Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 1

Umm, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those recent changes that I can see. Why do people keep reverting them as vandalism? --Lezek

I'll answer my own question; removal of some information. glad to see some effort has been made to merge the two now. --Lezek

---

I removed the bit about sanctions. This is (or should be) discussed in greater detail and with more accuracy in a different article. DanKeshet 18:36 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Photos

Is it just me, or is there something funny-looking about the first photo on this page? His arm looks far too small for his head. It's probably better than nothing, but if anybody knows where to get a better photo of him (preferably not one where's he's firing a gun - using such a photo might be contrued as a political comment), then I think it should be replaced. --Camembert

The photo with a gun is a fake, you can see the original at http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june98/1990

Thanks Google ! -Ericd 21:52 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

That is not the same photo. His head is at a different angle and the background is different. -º¡º

Exactly what i was about to say except about teh background (because that can be changed too) -fonzy

In my opinion they both look a bit fake. At any rate I think the current one violates NPOV. - Hephaestos

I do not understand the concept of an undoctored photograph violating NPOV. -º¡º

He's saying it makes him look like he's a gun/bomb/nucelar weapons/ wilding maniac (reminds me of bush). - fonzy

Assuming the photo is undoctored, then showing the photo is akin to representing a fact. Any POV is in the mind of the viewer and not in the picture itself. -º¡º

Good, then no one will mind if I put [1] (http://www.najakito.com/~john/etc/bush.jpeg) up at George W. Bush. ;) - Hephaestos 22:43 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Speaking only for º¡º, some people may "mind", but I don't think they can accuse the picture itself of being NPOV. -º¡º

It is, of course, not the picture itself that's POV, undoctored pictures don't lie. It is the use of a particular picture in a certain context that lends the POV. - Hephaestos 22:47 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these other photos of Saddam holding a gun would be considered more flattering [2] (http://www.spitemag.com/media/saddam.gif) [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1120000/images/_1120616_saddam_gun150.jpg) [4] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1985000/images/_1989298_ap150gun.jpg) [5] (http://www.gridlockmag.com/rumblings/images/saddam_rifle.jpg)? If some wikipedians suffer from cognitive dissonance resulting from simultaneously having an anti-gun and pro-saddam bias (or perhaps a pro-gun and anti-saddam bias), they could begin by addressing their personal biases. If this isn't possible, a photo such as [6] (http://www.iraqi-mission.org/Saddam/08.jpg) could be used, although this would be at the risk of offending wikipedians with pro-gun/pro-saddam biases or anti-gun/anti-saddam biases. -º¡º

"More flattering" misses the point entirely. What we should be going for is neutrality. - Hephaestos 23:10 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

My point was simply that all undoctored photos are inherently NPOV. That doesn't mean that all photos are appropriate for all purposes. An autopsy photograph of John F Kennedy is NPOV, but it isn't appropriate for being the main image on his biography. -º¡º

Right at second look it's not the same photo but a modern press camera will take at least 5 pictures per second.

Here is a fact

Ericd 22:59 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Why does he have a civilian suit ? Is it a war rifle ? He may like hunting isn'it ?

Ericd 23:05 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

He is most likely wearing a suit because he feels comfortable in it. There is no such thing as a "war rifle", any more than there is a thing as a "war typewriter". The rifle in question appears to be a Lee-Enfield. -º¡º

This is a Lee-Enfield No. 4 Rifle captured from a British battalion defeated by Iraqi rebels in 1920.

Ericd 23:27 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the photo. It was the old version of :Image:hussein1.jpg. Whether you want to call it not-NPOV or simply inappropriate is up to you, but in any event, I don't think it belongs on the article for reasons already stated. --Camembert

Camembert, by moving the photo are you admitting to some sort of antigun bias? Unless one sees firearms in a negative light, I'm not sure why this photo would be seen in a negative light. Whatever your reason, I've already pointed out [7] (http://www.iraqi-mission.org/Saddam/08.jpg) as an alternative. -º¡º

I'm not admitting to anything. Guns are associated with violence and our use of this photo might therefore be taken as a suggestion that Saddam Hussein is a violent man. Maybe Saddam Hussein is indeed a violent man, I don't know, but that's a POV and we can't express it. And thankyou for the alternative photo, but it is too large to use as it is, and I don't have the resources to shrink it. If somebody else does, it might be better to crop it to head-and-shoulders rather than shrink the whole thing, by the way (but I'm not really very great with photos, so I may be well off the mark there). --Camembert

Ah, Hephaestos just added a photo better than both the old one and the above-suggested. No gun, no benevolent grin. Thanks, Hephaestos. --Camembert

Ah, I too have done as you requested, Sahib. Personally, I thought the gun was quite a dashing fashion accessory. -º¡º

Every picture "lies" or at least can show a POV. Every serious photographer knows. Framing in itself is choosing. Ericd

Thank you for pointing that out. Also lens choice, film stock, lighting, distance to subject rah rah rah.

Exposure, shutter speed, focus. (For instance, after 30 most people look younger slighty out of focus.)

Ericd 01:01 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

We really could use an article on Tikrit and the influence of its citizens on Iraq as a whole. I wish I knew enough to do something other than a very stubbish article. -- Zoe

I think the best solution to the problem mentioned above is to have the photo of Saddam shooting his rifle, and also a photo of Saddam addressing the UN, and also a photo of him kissing babies, and so on and so forth. By giving a range of images of Saddam we would (A) liven the page up and (B) avoid NPOV.

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)

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

---

Is Saddam married to three women right now, or did he marry and divorce each time? This is unclear in the article. Graft

I think they were three separate marriages. The article clearly says otherwise. Arno 07:39 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the first sentence of the bottom picture's caption. Not out of any political point, but because two sentence captions seem excessive. -- Zoe

---

From the article: However, Hussein's government is the only one in the world that has rapists on its payroll and uses rape as one method of punishing women who have broke the law. That's such a bold claim it sounds almost propagandistic, and the bad grammar in "have broke the law" makes me even more suspicious of it. Is there any evidence to support this charge? -- Branden

Self-followup: state-sponsored rape, even in the context of a judicial system, is not unheard of; consider [8] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/04/1025667035230) this example from Pakistan (and this, we may note, happened during the time when the U.S. was allied with Pakistan in the "War on Terror", so it failed to cause much outrage in the American press). At the same time that instance sounds exactly like the same sort of theocratic court ruling that Hussein is credited in the same article with helping to abolish in quest to "secularize" Iraq. Fact or BS? Anyone? -- Branden

I had nothing to do with writing the above statement, but... The U.N., The European Union's Commission for Human Rights, and Human rights organizations like the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, the Coalition for Justice in Iraq, Physicians for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross and others have documented Iraq's state-sponsored rape for decades. Do a search on the net for "Iraq" and "human rights".. you'll get hundreds of articles (including some by French human rights groups) that discuss this (and other) horrible behavior by the Hussein government. Here's a few links that I see right off hand... [9] (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/archives/hr/hrarchindex), [10] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1940050.stm), [11] (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/), [12] (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8257.htm), etc, etc, etc...

Thanks. I poked around elsewhere on the Wikipedia, and found plenty of mentions of human rights abuses in general, but no claims to documented cases of rapes. However, thanks to your links, I turned up the following [13] (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq), which is enough for me. Rape appears to be more an instrument of terrorization as opposed to a criminal punishement per se, so it seems misleading to call it a "punishment for women who have broke the law". Some people find such distinctions meaningless, I'm sure, but Hussein is a such a controversial figure that I think it's best if the Wikipedia hews as close to accuracy and precision as it can get. I'll edit the article accordingly. Thanks again. -- Branden

From Amnesty International REPORT 1997: Iraq (the Republic of) (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar97/MDE14.htm)

Physical and psychological torture and ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners remained widespread. Methods of torture reported included beatings, electric shocks to the tongue and genitals, suspension from a rotating fan, burning the skin using heated metal implements or sulphuric acid, and rape.

From The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122258892)

No one outside Iraq denies that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. No one denies that he continues to torture, murder and use rape as a tool of control.

From US Dept of State (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/focus/)

A U.N. Special Rapporteur receives reports from Iraqi citizens tortured by Iraqi security officials. According to former prisoners, torture techniques include branding; electric shock; beating; rape; as well as the detention and rape of relatives of alleged suspects; the breaking of limbs and other forms of maltreatment. Torture is often videotaped in order to intimidate others.

From Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq)

The rape or threat of rape has long been used in Iraq as a punitive measure against opponents to extract confessions or information or to pressure them into desisting from anti-government activities.

See also:

• http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2001/iraq08152001

But the "only country" stuff should go -- that seems to have just have been a part of a bio on Hussein that aired on the History Channel. --mav

---

See what I mean about people not having the stomach for academic history and favoring trivial history instead? History is not memorizing trivia. Understands that. His edits to such historical pages are almost always superb.

But to other users aside from Mav, this article is not a chronicle of what an evil man did to be considered evil.

The article contains links to sites chronicling such atrocities and makes it clear enough that he’s a tyrant.

172

I hardly call the use of rape as a method of controlling dissent or gassing to death thousands of civilians as "trivia". --mav

---

From the article:

According to many historians, Iraq has always been hostile to Kuwait, because Kuwait was created by the British from land that was originally part of Iraq and Hussein needed the seaport Kuwait occupied. Kuwait had already offered its seaport to Iraq, and it was using Iraq's fleet of oil tankers to transport its own oil abroad, as were many other oil countries. This gave them an indigenous industry, independent of outside European and American tankers which demanded higher fees. Thus Kuwait and Iraq were in the oil tanker business together, Iraq furnishing the tankers, Kuwait furnishing the port.

The US and Britain, major members of the UN Security Council of five, stirred a reluctant Security Council into declaring war on Iraq, which President George H. W. Bush declared was "for the New World Order."

The above is about Iraq history, not about Hussein. Again 172, you are confusing your subjects. --mav

---

This article is getting long and needs sectioning. I like the organization of Adolf Hitler. --mav

---

His regime is one of the most autrocratic in the world and Hussein is regarded by many in the west to be a war criminal while in the Arab world he is widely viewed favorably for his opposition to the United States.

How is that not NPOV? It correctly attributes the dominant views of both the west and the Arab world? Hussein's regime is at least (probably much more) autocratic than Mugabe's. --mav

---

---

I don't really care that much about the intro. But the intro should stick with objective facts. Put it back if you insist.

My recent edits only removed a sentence in the introduction, which was not NPOV. Other than that, in this recent string of edits, I only added content.

Content, like what Mav mentioned above, is important. Though it could be in the article about Iraq, it’s essential for understanding Hussein’s role.

Hussein has consolidated quite a good deal of control over Iraq; his role and his influence is often Iraqi history. During this era, Saddam’s role and Iraqi history are often interchangeable.

172

---

He's more significant because of many other reasons aside from, but linked to, him being an autocrat.

The intro can be improved.

172

What do you think about sectioning? --mav

---

Nah. This article doesn't really need it.

I added transitions between many paragraphs. It's flow is good enough.

172

It's good for now but as the article grows this will become more important. --mav

---

So, the article at the moment makes the claim that Saddam is the glue holding a fractious society together:

Over the past three decades, however, Hussein's authoritarian rule has kept the lid on pervasive tribal, class, religious, factional, and ethnic conflicts, and destabilizing forces externally, such as hostile powers like Iran and the United States.

I don't know if this is true, and since Iraq has not been without a hegemon for nearly a century now, neither does anyone else. At any rate, it's not NPOV to make this claim. Can we rephrase this in a more appropriate manner? Graft

---

Not really.

Iraq’s modernization has opened up new conflicts, moving from a tribal society to one with a fairly large middle class and working class.

172

Okay, I can imagine this to be true. However, I don't think replacing the passage with "Under Saddam's auspices the program of modernization has resulted in the transformation from a fractious tribal society to a population with a strong middle class" is any less neutral, since this is still analysis. Graft

---

I've replaced the first photo with the one we had here before - it's a much better size (the one it was replaced with rather took over the article). I've removed the second photo because it doesn't have much to do with Saddam Hussein - it would be OK for an article about protests against the war in Lebanon or something like that, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant here. I'm not against a second photo of Saddam Hussein further down the article to break the text up a bit, though. --Camembert

Anon 65.x: It would be nice if, when making wholesale reverts, one left an explanation on the talk page, as Camembert did. The newer image was overwhelming the text; I've resized it to fit. Also, when inserting into a >div< that has an explicit pixel width, it's important that that width match what's actually in there. - Hephaestos 18:05 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

i give up. the whole things reads like a whitewash. "conflict with Kuwait"? The man invaded! --Uncle Ed 20:33 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Stick in an NPOV dispute header if you like. Personally I don't know enough history to verify most of it as either biased or otherwise, so aside from minor formatting I'll steer clear... Martin

You should read the version before I added some NPOV to this page. Before I made those edits this article hardly mentioned a single negative aspect of this man and this rule. I don't think this article needs to be totally rewritten - just heavily copyedited for NPOV. --mav

You are right, as usual, mav. Have a nice weekend :-) --Uncle Ed

---

Mav:

Before I started editing this article, it did not mention concrete examples of those atrocities. In my edits afterwards, I mentioned that Iraq is probably the most autocratic country in the region, not perhaps in terms of its control of the day-to-day lives of its citizenry (from what I know, I’d have to say that Saudi Arabia and Iran are more “totalitarian” due to their conservative, Islamist social policy), but in the frequency that it resorts to suppression of anti-government groups.

I didn't bother mentioning the chemical attacks specifically because there are links to articles that do in this article.

172

---

As an aside, institutionalized totalitarianism is often less bloody than your typical autocracy because it has already weeded out its enemies and has already consolidated enough control to stop anti-government activity before a wide-scale, bloody crackdown is necessary. I’d have to say that Saddam comes closer to the latter (bloody autocracy) than the former.

Though I’m happy with the article’s current state, I have nothing against other contributors willing to further chronicle Saddam’s conflict with, and suppression against the tribal, ethic, religious, or class enemies of his support base. They just shouldn’t elaborate and go into lurid detail since this is a short, biographical article and this point is already very strongly articulated.

172

---

From the article (not removed yet)

In effect, Hussein was striving to pay off the debts accumulated during the Iraq-Iran War by pushing oil-exporting countries to raise oil prices and cutback production. That, of course, would be intolerable to the West, considering the very destabilizing effects of the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s.

This is in reference to Iraq's involvement with the Arab League but looks to me like idle speculation - has Hussein stated that this is what he thinks or is the author psychic? If Hussein thinks this (or thought RIPH) then that should be attributed to him. However the statement seems to have the not so implied POV that the Gulf War was fought to keep oil prices down. This opinion should be attributed to its adherents. --mav 10:29 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

The part about Hussein is pretty widely accepted historically. He leveled many grievances at Kuwait through official channels prior to the invasion, but the single largest grievance was that Kuwait was overproducing oil, driving down oil prices when Iraq needed them to be high, and that this this amounted to an "act of war". A thorough article title "Iraq vs. Kuwait: Claims and counterclaims" about this subject was written by Walid Khalidi in "The Gulf Crisis: Origins and Consequences". As for what the exact reason why the West (and more specifically, the US and George Bush) reacted so strongly to this, we discuss the reasons (stated or otherwise) at Gulf War. DanKeshet 15:48 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

The information in the above paragraph has to stay, but I'll fix it up a little.

172

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. PS, I deleted that stupid picture that keeps getting posted all over the place an messing up margins. -- 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 (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 [14] (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20021120/saddam_hussein_name_021120/), 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 (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 (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)