Template talk:Capital punishment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Death (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

By country methodology[edit]

In order to address the concerns expressed by the old "by country" section, I've made a new one which is not biased towards English language speaking countries.

The countries that are listed in the new section are there because:

(1) They are in the top 60 populated countries in the world, as listed here: List of countries by population
(2) They have a page specific to capital punishment in that country, as listed here: Category:Capital punishment by country

I hope this new method assuages any concerns the previous list made. --Shadowlink1014 06:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the first criterion. There are some countries in which the death penalty is quite notable even if it isn't one of the biggest countries in the world. I'm thinking particularly of Israel where they've only executed one person, Adolf Eichmann, and though they've sentenced others to death, they've overturned them all. It is an interesting situation when religious aversion to the death penalty creeps its way into politics. There also is an article Capital punishment in Israel. I don't know where the previous discussion is located that you mention nor do I know what the name of the template used to be, and that would be quite helpful. Meanwhile, I'm going to put Israel back on the list. If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to undo my edit, but if you do please justify your reason for doing so on this talk page. Thanks Valley2city 22:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

By country explanation[edit]

There've been a lot of edits the past couple weeks, generally by anonymous IP editors, that seem to misunderstand this template. At various times in the last week or so, Iraq, Iran and India have been deleted on the ground that there is some particular form of capital punishment that is not practiced in that country.

We've seen Iran removed because it does not practice death by crucifixion ([1]); Iran removed because it does not practice death by boiling ([2]); and India because it does not practice death by stoning ([3], [4]).

These edits misunderstand the navbox. The navbox is included on a variety of pages that deal with capital punishment, and is an aid to navigate among other articles dealing with capital punishment. The fact that someone comes across this navbox in the articles Crucifixion, Death by boiling or Stoning does not mean that any particular country listed in the navbox practices that particular form of capital punishment. It means only that the articles Capital punishment in Iraq, Capital punishment in Iran, Capital punishment in India, and for that matter, Capital punishment in the United States, are subjects related to capital punishment; as are the articles Crucifixion, Death by boiling and Stoning. It is inappropriate to remove an entry for a particular country because it does not practice every possible form of capital punishment.TJRC (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Necklacing should be removed from the template[edit]

Should that be included as a capital punishment? It is has only been used as a method of lynching and as as I know and from the reading the article, it has clearly never never been used by a legitimate legislative power. It is well known that necklacing has been used to kill people who have been found guilty of crimes by kangaroo courts but it has never been used for any "legal execution". Unlike the other more barbarous methods listed in the infobox, these have all been used by "official" organs of the state even if by our standards they are horrific today. Whereas Necklacing has not.

I agree it is a "method of killing" but it misleading to include it as a capital punishment because that suggests it has been legally sanctioned by legitimate bodies in power for the purposes of execution. But this is not the case because necklacing is a method of killing only associated with unelected "mob". It shpould be removed from the template box because it is not a prescribed form of capital punishment only a method of killing. In choosing to include this article, it begs the question what other forms of killing are therefore valid? Burial up to the neck in sand, walking the plank, pushed off cliffs, pulled aprt from wild horses etc. By allowing this entry there is a case to include every kind of nasty manner to kill someone and say that this is a form of execution. It's bad form and that is also why this entry should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.72.87 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree...and am removing it now. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Skull image[edit]

It strikes me as unprofessional. Could it be removed? --Quasipalm (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I almost reverted it when it was added a couple weeks ago, but thought I was in the minority. Does anyone except the editor who added it want it to stay? TJRC (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone disagrees, please make a comment here. Also, if there is another image that's appropriate and encyclopedic maybe it could be added instead. --Quasipalm (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not everybody knows what 'Capital Punishment' means[edit]

'Capital Punishment' is not a universally understood term. When it appears next to a section in an article some people get confused. I think that a more universally understood name, such as 'Death Penalty' or 'Death Punishment' or 'Death Sentence' should be utillised as the header for the Sidebar to help with reader comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorjjdjsjiejejejjsjsjajqoak (talkcontribs) 14:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your raising this in talk. I think I disagree with your suggestion though; if they are in doubt they need only click on the link to find out. This is one of the main purposes of this template after all. --John (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that makes sense. Thanks.Jorjjdjsjiejejejjsjsjajqoak (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Current methods"[edit]

I think "forced disappearance" and "inert gas asphyxiation" should be removed from this section. "Forced disappearance" does not exclusively imply execution, and when it does, it's an extrajudicial killing rather than a legislated punishment. In any case, a forced disappearance is a means to an execution, rather than a form of execution. As for "inert gas asphyxiation", as it's a proposed method, I don't see how it merits inclusion as "current", especially as I don't see any evidence that's it's under serious consideration by any legislative body. I'm not sure if they should be removed completely, or moved elsewhere within the template. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the inclusion of amputation in the list. It talks about amputation as punishment, but as a means of applying the death penalty. --Derek Andrews (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. There is no mention of amputation in the Capital punishment page and although there is discussion of amputation as a punishment in the Amputation article, there is no suggestion that death is intended in this context. Further, Eye for an eye (added in the same edit) also seems inappropriate to me as it is not a method, but a justification. Because these changes seem uncontroversial, I will be bold and make the changes. If anyone disagrees, please let us know here what we're missing. GraemeC (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this a more appropriate place to discuss whether the template has become standardized??[edit]

Hi there! On Hanged, Drawn and Quartered some editors do not wish this template included. I brought to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, notifying editors that are generally involved on Execution sites. However, it dawned upon me that maybe THIS Talk Page is the best to discuss whether the template to have become sufficiently standardized that single editors can't revert the template's inclusion.

Therefore, I append what I wrote wrote on DRN, re-mentioning editors:


Users Parrot of Doom, Ealdgyth and Nev1 have reverted inclusion of the perfectly standard template "capital punishment" at the page Hanged, Drawn and Quartered. The two first users only proffers their personal sentiments, that the template is "huge" and "ungainly". The last user, Nev1, has by far a much more constructive attitude, in particular, I value Nev1's willingness to see if a collapsed version of the template, or a horizantal version of it should be considered.

However, my principal point is that this template (whatever present flaws it has) is standard usage on every in-depth article on execution, and that these editors seem to violate WP:OWN policy. The editors in question do not seem that standardized templates is not something a few editors should dispense with, since when something is standardized, then an implicit consensus has been reached.

Or is it? The dispute question is: Is the capital punishment template so standardized by now that it ought to effectively obligatory on in-depth articles on execution?

This is a general question, relevant to MANY pages, and cannot as I see it, profitably be discussed at an isolated Talk Page!

There are quite a few editors involved on different execution sites, and a call upon them for their input to develop a general policy and consensus here, and also sound out if the present "capital punishment" template might be improved. (I'm specifically thinking of a collapsed version of templates-within-templates, but I don't know how to make it!)

The users I have seen, and known to be fairly active recently on various execution sites are, as follows:

I also hope experienced administrator Binksternet might provide some input on general policies on fairly standardized templates in general, if reverts of such inclusions are to be treated as any other types of reverts (i.e, not whether Binksternet thinks this template is standardized or not, but how to regard refusal to include templates that consensus has deemed standard for a particular topic). I hope the involved editors at HDQ, and those among the now mentioned users can generate a fruitful discussion in order to reach consensus for inclusion/optionality of the "capital punishment" template for in-depth articles!Arildnordby (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No template is "standard" - the placement of that template was totally overwhelming to the beginning of the article and pushed down illustrations out of connection with their discussion in the text. There is no requirement that navigation templates go on pages - at least I'm not aware of such. If you're going to discuss whether or not navigation templates such as this one are required on all pages - then you need to have it in a more centralized location than this - perhaps village pump? Or we could discuss on that article talk page alternate placements not at the beginning of the article ... is there not a version of this template that goes at the bottom of the page? That would be much less intrusive and allow the illustrations of the article to be close to the text that discusses them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, if other editors on other execution pages thinks the template ought to be included also on HDQ, then they are not disqualified from saying so, are they? Neither you or Parrot of Doom owns that article.Arildnordby (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, of course other editors have input - but that also means that non-capital punishment active editors get input also. It's all input - it's not "ownership" if its one group but "input" from another. All are "input". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
From Help:Infobox: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That seems clear enough - we don't have a general consensus policy one way or another, but instead it is decided on a per-article basis. Nothing decided on this talk page can override local article consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Consensuses can change. Many editors might not be aware of the HDQ article in question, but think it ought to include the template. So, I don't see your point at allArildnordby (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of template on the page Hanged, Drawn and Quartered and most any other execution topic, especially if listed in the template. Not sure what the problem is. One editor described the template as "huge ungainly and completely unnecessary", and I don't find it to be any of those. I've certainly seen larger and more ungainly templates. If it is too huge or ungainly, then the disputing editor should create a horizontal template or break it up into sub-categories, though really I think the size and depth covered by the present template is acceptable. If it pushes relevant images too far down the page, then it should be modified so it's collapsible. There are viable compromises here. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI. I've just added a tiny, unobtrusive inclusion of the template at the bottom. Maybe TOO unobtrusive and practically invisible?Arildnordby (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator; my voice is but one voice among many. I think the template should be placed near the upper right corner of the HDQ page, under one selected image, in the manner shown here. I think this question is a less controversial one than infoboxes, because it allows a selected image to remain at the top, and it does not prevent the hurried reader from reading the article by allowing them a quick summary (a critique which has been leveled at infoboxes.) I note that the template is fairly slender and not "huge" or "ungainly" as said by Parrot of Doom in a reversion edit summary.
Unrelated to the template question, I think the top image which has been selected by article contributors is confusing since it does not depict hanging, nor drawing, nor quartering. I think it should be swapped with another more exemplary image from the article body. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
1. Sorry, you're such a veteran that I thought you were administrator! Mea culpa. 2. Essentially, your suggestion is the one opposed to and reverted; Nev1 had a rather better founded criticism in saying it clogs up the view on the mobile. I'm not too sure, though, how other editors judge the weight of that argument. 3. As for the picture, it shows the disembowelment of Hugh Despenser, one of the features attested in some HDQ-procedures (some have even meant "drawing" refers to drawing out intestines, rather than drawing on a hurdle. Drawing a criminal to the execution site in an ignominous manner is a VERY common pre-execution ritual, whether they are to be hanged, decapitated, burnt on a pyre or so on). So I see your point about the picture being somewhat confusing, but I'm not altogether sure if another picture will represent an improvement. Possibly, the caption text should say it shows the disembowelment of Despenser??Arildnordby (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If there is a problem with such templates as displayed on mobile devices then it is a problem that would be Wiki-wide, not solely about the HDQ article. Such a problem would best be addressed by looking at mobile device operating systems, or the way wiki markup is sent to them. We should not stop using templates that work perfectly well on the great majority of regular computer screens.
The "drawing" of bowels is a definition I had not considered. Thanks for the historic view. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you that loading problems on substandard screens (such as mobile phone) is can only go a bit as criticism, but Nev1 appreciated the move where I moved the template from the TOP of the lead to the bottom of the lead. It is a practically invisible edit change on a wide screen, but on the mobile screen, it means that the template does NOT upload before the lead, but after it. That's the type of constructive aid to improve readability of Wikipedia on other reading formats, I think! Just short on the Despenser picture: The fire is also relevant, and indeed, the ladder. Because the middle part of this gruesome ritual was not just that the person was to be disembowelled but be forced to watch his own guts burnt to cinders. So, the Despenser picture is definitely highly relevant, but precisely because it concerns the nowadays least known middle ritual (causing some confusion), I'm inclined to think mulling over an improved caption text is an alternative to swapping the picture with another one. I guess that is Article Talk Page stuff, though, but wanted to give a brief mention of it here.Arildnordby (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rather than responding calmly Parrot of Doom responds in hysterical ownership modus in the following manner: " "it's still an ugly template which has no place here." I would like to hear Binksternet's opinion here. Is it time to bring this user to ANI soon?Arildnordby (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You inserted a green line which, when clicked, opens a huge white space with a template running down the right side. It's ugly. And frankly, I'm not particularly thrilled to see anyone claim that HD&Q is "part of a series" when almost every article in that series is a mess (like most articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you focussed your efforts more on article improvement you wouldn't get so frustrated. And I note you're another editor who doesn't know the difference between stewardship and ownership. Don't worry though, you're not alone. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Your personal attacks are noted. For other editors, Parrot of Doom's style of debating can be viewed for example, by:

These are edit summaries on HDQ made by PoDArildnordby (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I came here because I was pinged, so here is my personal opinion about use of the template, and I'd rather not get involved in the discussion about personal attacks and such. In general, I think these kinds of templates are useful to our readers, because they are a way of saying, in effect, "if you are reading this page, then here are links to help you easily find other pages that may, perhaps, also interest you". Consequently, I tend to be rather inclusionist with respect to such templates. And I think it would be an improvement to include the template at the HDQ page in question. At the same time, I sympathetic to the concerns of those editors who felt that the template took up too much space on the page. But I think there are numerous ways to solve that problem. The first is the one that was already tried: putting it in collapsed form at the bottom of the page. I found the argument, made above, that it was still too spacious once one un-collapsed it, a rather poor argument, because all one has to do in such a situation is to re-collapse it. I think the revert of that version was rather unhelpful. But another option is to discuss in this talk ways of making the template smaller. One way would be to remove some links within it, or some sections of it (I don't have anything in mind). Another approach, not mutually exclusive, is to incorporate the collapsed structure within the template itself. The default display of the template could then be to show each of its section headings, but the sections themselves would display as collapsed. Interested readers could then un-collapse each section one-by-one as they wish. That way, the default display would be quite compact, and could even fit adequately at the top of the page (although I think these things are about equally useful at either the top or the bottom). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps something that doesn't impose itself on everyone, something that doesn't look hideous. Something like this. Parrot of Doom 22:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the proposed format is much better than the sickly green, which was the one I was familiar with. Having, in an image/text-heavy article as HDQ is, a vertical strip, also is more problematic here than in articles with a lesser ratio image/text. A horizontally placed box on the bottom of the page (above Categories), in the calm blue proposed by PoD is definitely preferable, unless some other editors feel strongly that the Navbox to other related themes must look the same. I'm not one of them.Arildnordby (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If one goes with the narrow, top-of-the-page format, there are alternatives to that green color. But I think a horizontal, bottom-of-the-page format works just fine, and is just as useful to our readers. As for being "hideous", I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, the very constructive proposed alternative by Parrot of Doom of a horizontal box has the "ideal" defect of being a new template that won't be automatically updated when the "classical" vertical template becomes updated. I hardly think this "defect" is a sufficiently weighty argument to overturn the aesthetic concerns voiced by those principal editors, such as PoD, who have pushed this article into FA status. Having reached FA status, aesthetics concerns, even though only really in the "eye of the beholder", DO, I think, gain a certain weight. However, my primary aim by adding this template to other capital punishments was to add opportunities for the interested reader, but I have been convinced by PoD and Nev1 that the general reader would feel a quality reduction (of different reasons!) by the addition of the vertical strip, whereas the interested reader will still regard it as an improvement to the present article with a navigation box at the bottom of the article. Some (but not complete) leeway, out of respect for the principally aesthetic concerns of these editors should be given!! Thus, if PoD thinks a calm blue box at the bottom (that doesn't interfere with the article layout further up) is an acceptable compromise, I'm happy with that (I am thereby foregoing my preference for the standard vertical strip, going for a second best).Arildnordby (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Although those who have commented generally favour inclusion of a navbox, I do not find any strong, widespread consensus that HDQ "must" have this navbox. Perhaps most simply do not care, one way or the other, and therefore refrain from commenting? Unless other commentators therefore join in, I'll leave the article as it stands by the edits from Parrot of Doom for now.Arildnordby (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)