Talk:Death by burning

/Archive 1

Bahá'í Faith

The original edition to this section is as follows....

Main article: Bahá'í laws

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the central book of the Bahá'í Faith written by Bahá'u'lláh, condemns arsonists to death by immolation, stating "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn." The Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith, has stated that some punishments, such as for arson, are intended for a future condition of society, at which time they will be supplemented and applied by the Universal House of Justice.

The full quote from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas states: "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death." It is only the comments section of one of the translation editions that states "alternative of life imprisonment." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The original quote from Baha'u'llah, paragraph 62 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas: "Should anyone intentionally desteroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn... Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible..."

You are misquoting the source. You are also using primary sources and verging on WP:OR if you attempt at interpreting it or providing misleading, partial quotes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The quote provided was the full quote, not a partial quote. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section incorporating the points of view of both Cuñado and A35821361, as well as references provided by both of them. The quotes from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and its commentary have been moved into the References section; while they are of interest, the main text does a good enough job of summing up the intent of the law and its applicability. Moreover, there are no quotes that would be notable enough for inclusion in the main body of the article; since the law is not yet binding, there has never been an example of death by burning as applied under Bahá'í law. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on both of your talk pages, please discuss any further changes to this section here on the talk page, and refrain from making any further undiscussed edits. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it could be improved upon but it's good enough as is. The original addition was misquoting the source, and that is fixed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Including the quote "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn" is not a misquote, but a direct quote, as the punishment is unambiguously dictated in the text of the Aqdas, however objectionable it may be or however much you may wish to mitigate its harshness. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The point isn't that the quote is not a direct one; it's that quoting it without the surrounding context distorts its meaning. Paragraph 62 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, in its entirety, reads as follows:

"Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily, hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth."

That's not all, though. Quoting this paragraph without also highlighting that this law is not presently binding upon Bahá'ís could mislead the reader into thinking that immolation is currently applied by Bahá'ís as a punishment for arson, whereas, as I've noted above, there has never been an example of death by burning as applied under Bahá'í law. In fact, this makes me question why you feel this should be included in this article at all, as the rest of the article lists actual examples of people being burned to death, and not policies which could, in the fullness of time, eventually lead to people being burned to death. I submit that a better place for this information would be in the article on capital punishment, in the "religious views" section.

By the way, including enough meaningful context to allow readers to gain a better understanding of the nature of Bahá'í law and its present, real-world applicability isn't called "mitigating the harshness" of an "objectionable" law, it's called being truthful and objective. I'm sure that as a Wikipedia editor, you're interested in helping the project maintain its objectivity. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Section merge to Capital punishment

As noted in the discussion above, I propose to merge the section on the Bahá'í Faith into the article on capital punishment, in the "religious views" section. The rationale for this move is that the present article is about actual deaths caused by burning, and since there has never been an example of death by burning as applied under Bahá'í law, this section is out of place. Furthermore, the Bahá'í Faith is not currently represented in the destination article, and adding a section about it in that article would allow for a more thorough and balanced discussion of capital punishment and its place in Bahá'í law. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 01:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly see what you mean about this article being about a history of actual burnings without a section on religion perse while the capital punishment article has a religion section and could have a broader review presuming sources could be found. Makes sense to me. As a point of some detail it seems most/all of those lead over to Religion and capital punishment. Smkolins (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the Baha'i section doesn't fit into the rest of the article, so that makes sense. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, Religion and capital punishment seems to be a better fit for this information. Doesn't mean that a summary couldn't also be added to capital punishment, though. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've completed the merge to Capital punishment, and will add to Religion and capital punishment as well. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

As is evident from my edit summary, the IP removed content saying "not in source", I checked the source and it certainly supports the content. The IP also removed a tag, without adding a citation, so this was also reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Other uses of "burned alive"

This article seems to focus on burning a person to death as execution (ergo, a punishment for wrongdoing, usually sexual transgressions). However, there are other forms of being "burned alive," such as accidental (e.g., someone trapped in a burning building or car, and succumbing to either the flames or effects (as in carbon monoxide poisoning or effects from the heat)). My question is, should this article address that form of being "burned alive," as opposed to this being strictly an article about the execution use? Sorry if my question seems a bit awkward. Briguy52748 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)]]

I would say, "no." The article is on burning as a means of capital punishment. It's got the wrong title, but that means it should be renamed, not that unrelated burning deaths should be added.

Anyone have any suggested names? Burning (capital punishment)? Execution by burning? TJRC (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, goddam. after I saved, expecting two redlinks, I see that Execution by burning is a redirect here. I propose it should be the other way around. TJRC (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As in, call the article "Execution by burning"? If so, I would support the rename, along with a redirect with the idea that an article could possibly be created sometime in the future to cover other forms of death caused by fire. I do know there is an article -- its name escapes me at the moment -- about fires that killed large numbers of people (or notable fires where fewer people died). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)]]

Category

@Dimadick: please could you explain what "Main topic article of the category" means, and how it justifies placing an article about a method of execution, into a category of articles about people? MPS1992 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you new to Wikipedia? Every category has a main article which explains the topic. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: that is a surprising question. Please could you mention for me what the "main article" of Category:Pharaohs of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt is, so that I might better understand your assertion. A precise link to policy on this would be an acceptable alternative. MPS1992 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Eponymous_categories: "A category that covers exactly the same topic as an article is known as the eponymous category for that article"... "The article itself should be a member of the eponymous category and should be sorted with a space to appear at the start of the listing (see #Sort keys)."

Open the category and see which is the eponymous article. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I have opened Category:Pharaohs of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt and there is no eponymous article. Please could you explain how that fits with your assertion "Every category has a main article which explains the topic". Please could you also indent your posts correctly when replying. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The category we are discussing, not the Pharaohs category. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: So are you retracting your claim that "Every category has a main article which explains the topic"? MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't. Subcategorizing the category on the 12th dynasty, does not mean it lacks a main article. Dimadick (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: That's not very helpful. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Which of the three options listed at Eponymous_categories are you proposing to use with regard to the article under discussion, i.e. Death by burning? MPS1992 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is already listed as the main article of the category, and it is supposed to provide the category's definition (as no other definition was provided). Are you offering to write a better definition of the category's scope? Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)