Talk:Saddam Hussein

Ad Nauseam, not Nasuem

"...which stages the story ad nasuem..." is incorrect; the term is "ad nauseam." If the word is misspelled in the passage being quoted, there should be a [sic] after "nasuem." ~~Mpaniello~~

citations needed

"Hussein's rule was a repressive dictatorship[12] notorious for it's human rights abuses." You cite that he was a dictator but not that he was notorious for human rights abuses. While it may seem obvious (sic) to westerners it needs a solid citation. -thanks

can we get the photo changed?

the current of photo of saddam isnt the best, i prefered the one we agreed on last time, i dont know why i was replaced?

if anyone has good photos of saddam in the 90s feel free to show new ones, but i think the one that was shown was good idk why it was removed. Local Mandaean (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this photo is the best photo for Saddam, due to it being the official photograph.

KiddKrazy2 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

this was taken before Saddam became president and there is nowhere references regarding Saddam's official portrait. Also this is not a sharp image

Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg Saddam was not 1950s era leader, whose image would be better in black/white. He ruled until 21st century, when color photos became common. So a color photo like this is better. It represents Saddam in 1979, upon taking power, when Iraq was not in a state of war. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me do google image search...

The original portrait contained an Arabic caption saying "Mr. Saddam Hussein, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, President of the Republic of Iraq." This means it is likely from late 1979 when he first became President when he was 42 years old. Then again this is one of many portraits of him floating around the web, most of them without info, so I could be mistaken. Erose9210 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

IDK, the photo on the page is mostly the same angle and is in color taken while he was in charge. Not a big deal either way.

-Elijah Erose9210 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead image photo

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 (or cropped version)
• 
  6
• 
  7

@Erose9210, @Local Mandaean @SonOfBabylon1@Skitash

what should be done of lead photo.....The current is photo, i don't like it....It shows Saddam an old leader of black and white era....Also this was not taken at the time his presidency and is not sharp image.....I didn't found any cite as official portrait.....not even in Arabic....Just this image was found every offices and schools thats it.... This image is a lot better:

File:Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg and also the same image is in Arabic verson Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't get angry over a small matter when there major issues with the substance of the article. Preference doesn't matter. Erose9210 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

So can I add this image pls.....this is far better and represents Saddam as a leader of a country....its also in color.....Saddam was not a president of black and white era File:Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't own this page. Quit acting like nagging will get the page owner to stop ignoring you. Erose9210 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Erose9210, @Local Mandaean @SonOfBabylon1@SkitashAlright i will add this image (File:Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg) on the infobox ..... pls dont remove it ..... because whenever i changed the image .... an edit war happened Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I would consider this pic

Saddam Hussein 1979.jpg or its cropped one Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors, I would like to revive this discussion of a lead image photo. This discussion will include a gallery, and any editor is welcome to add suggestions; mine is number 1, which is of color and high resolution. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add this pic in the option too,

Saddam Hussein 1979.jpg, Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg, Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You can add to the gallery by adding your choice as File:Your file name|number. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I will support 5th one. That stands as most suitable option for infobox image Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Support image 4 but I oppose 1 and 3 as they are really bad images trying to make him look bad 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

exactly and the one which i suggest Saddam Hussein 1979 (3x4 cropped).jpg is very much suitable Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Attempting to remove alot of infomation in saddams protection and increasement of minorites in Iraq?

@Skitash has made huge changes to the article without consulting the talk page this is wrong, i request anyone with the reverting thing to take it back, because alot of infomation has been incorrectly removed, and replaced with a bias and untrue infomation, making saddams regime look like a ethnic-sunni ran state, and he has cited that his reason is because of the word-limits, but this does not give him justification to remove so much infomation without consulting the talk page, it should not be done again, i hope @Kharbaan Ghaltaan you will be able to fix this up. Local Mandaean (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the size of the article exceeded the limit laid out in WP:SIZERULE and had to be shortened. Even after my edits, it's still too long and requires further trimming to meet this standard. The original version was bloated with redundant and irrelevant details. For example, #Peace treaty with Iran was excessively repetitive: [1]:

"The agreement was based on the principles of territorial integrity, respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The agreement established a new border line along the Shatt al-Arab, dividing the waterway equally between Iran and Iraq up to the midpoint. Iran made significant concessions in the agreement, including relinquishing its claims on the eastern bank of the Shatt al-Arab, which had been under Iranian control. They also pledged to withdraw support for the Kurds. Saddam aimed to secure Iraq's territorial claims, particularly regarding the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which had been a longstanding source of contention between Iran and Iraq.
Both parties recognized each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, affirming the principle of non-aggression. The agreement called for the restoration of full diplomatic relations between Iran and Iraq, including the exchange of ambassadors. The agreement emphasized the importance of economic cooperation between the two countries, particularly in areas such as trade, transport, and joint development projects. The signing of the Algiers Agreement occurred during a period of relative stability in Iraq, with Saddam gradually consolidating power within the ruling Ba'ath Party. Saddam played a pivotal role in the negotiations leading up to the Algiers Agreement, representing Iraq's interests. Saddam's growing influence within the government allowed him to shape Iraq's approach and stance during the negotiation process.
Following the agreement, Iraq and Iran restored full diplomatic relations and exchanged ambassadors, representing a significant diplomatic breakthrough. The Shah withdrew support of the Kurds, who were promptly defeated by the Iraqis. The agreement emphasized the importance of economic cooperation between Iraq and Iran, particularly in areas like trade and joint development projects. This agreement, while ultimately unable to prevent future hostilities, remained a notable diplomatic achievement for Iraq during Saddam's early political career."

This section repeated numerous points such as "territorial integrity," "full diplomatic relations," and word-for-word "The agreement emphasized the importance of economic cooperation between the two countries, particularly in areas...," bloating the article while adding no value.

You've said the changes are "making saddams regime look like a ethnic-sunni ran state" which is simply not true. #Domestic policies clearly states that Saddam "appointed members of various religious and ethnic minorities to high-ranking positions and as representatives based on loyalty to his regime." Again, this section was incredibly redundant, listing minority appointments across ethnic groups with repetitive roles and excessive names. Any appropriate information belongs in Ba'athist Iraq if anything per WP:SUMMARY. Skitash (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraq is article of a former country. Adding minority officers' name to that article is meaningless. Adding these contents in article of Saddam make sense. In Ba'athist Iraq article, one paragraph is enough for inclusion of minority. And regarding size limit, instead of wiping off entire content, you can try to short it. And if not then pls raise this issue on talk page. You did same with infobox image. If the consensus didn't agreed on my choice, then they didn't agreed on @Skitash's choice as well. Before making a major removal or infobox image related issues, pls raise the issue on talk page and notify active users in this topic Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Adding minority officers' name to that article is meaningless" Listing their names here is just as excessive. Please take a look at related articles like Gamal Abdel Nasser and Ahmed Ben Bella, neither of which have sections dedicated to diversity. Skitash (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

You wont find articles explicitly mentioning those leaders' relations with minorities. Egypt and Algeria are entirely Arab, with only one minority group. So overall minorities (except religion in Egypt and language in Algeria) almost don't exist in these countries. Meanwhile Iraq is ethnically and religiously diverse and is a hot topic regarding Iraq. Saddam's topic is often all about sectarianism, ethnicity and religion. Same can be seen in Josip Broz Tito and Hafez al-Assad — Hafez al-Assad#Sectarianism and Presidency of Hafez al-Assad — presidency of Hafez al-Assad#Corrective Movement And I am not listing their names like a list. I am citing few examples. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

You will find a lot contents like Saddam protected Jews and Christians, allowed them in society, in both English and Arabic. There are many articles in Arabic titled as "Was Saddam Hussein Sectarian", and listed minority officials in Saddam's government etc. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding size, the lead section itself is very lengthy. We must short the lead section first. Other paragraphs, if long, that make some sense to an extent Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph about the peace treaty with Iran does not seem to be repetitive or redundant. It may be a bit wordy, but it is very important to include as it is very relevant for the history of Ba'athist Iraq. The "repetition" you mention adds value to the text because it makes the clauses of the treaty much clearer and easier to understand for the reader.

Local Mandaean is right to say that the "trimming" of the article makes Saddam's regime look like a ethnic-sunni ran state as that is precisely what was removed to "trim" the article down. Shortening the article does not justify removing tons of important and useful information about the internal affairs of Ba'athist Iraq, especially without mentioning it in the talk page or gaining consensus.

As Kharbaan Ghaltaan highlights, Iraq is a nation that has had problems with sectarianism since its independence in 1932. It is therefore important to include the information about diversity in government. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Skitash even removed foreign relation section. He have completely messed up article Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The article was perfect as it was before it became bloated with redundancy and irrelevant information. Once again, I kindly suggest reviewing how other politician articles are structured. Skitash (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reducing everything was structured??? Previously it was completely biased....Look at George W. Bush, Leonid Brezhnev, and Josip Broz Tito, there is a lot of things mentioned. Specially George W Bush's. You have just removed tons of information from this article. George Bush was president just for 8 years, less 3x less than Saddam's. Yet his article has tons of content. I, @Local Mandaean and fellow users add tons of information, yet you trimmed it, in the name of redundancy, irrelevancy and size. Domestic policies>>>Diversity in leadership, ethnic and religion, and economy, Foreign Affairs>>>Israel-Palestine, U.S, are not at all irrelevant. These all topics are completely relevant to Saddam. Your version is just biased one. George Bush's invasion of Iraq led to killing of over a million people in Iraq. Yet he is not labelled as war criminal. I do agree that he is not legally convicted by an official body, but his article don;t even have a sentence such as "Conversely, Bush is perceived as "war criminal", primarily in the Arab and Muslim world, due to his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and massive causalities"..... Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. WP:SIZERULE is a Wikipedia policy which we're all expected to follow. Just because the articles for Bush or Tito are longer doesn’t mean this one should be too (see WP:WHATABOUT). Skitash (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"Just because the articles for Bush or Tito are longer doesn’t mean this one should be too (see

WP:WHATABOUT

)", it is not necessary for articles to follow exact each and every rule. I’m saying that nothing is irrelevant or redundant. Regarding WP:WHATABOUT and size, okay, let's agree on that. But for specific sections, if they’re lengthy, it should apply to those sections, not the entire article. Saddam’s article must be treated the same way as articles about Bush or Tito. There’s a lot of content and information that needs to be included about Saddam. Additionally, results from Google, ChatGPT, and other sources are all derived from Wikipedia. Domestic policies>>>Diversity in leadership, ethnic and religion, and economy, Foreign Affairs>>>Israel-Palestine, U.S, are not at all irrelevant. These all topics are completely relevant to Saddam. Your version is just biased one.

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"it is not necessary for articles to follow exact each and every rule" Are you suggesting that we disregard Wikipedia policy?

"I’m saying that nothing is irrelevant or redundant" That's objectively false. Please take a look at my comment where I pointed out that your bloated paragraph excessively repeats phrases and sentences and adds little value to the article.

"But for specific sections, if they’re lengthy, it should apply to those sections, not the entire article" Trimming lengthy sections is how we manage article size.

"Saddam’s article must be treated the same way as articles about Bush or Tito" Nope. Once again I suggest you review WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ARTICLESIZE. Skitash (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Local Mandaean what to do now Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to trimming down the page, why did you only "trim down" the page by removing a lot of useful information about diversity in leadership and religious tolerance? It was a good addition to the article and not redundant, and it is important to include, as Iraq is a nation that has had problems with sectarianism. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes true....All were relevant information which I added Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen I've already explained how the added content is not only excessively repetitive but also in violation of WP:ARTICLESIZE. Not to mention the awkward phrasing, grammar issues, and countless spelling errors such as "synagoagues," "endrosed," "On other hands," "the decree did not take in-effect," "foriegn ministers," "on the day of Jewish festival of Sukkot," "Being refrained from sensitive politics, allowed Assyrians to preserve," "citing a proof by Saddam himself." No offense, but this raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Including content in this state does more harm than good and lowers the quality of the article. Skitash (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

So it doesn't mean that you wipe off entire content. As you often highlight about WP:ARTICLESIZE and all, you can later rephrase the added content according to WP:ARTICLESIZE. If you're active user in this topic, then you must handle to rephrase article as per WP:ARTICLESIZE, not to wipe off entire content Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Then why don't you take responsibility to fix up grammar or notify us in user page or talk page, instead of wiping off entire content Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kharbaan Ghaltaan I think you should be replying on WP:AN/I for now and leave this for later 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I will try my best to fix it up Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I found new images and some of them color one

I have found new images on commons, which were not added in Saddam Hussein category. We can use them instead of many b/w photos

• 
  File:Fedayeen of Saddam militants marching.jpg
• King Fahd giving a golden gun to Saddam.jpg (description page)
  King Fahd giving a golden gun to Saddam.jpg (description page)
• 
  File:Saddam Hussein's speech to the iraqi soldiers in 1990.webp
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  saddam and Kamel Hana Gegeo
• 
  Saddam with Hosni Mubarak, Ali Abdullah Saleh and Hussein bin Talal

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with black and white photos 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Black and white photos are used for persons mostly of 1920 to 1960s era. Look at U.S and British figures' pages. Most of the images are in color. People will say that is America so there have been advance cameras. Oh Really. You will find a lot of videos of Saddam on youtube in color version. It is even in Arabic (means viewed only by Arabs and hence not much views from others). Also Saddam was president not in b/w era. So thats why. Or better is to use b/w photos for a particular period. Like for sections in this article until 1979, we can use b/w pics. While for rest we can use color. As color pics after 1980s are available Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Infomation around Saddams reforms all gone?

I just took a scan through the article today, and i have realized almost all the postive things saddam did for Iraq have been removed over-time, this includes saddams literacy compaign he conducted which was one of the most succesful in the world, and Iraqs healthcare system pre-90s which was some of the best in the entire Arab world, aswell as his reforms in the education system, i remenber when someone moved all of it to his vice president section and we let it go, but it looks like alot of it has been watered down and removed? Do you guys think we should readd his postive contributions to Iraq in his presidental section? because at this time it shows saddam as just a war-lord instead of an actual president, since his presidental section is literally just the iran-iraq war, the gulf war, the anfal, and the israeli-arab conflict, this seems very one-sided to not show both sides, i believe this violates wikipedias non-bias, and i believe we should scale down the war sections of his article, since you can just find the already huge articles on them, we should just give some context to the war, and link it to the actual articles, in this way we ensure we have enough space to write more about saddams regime and how the iraqi people lived and how their lives were affected more directly, instead of just talking about war. Tell me your opinions, @Skitash @Kharbaan Ghaltaan @SonOfBabylon1 @KiddKrazy @Abo Yemen | Apologies if i didnt @ you, Local Mandaean (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I really do think it should be re-added. Since the size of the articles has been a concern for some editors here, i think a good resolution is to shorten down the war sections (and add a "main article:" header over it for those who want to read the full article) and re-add the positive aspects of his reign, which include:

The campaign undertaken by Saddam to increase literacy rates and reforms in the educational system.

Improvements in the Iraqi economy and infastructure.

Improvements in Women's Rights.

The introduction of free and universal healthcare and education in Iraq.

Religious and ethnic tolerance.

Strengthening of the army. (4th largest in the world at a point).

Securing stability in Iraq. (a historically unstable country).

Would like to hear any additional thoughts or comments. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding WPsize, it should be followed for sections, not entire article. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Local Mandaean, I agree with you Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

How to resolve the dispute?

Hey. For some time, there has been a source of contention among editors here. This regards the constant changes and massive removals of information. I would like to see this dispute resolved, so actual consensus can be reached.

Local Mandaean, Abo Yemen, Kharbaan Ghaltaan, Skitash. Would like to hear some opinions, so this dispute can be resolved and consensus can be reached. Thanks. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion on Kharbaan Ghaltaan's talk page in case you'd like to join it. Skitash (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am watching the discussion and waiting for someone to have a proposal so that I can give my opinions on it. Also, the recently added "Women's rights" section would be better placed in the Ba'athist Iraq article and not here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. As I've said here, Ba'athist Iraq is the place for in-depth detail about domestic policies, foreign policy, and government diversity. This article is a biography and pushes well past WP:SIZERULE. Skitash (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

i agree with @KiddKrazy2 considering that a majority of leaders articles include there biggest contributions to the state they served, Saddam was the president and was the one who lead these reforms in womens rights, it was not just a small government thing, his reforms influenced the rise of women in iraq for the next decades till now. Adding it to the ba'athist iraq article simply downplays saddams postive contributions to Iraq, keeping all his good accomplishments on other articles and maintaing a negative image of him on his actual article, he has many quotes on womens rights and spoke alot about it during his time as president. Local Mandaean (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree here. The "Women's rights" section needs to be in the biography for the same reason things like "Glansnost or Perestroika" are included in Gorbachev's article. Because it is government policy undertook by the leader in question (In this case Saddam and his policy of improving women's rights.) KiddKrazy2 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Restructure Saddams Presidency Section

Saddams presidency section is currently mostly just filled with war infomation and just blurbs of infomation which can easily be found on the main articles, and the articles are not co-herent with each other, it dosent make sense that the article dosent talk about how life was under his rule in the 80s, which was possibly the best time for Iraqis behind the 1970s, and instead his entire rule during the 80s is avoided and it goes straight into just talking about the Iran-Iraq war, then the anafal, and then the gulf war, and only then we are given a section thats not entirely war related which is the 90s-2003 section, which still makes alot of references to the united states having small attacks with iraq etc etc, it shouldnt be how the article is structured and i believe we should structure it like this:

- Consolidation of power

- National Reforms and Development compaigns

  - Healthcare reforms
  - Education reforms
  - Economy and Infastructure
  - Womens rights
  - Diversty in leadership and religious freedom (will contain the infomation that was removed but cut down to a more smaller paragraph)

- Iran-Iraq war

 - Small blurb of the lead up to the war and the outcome of the war, that does not take up more then 2 paragraphs of infomation, and instead links the reader to the main article,
- Anafal blurb included in the iran-iraq war section with link to main article.

- Gulf War

 - Small blurb that gives more context and shows Saddams perspective, including when Emir Jabar told Saddam he should sell iraqi women for 10 dinars on the street, aswell as kuwait exceeding Opec oil quotas, then allowing the reader to read more on the main gulf war article

- Recovery from the Gulf war

  - Faith Compaign
  - Reconstruction of Iraq (something not talked about enough was how fast Saddam actually rebuilt most of Iraqs lost infastructure and fixed the food problems in Iraq in such a small amount of time, during this time in Iraq it was called the time of reconstruction, i believe whenever they had news broadcasts in iraq from 1990-1994 it was aimmed at showcasing iraqs reconstruction and so on, 
  - Life under sanctions 
  

- Early 2000s

 mostly politcal stuff, including the build up the 2003 war, 9/11 etc

i would love to hear everyones opinions on if this is a good idea, what should be changed, what should be removed, what should be added etc, i believe this is the best way to structure the article to give a more indepth look on the lifes of IRAQIS under saddam over time and what saddam did to make the lifes of iraqis better/worse, i believe this structure is the best non-bias way to showcase all the infomation of saddams presidency, i wanted to include blurbs of the wars so everyone is in agreement that this is a netural take, since it includes both his good and his bad.

@Abo Yemen @Skitash @KiddKrazy2 @Kharbaan Ghaltaan Local Mandaean (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"blurbs of infomation which can easily be found on the main articles" That's exactly how it's supposed to work. We're meant to summarize key events and major points of his leadership and link out to more detailed main articles. That's consistent with how other political biographies are structured.

"it dosent make sense that the article dosent talk about how life was under his rule in the 80s" This is a biography of a political figure, not a social history account. What you're suggesting we add belongs in Ba'athist Iraq.

"it goes straight into just talking about the Iran-Iraq war, then the anafal, and then the gulf war, and only then we are given a section thats not entirely war related which is the 90s-2003 section" Yes, because those were the most defining and important moments of Saddam's presidency. Those events shaped both his legacy and Iraq's modern history. It's appropriate to give them more space, just like we do for other leaders heavily involved in warfare (e.g. Ronald Reagan). Downplaying them would violate WP:UNDUE by giving disproportionate weight to less notable topics.

Cutting down sections on the Iran–Iraq War and Gulf War in favor of adding "life under sanctions" or "religious diversity" will distort the structure and weight of the article. Again, this is a biography and not a social overview of Iraq under his rule. Skitash (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Stuff like "life in the 80s" or "life under the siege/sanctions" can be included in Ba'athist Iraq or a proposed "Presidency of Saddam Hussein" wiki page. However, i think most of the things you propose are pretty good. The "Iran-Iraq War" section, the "Gulf War" section and the "Faith Campaign" section can be shortened with a link to the main article, as you proposed. That way, Saddam's other policies can also be included (such as economical develpment, religion, sect and ethnicity and women's rights). I'm a bit curious regarding the "Reconstruction of Iraq" thing, any information regarding that? All in all, i do think this is a good resolution to the dispute. Local Mandaean and Skitash, would like to hear comments. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)