in HIS case, Arafat seems to be a real surname. WhisperToMe 19:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In support of "Saddam", Al Jazeera website [5] uses "Saddam". If they find it OK, it should be OK here as well. Andris 19:18, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ali al-Sistani is refered to as Sistani, Iyad Allawi is refered to as Allawi, Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer is refered to as al-Yawer (in the news but not on this site) , and the same was true for most members of the Iraq Interim Governing Council. I've never heard Ahmed Chalabi refered to as Ahmed. The discussion of common use of names in the regions sounds convincing but I am confused about why it only applies to Saddam on this site and in the media. Al Jazeera may refer to Saddam Hussein as Saddam, but they were hardly proHussein. I am curious to know if the use of Saddam started after Gulf War I as a result of Bush Sr using that word with a pronunciation that sounded like "Sodom". Perhaps Hussein wanted the Iraqi people to refer to him by that name (and it wasnt used in a demonizing way as it was pronounced by Bush Sr), but that shouldn't influence how a historical article about him is written. The wikipedia's naming guidelines that state that "The person may be referred to by their first name in the case of royalty." perhaps explains how both demonization and idolization could result in a similar misuse of a name. --24.7.68.160 23:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You've never heard him referred to as "Ahmed" because his "shorthand" includes his family's name. Saddam's shorthand doesn't include his family name (Hussein is his daddy's name!)

Anon, you don't know about Arabic names. Read the archives first! WhisperToMe 01:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, al-Tikriti is just a general regional reference; and Majid is better interpreted as his "family name". Let me remind you, regardless of what is actually correct, I am not arguing for any kind of change within the article; I am merely noting that there is such international disupute over this matter, that we should have a disclaimer. Furthermore, I do not have any sockpuppets and am offended by the personal attacks here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Majid is an inseparable part of Abdul Majid (`Abd al-Majid), and that was the given name of his grandfather. The closest thing to a family name is al-Tikriti, but he didn't use that much. The common name was simply Saddam Hussein, and it's no surprise that this has often been misinterpreted, since other Iraqis do use family names (and not their father's names), like Ahmed Chalabi or Iyad Allawi. Now it would still be possible in theory that he intended to adopt Hussein as his family name, but the evidence speaks against it, as he named various things after himself including the name Saddam but not Hussein, e.g. "Saddam City" (Saddamiat al-Tharthar), or the part of Kuwait which in 1990 was merged with Basra province as Saddamiat al-Mitlaa. Saddam International Airport [6] has already been mentioned. The article should explain the name issue, but I don't think a POV disclaimer is called for. Gzornenplatz 05:18, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

To me, this is quite conclusive. I think it's time for the article to be unprotected. Everyking 06:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir, explain User:YES. (Want proof "he" was involved? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Saddam_Hussein&action=history ) WhisperToMe 04:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:YES obviously agreed with me. Your claims that he is my sockpuppet are completely unfounded; you have shown no evidence that User:YES is me, except for the fact that YES obviously agrees with me (which is hardly proof that he is me). Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oh: User:YES seems to be Michael. WhisperToMe 04:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I posted earlier as 24.7.68.160, but was more confused by the discussion than really demanding or asking for the page to be changed. Trying to read this discussion plus the article Arabic Name leaves me even more confused as to how Iraqi names in the news end up what they are. I think the early part of the article should have some mention of why in most other cases it seems like he should be referred to as al-Majid but in his case even the early British documents about him (on the National Security Archive site) either refer to him as Saddam or Hussein. A short reference in the childhood history section linking to a more fleshed out explanation on Arabic Name would be really helpful. --Zogren 07:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arabic names tend to be very long, so many "full" names of Arabs are really shortened versions of full names. Saddam's shorthand doesn't include his family's name. WhisperToMe 07:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Zogren -- that is all I am trying to do, is insert some mention of the naming issue into the beginning of the article; instead, it is being squelched down to the very end. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The naming is still there, whether at the end or the beginning. One can easily access it through the TOC. WhisperToMe 23:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POLL ON HOW WE SHOULD REFERENCE SADDAM HUSSEIN

Option 1: Refer to "Saddam Hussein" on first reference and "Saddam" every time thereafter.
- ~~I vote for option 1. But couldn't you guys have just accept what was at the talk page way back when? Look at the archives. WhisperToMe 01:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)~~
Option 2: Refer to "Saddam Hussein" on first reference and "Hussein" every time thereafter.
- Stargoat 18:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) Following Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) would suggest that this is the correct answer.
  - THIS IS NOT A VOTE "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. For example:" - Read Arabic name - "Hussein" isn't any surname. WhisperToMe 19:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Saddam isn't any surname either... Lirath Q. Pynnor
  - But is it any better than his daddy's name? (Rhetorical question) WhisperToMe 22:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Changed my mind. Perhaps we should use Saddam Hussein and Hussein mostly, though there are some sentences in the article were using Saddam should be OK. But please, let's not have a edit war here, wars are not supposed to be fought on such flimsy pretexts. :) Paranoid 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- What is this all about? Why do you think you are allowed to name that person by its givenname? Take a look at the George W. Bush article: Did You aver try to edit that article into George did this... George did that... Shall I try that for you and count the seconds until it is reverted? Of course he is to be reffered as 'Hussein' or 'Saddam Hussein' or his full name, as every other person in this encyclopedia. Wohlgemuth 13:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - "Hussein" is Saddam's father's given name. WhisperToMe 07:24, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Option 3: Refer to "Saddam Hussein" on all references.
Option 4: No changes needed regarding how the article references Saddam Hussein.
- RickK 05:26, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Gzornenplatz 05:51, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Everyking 06:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 06:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Jia ng 06:36, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- 172 06:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Changed to option 4. Just as long as he isn't referred as "Hussein" in short. WhisperToMe 01:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Aliekens 13:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Xiaopo ℑ 18:47, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Since the vote is split four ways, should there be a run-off between the top two choices? 172 01:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Only if one choice doesn't get a majority. RickK 05:26, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

What's the difference between options 1 and 4? Isn't 1 the current practice? Gzornenplatz 05:33, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Currently, he is referred to Saddam Hussein in the first sentence and as either Saddam Hussein or Saddam in every sentence thereafter. For example, toward the end of the article we have this sentence: "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." If we go with option four, we will not have to change "Saddam Hussein" to "Saddam" when it appears throughout the main body of the text. 172 05:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - I see. I agree it doesn't hurt to use "Saddam Hussein" occasionally, but "Saddam" should be the standard short form. Gzornenplatz 05:51, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
    - Completely agreed; an article of any length with but one use of the subject's full name reads a little 'chatty-ly', and rather oddly. James F. (talk) 06:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      - Also agree. But this is hardly a big deal. It doesn't matter to me either way. 172 06:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is a great and thorough article on this topic here. Very interesting. The author (Blair Shewchuk, chair of the Online Language Advisory Board) concludes Saddam is the best shortened form. Quadell (talk) 12:19, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lir once again defies consensus

Lir, please note that as of right now, consensus is not to include your silly little caveat. Discuss, don't just slap the stupid header on. RickK 19:24, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

But you aren't interested in discussion Rick, so the only way I can force discussion is by slapping it on until u break down and decide to negotiate. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Really? So all those discussions that occurred before, the votes happening on this page as we speak? That's no interest in discussion? Where's YOUR vote? RickK 05:24, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

As long as you persist in that haughty attitude, you just won't accomplish anything. When you want to discuss, let me know. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Naming matter

Because there is an unresolved edit war over whether to include some kind of notice that there is academic dispute over his name. In regards to the trial, I believe they list his name as Saddam Hussein Majid. Lirath Q. Pynnor

At the trial he was asked for his name. He replied Saddam Hussein. Then he was asked to give out his full name. His reply: Saddam Hussein al-Mahid. Thought this might be of interest. --Cantus 02:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As noted below, he was also quoted "How could Saddam be tried over a Kuwait that said it will reduce Iraqi women to 10-dinar prostitutes?" and "So now you are using the laws signed under Saddam against Saddam?" here. Everyking 02:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He was also reported to have referred to himself in third person at the trial as "Saddam", so surely that's adequate evidence that he regards it as the proper short form (if the evidence of the airport and media usage wasn't enough already). I think this has gotten to the point of vandalism. Everyking 01:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although calling others' edits vandalism risks seriously lowering the level of debate, I have to agree it's getting close to that. Lir reverted all the new information about the trial, etc., in order to put in a header which is not a neutrality matter but a short-form naming convention. There is nothing non-neutral even about saying "In this article, we will refer to Saddam Hussein by the short form KZZ". The notice is poorly written and beside the point; how is this "extremely inappropriate"? I also don't see Lir proposing an alternative (?). V V 01:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, Im not trying to refer to him as something other than Saddam; Im merely trying to insert a note, that there is dispute over the issue. There is dispute, why are you intent on censoring it? The notice may be poorly written, but from experience, I know better than to waste my time trying to improve the header -- it will be deleted no matter what form I try to put it in. Also, I have no choice about deleting all the new stuff, you can't seriously expect me to repeatedly go through the history and try to merge my version with the new stuff (over and over and over). That'd take way too much time. Its not unreasonable to have a notice about the name, near the beginning of the article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Way too much time to copy and paste your disclaimer into the top of the article? Even if that did take much time, it still wouldn't justify reverting all that good info. Anyway, instead of constantly reverting, you should be trying to convince us here on talk that a real controversy or dispute actually exists, because as it stands there appears to be pretty solid consensus for keeping it the way it is. Everyking 02:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it justifies it, my edit is valid and just because you reverted my edit; I'm not going to suddenly give up because you are now claiming that I am "reverting" your edits. If you don't want to play nice, neither do I. Lirath Q. Pynnor

One, I don't see the point of the disclaimer. If you can convince me and my friends that the disclaimer is valid, go ahead. But I doubt you will be able to do it. WhisperToMe 07:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Im not going to even waste my time on it -- if thats your attitude, fine. But I can still revert the article until you decide to grow up and discuss the issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Or why not give an argument on why it is necessary? What makes calling him "Saddam" POV? You say "Hussein" would be better, but that's his father's name! Many Westerners think it is his family last name, but it's not! And how come he is referring to himself as "Saddam"? Seriously, Lir, the jig is up. WhisperToMe 21:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If many westerners think it is his family name, then the article better mention the issue at the beginning. The jig is up, time to address the naming issue within the article's opening... Lirath Q. Pynnor

Let me ask you this, Lir. You want a neutrality notice, but such notices are for fixable problems. How do you propose to make this article NPOV? How would you refer to Saddam? V V[[]] 23:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Within this article, he should be referred to as Saddam; since we have a convention on common usage. However, the article must have some sort of notice (not my notice, but a notice) which refers to the naming issue; and this notice must be somewhere within the opening. I don't think such a request is unreasonable. Its not a neutrality notice which I want, its a notice about the naming issue. If my notice isn't formatted properly; thats only because I know better (from experience) than to waste my time trying to create a perfect edit -- when certain parties are intent on reverting everything I add, regardless of merit. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I assure you I am not intent on reverting everything you add. However, this notice as stands is inappopriate; furthermore, it doesn't seem necessary given what is already said in the article. Also, if you concede that you do not seek a neutrality notice, then don't put a neutrality notice up. V V[[]] 06:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the notice contains bogus info. the controversy is already explained in the footnote. what's wrong with a footnote? --Jia ng 05:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Im not exactly sure what "bogus" info the notice contains; however, the controversy is not adequately explained in the footnote. There must be a clear reference to the issue, within the beginning of the article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Then just improve the footnote - we don't have to have it at the beginning of the article. WhisperToMe 19:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir, you can just paste your notice at the top of the page each time, instead of reverting the page to a version of 100 edits ago. In addition if you make a "useful" edit each time, your edits won't be reverted outright. Jay 19:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I can't just paste it in -- its far too much work to go find each little segment which was reverted, and cut and paste them back in -- only to have them all reverted over again. There is nothing unreasonable about adding a note to the opening paragraphs, regarding the naming issue; thus, I will persist in reverting until one of you decides to be more reasonable. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Pasting is too much work? I can't think of anything easier than pasting! (Okay, that's exaggerated, but meh.) Lir, why do you insist on edit-warring? WhisperToMe 02:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it be obvious -- I believe the opening of the article should mention the name issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

But apparently the 5 people who have reverted you so far (VeryVerily, Everyking, Maximus Rex, RickK, and myself) seem to disagree. On the other hand, no one has stepped forward to support you. This would seem to suggest that the problem is with you, and not the article. →Raul654 05:52, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

That might be well and true, but I know from experience that you people are a cabal who has little interest in making an NPOV encyclopedia. There is nothing unreasonable about including a sentence about the naming issue within the article opening; I am sure I am justified in demanding one. Besides, people have stepped forward to support me -- thats why the talkpage was archived. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Show us how people stepped in favor of you, and how many. Another thing: Sometimes, when everyone or close to everyone is mad at you, it may not be "everyone" 's fault - it may be your fault. WhisperToMe 06:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way :) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lir is BAAAACK! WhisperToMe 06:18, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment away... When you are tired of ranting there, feel free to come back here and discuss this issue. I'll be waiting. If, by finding any users who support me, you will allow my notice to be posted -- I will happily supply you with the names of more than one user. Otherwise, Im not going to waste my time digging through talk archives -- I know from experience, that you don't honestly care how many users support me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

No, I'm going to take this option: I'll discuss whether or not the header is a good or bad idea here, and I'll try to find how to prevent you from edit warring on the newly revived RFC. And I'm not asking you to look at talk archives; if I did, I would say "Tough luck, kiddo - look through them". WhisperToMe 09:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But I don't even want a header, I want a sentence -- I don't care where in the beginning it exists. How can you discuss the issue, if you don't read what I write -- and take time to understand what it is I want. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I read it. Why does it specifically have to be a sentence? A note about his naming is good as a footer. Do you want the information to be "noticed" more? WhisperToMe 09:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So that's it, you think that the naming matter won't get enough attention unless we make it as a sentence up high instead of a footer down below. Let's ask the others if they agree with this. WhisperToMe 22:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In a word - no. I won't believe a word Lir says re: the name matter until I see ironclad documentation of it from an unimpeachable source. And even then, I the header he seems bent on having is still out of the question. →Raul654 23:14, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in an header, I'm interested in a sentence within the opening. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Guanaco thought of a comprimise: He made the "1" big, bold, and green. WhisperToMe 07:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Origin of 'Saddam' name: Conflicting versions

There are conflicting versions regarding the origin of the name Saddam across the article. In the Youth section, it is stated that he was named Saddam by his mother (this is supported by this web page [7]). In the Notes section (and I added this myself) it is stated that Saddam is an epithet he gave to himself (a version supported by this Slate article [8]). The article is currently inconsistent. What version is the right one? --Cantus 02:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first most likely. That's a very strange theory in the Slate article. By virtually all accounts, Hussein was his father's, not his own given name. Gzornenplatz 02:33, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to report the same inconsistency. Also, that note is a bit confusing, as evidenced by Gzornenplatz's misunderstanding. Perhaps you should move the sentence about 'Saddam' from in between the two sentences about 'Hussein'. Actually, I think you should also change it to say that there is some question as to whether the name was self-given or not. There is nothing wrong with saying that we aren't sure, ;) --Danny Rathjens 04:25, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

What misunderstanding? The Slate article actually claims that Hussein was his own given name, and Saddam a name he adopted later. That seems to be a fringe theory, however, which we can probably leave out of the article. Gzornenplatz 06:15, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to answer. I don't want to leave a question addressed to me hanging there, though. The inconsistency we were talking about, as evidenced by the subject of this section, was about whether 'Saddam' was a self-given name. So your mention of 'Hussein' led me to believe you were confused by the aforementioned awkward sentence placement. As for the issue at hand, I agree with leaving it out. Stating two conflicting things without explanation is not good. --Danny Rathjens 08:03, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

"sometimes spelled"

In "sometimes spelled Husayn or Hussain", should the word "spelled" be "transliterated"? - David Gerard 13:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thought so :-) - David Gerard 15:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'thought so'? Thought so what? There hasn't been an argument and you reach a conclusion already. A spelling is different from a transliteration. A transliteration is usually just a letter by letter transformation. Of course you can't do that with Arabic where you have no vowels. Then a simple transliteration cannot be achieved, and the translator has to resort to interpretation and spelling to properly write the name in a given language. I will revert to 'spelling' which is more accurate, unless you can raise a better point. --Cantus 23:46, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can transliterate between incompatible alphabets. e.g. Latin- Cyrillic, Latin-Greek, Latin-Arabic. It's not a simple one, but it doesn't have to be 1-1. From whence do you pull this assertion otherwise?

The reply was in the edit summary - see the article history - David Gerard 00:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saying "Of course you can transliterate between incompatible alphabets" is redundant. That is the whole purpose of transliteration. However there is a difference between 'transliteration' and 'interpretation'. What you see in Arabic is mostly interpretation. Read my previous post, I don't think I need to repeat myself. --Cantus 00:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

trans·lit·er·ate (tr²ns-l¹t“…-r³t”, tr²nz-) tr.v. trans·lit·er·at·ed, trans·lit·er·at·ing, trans·lit·er·ates. To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet. --trans·lit”er·a“tion n.

I don't see any of the requirements you are talking about, Cantus. →Raul654 00:37, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, and according to your definition Saddam Hussein would most likely be transliterated as SDM HSN. See the difference now? --Cantus 00:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No - representing characters or words. In this case, what would be the arabic equivalent of SDM transliterates to Saddam. →Raul654 00:55, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

There appear to be two different traditions of use for the word transliterate. It seems that for modern rendering of Arabic into Latin letters transliteration is often used to also cover the addition of vowel letters when they are not in the original text as well as for transcribing the consonants, probably because everyone who knows Arabic knows in most cases what vowel letters would appear in a fully pointed text. See [9] for that usage. However that is not correct scholarly use here transliteration is used exactly as Cantus indicates, to mean the translating into a another writing system of only the letters and signs actually written in a particular source text. Addition of further characters (such as vowels) that are not in the original text woud be called transcription or normalization. See [10] for this usage with Akkadian and [11] for this usage with Pahlavi. For Arabic see [12], the only case I found in a quick search. Perhaps use transcribed in this article instead of spelled or transliterated as the most pedantically correct word and also a word easily understood. jallan 15:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz's Compromise

He has made the following attempted compromise: [13]. I hope other editors can accept this. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Ed's note: this isn't the same as the later compromise linked below - Martin]

Sorry, I accidentally overwrote the change by Gzornenplatz. Paranoid 09:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

WhisperToMe, I have to say, the page protection is a bit of an overreaction. I mean, Lir adds that disclaimer a couple of times a day. But so what? Revert it if you so chose; the likelihood of having that disclaimer up for a few minutes at a time is no reason to keep everyone from editing it. I'm going to lift the protection for now. 172 16:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm already tired of him doing it, and I want to stop him. This is the only way I can "legally" do it - If I would be allowed to, I would happily temp block him. WhisperToMe 16:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Lir is persistent. If we protect the article, he will wait for it to be unprotected and then resume, as he has done in the past - and in the mean time no edits can be made. We should just revert him on sight, and perhaps take it to arbitration. Perhaps the latest compromise will end this nonsense. V V[[]] 20:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fwiw, it's already in front of the arbcom. Snowspinner 20:30, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Let it go and let someone else revert then. I've added it to watchlist. But protection should be used to save a page from huge edit wars and continual vandalism - not to remove an idiotic disclaimer three times a day, like clockwork. Snowspinner 17:05, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Snowspinner. I understand your frustration, WhisperToMe. But an indefinite protection is not a good idea (who knows when Lir's going to give up). If you're tired of dealing with him, take a break from watching the article. Let other users (e.g., Jiang, RickK, Snowspinner, and VV) bear the burden of reverting him. They're quite vigilant, you know. 172 17:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz's compromise (take two)

I really like Gzornenplatz's edit [14]. Hopefully Lir will accept this compromise. 172 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course I will, I've always been reasonable and this is no exception. Its a shame that we had to waste so much time in achieving this relatively minor degree of progress. In the future, I hope that my edits are not reverted and deleted; but rather, users take the time (as Gzornen has done) to edit my contributions. I will probably vanish from the Wikipedia for awhile, to celebrate my victory -- I will then undoubtedly return to either New Imperialism or DNA. Naturally, I could have strived harder to make an edit akin to that of Gzornen; but, I know from experience that the heavy-handed reverting of some users makes it a waste of my time to put any great effort into attempting "golden prose". Naturally, if Gzornen's contribution is reverted -- the edit war will continue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'll revert anyone who reverts Gzornenplatz's edit too. I also agree that some people were a bit too hard on you. You definitely have made a substantial contribution to Wikipedia and should not be dismissed offhand. Glad to see that the dispute has been resolved amicably, 172 00:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A bit too hard? Revert wars are not cool. That is why many people are so hard on Lir. He's on arbitration! WhisperToMe 01:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do I start the revert wars? Face it, if you delete my text -- its understandable that I will revert your revert. If you don't like my edits, tell me why, and try to edit them so that they adress what you perceive to be my desire -- while also addressing your desires. If you can't compromise with me, its your own fault that you get into a revert war. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You are hurting yourself by doing this. YOU started it by reverting text based on stuff that was discussed awhile ago. It's not you versus one guy, it's you versus several people, including me. It's not the cycle that is bad as it is that you are on arbitration and may get banned, all because of this. By the way, quit the "There is a cabal" thing - They dislike your presence for a reason. If you fixed your habits, they wouldn't have a reason to dislike your presence. WhisperToMe 01:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to argue about who did what to whom first. The edit war over the name is over and Lir agreed to a compromise (and the article is better because of that). So it's over. What will really make things easier for both of you is to put this dispute behind you. 172 01:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it's over, good. 172, I had the impression that it had not ended yet. WhisperToMe 01:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Pehaps this can be taken out of arbitration? 172 02:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The others will decide. Ask them to do so. If others agree with you, it will. WhisperToMe 02:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A word on "Americentrism"

While I now understand completely why the correct term to use is indeed Saddam, I would like to register my disappointment with accusations of "Americentrism" against those who use Hussein. I have a very difficult time believing that only Americans would make the mistake of treating Hussein as a surname, as if all the world's other English speakers are born either knowing the Arabic conventions or that they never, ever make natural but incorrect assumptions. It's just an honest mistake, people, (like using "Shelia went to school with Jake and I," rather than "Jake and me," out of an overzealousness against the word "me") so chill. --Lenoxus 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true it's not exclusive to Americans, it does see to me that Americans tend to most commonly used incorrect names and seem to have the most problems accepting that Arabs, Malays and a number of other people don't have surnames and shouldn't be refered to by what you may think is their surname but isn't. This isn't just the people, but the media. Honest mistakes they may be, people should make an effort to otherstand that other people have different naming systems, especially when they choose to write or talk about said subjects. The problem IMHO is that a lot of people don't seem to care and some even seem to think you should follow their conventions. This can quite offensive. Even more so given that some people seem to think they know all about other people and can speak with authority about their mentality and the like, but don't even know about their naming systems. I'm not speaking about you in particular, you do seem to be willing to learn but a lot of people aren't. Nil Einne 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit the U.S. does sometimes get things wrong, but I'm not convinced that we are worse offenders than anybody else. Our mistakes are broadcast all over the world, though, so they do tend to stand out. For an example that cuts the other way, non-U.S. editors in the perpetual Talk:Georgia debates seem to have a hard time with the idea that the U.S. state of Georgia is not an administrative subdivision. In this particular case, though, I think the intentions toward respect and understanding are good. The trouble is that the single-name style "Saddam" has also been used disparagingly. There really *are* people who believe that Saddam Hussein's family name is Hussein, but call him "Saddam" anyway as a way of being deliberately disrespectful. (William Safire, for one, did just this). It's a complicated subject, and not as simple as ignorance vs. enlightenment. Personally, I tend to find the apathy of some of my compatriots and the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of some others equally disappointing. Or funny, sometimes. --Reuben 23:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that point about the "broacast" of American mistakes; that helped clear my head about the whole thing. --Lenoxus 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also keep in mind that americans are saturated with america. the bbc might be a superior news service, but we have about 8 equally superior news services/cable channels. and when you pay good money for basic cable, you want to hear about your own country. few of us go the extra mile (or kilometer!) for other cultures because a) we're so self-contained that we really can afford to ignore the rest of the world and b) we're not encouraged to--americans kids learn enough to graduate and flip burgers, thus maintaining point a. when your country rules by force and finances, you tend to ignore what goes on beyond the castle walls. i carry a little hope in my pocket that americans will soon realize we're citizens of the planet too. till then, be patient with us :) 76.217.125.98 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]