Talk:Impalement

Torture and punishment

If the punishment fits the crime, then what would a person have done to be executed in this fashion? I have watched a video clip of this being done and it is quite a horrific death. If the punishment fits the crime, then the only thing I can think of is anal rape (child or adult). Other methods of execution such as firing squad, hanging or electric chair are, in my opinion very quick and humane, despite the arguments against barbarity. thats sounds pretty bad to me. I would hate to have that done.

In the Middle Ages, this was a very cruel method of execution, it didn't had a particular purpose. Vlad III Dracula used it for intimidation: he impaled all the Ottoman Turks prisoneers, so that when the Ottoman army marched toward his capital, they would be frightened. Bogdan | Talk 15:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since when did the punishment ever fit the crime? In the Middle Ages, you could be impaled because your neighbor thought you were a witch or someone shot a deer in the Duke's forest and framed you, or because an invading army was passing through and you looked like a loyalist, or just because the prince was having a bad hair day. Torture never has any legitimate reason aside from sick enjoyment. P.S. You might want to do some research into frequency of botched executions (hangings that don't quite hang, firing squads that have to reload and try again, electric chairs that take minutes to kill, lethal injections that the victim can feel pain during). You might be surprised. -Kasreyn 11:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when did the punishment ever fit the crime? This is a common fallacy. In the US when somebody murders another, they can be put to the death penalty. But when someone commits arson, the court doesn't order their hourse burned down; when they rape, the court doesn't order rape in return. The punishment almost never fits the crime.

"Torture never has any legitimate reason aside from sick enjoyment." This is rather narrow a viewpoint. There **are** legitimate reasons for torture, and in-fact, this is why even many developed countries maintained only cursory party in the "anti-torture" treaty sponsored by the United Nations. Torture may be used to precipitate critical information from subjects or in more terminal form it can be used to further grade punishment according to crimes, in fact, the foundation of our justice system (United states at least) is supposed to guarantee citizens that "punishment"(in specialized form also known as torture)will be standardized against the spectrum of crime, to check the possibility of such attrocities as being boiled alive for stealing a pencil.

You're right - there is one legitimate reason for torture - the enjoyment and arousal of the torturer. This is why it's so common among serial killers: Dahmer, Bundy, and the rest. And by soldiers forcing their prisoners into sexually submissive positions, in photos published to the world from Iraq.

Wrong. Torture does not elicit information. Torture just gets the tortured person to say whatever the torturer wants to hear. Research the Inquisition. You are also incorrect about the U.S. penal system. The U.S. operates under a model of "rehabilitation", where the justification for punishments is the stated goal of "rehabilitating" criminals into law-abiding members of society. Torture has no rehabilitative effect and is forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Imprisonment, some have argued and continue to argue, is a form of torture; it is however a necessity, to protect society from reoffense. The principle purpose of imprisonment is this protection, not punishment. Kasreyn 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take for one to be "rehabilitated"?, Do we really need 100+ years to achieve rehabilitation?

Does it depend on the nature of the crime commited or that of the criminal?

Can our penal code, even in a most dissociated form consist of rehabilitation even in principle?

Perhaps most important of all, what is the **definition** of PUNISHMENT?(look it up in the dictionary).

"Torture has no rehabilitative effect and is forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Absolutely wrong!!! Torture is NOT forbidden by any amendment in the constitution and in fact the founding fathers recognized such acts of punishment to be a cornerstone of any serious justice system and thus the notoriously vague 8th amendment. What they forbade where "cruel and unusual" acts of torture(punishment) because such systems tend to attenuate the spirit of freedom which is arguably an essential part of any workable democracy, not because they actually cared about the comfort or rehabilitation of criminals.

" Imprisonment, some have argued and continue to argue, is a form of torture; it is however a necessity, to protect society from reoffense. "

Imprisonment **is** a form of torture. It is constitutional because it isn't "cruel and unusual". It isn't cruel and unusual because it is not yet "cruel and unusual".

...wow. I don't know what to say in response to something that flies so utterly in the face of common sense. I suspect the solution is not to continue this unfortunate digression any further. The only point of yours which is actually grounded in the reality which I inhabit (rather than the reality you inhabit, where apparently water flows uphill and the sky is purple), I will rebut thusly: telling a torturer what they want to hear is not the same thing as information. If you are not a heretic, and they are torturing you and will not stop until you say you are a heretic, then you will say you are a heretic. There is no other option available. There is no information content in this exchange, and your contention that torturers - torturers - are actually equipped to distinguish such answers, is palpably false. It's rather quaint that your other arguments are based on other definitions of the terms "punishment" and "torture" than the ones the rest of us use, but quaint doesn't merit a response. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this arguement with a bit of interest. "kasreyn", you have totally missed the point of the original author, instead resorting to disconnected attacks and unwarranted accusations. I agree generally with the position that torture is just a special case of punishment which in turn is the foundation of any real justice system. The problem with "common sense" is that it is useless outside of a short history of a collection of area codes, when trying to understand such abstract constructs.

well, torture is not always a kind of punishment, various tortures were/are used to extort information not just from accused but also from witnesses, they weren't considered punishment.

Back to impalation: it was a very gruesome way of executing people used to scare others more than anything else, no need for the victims to have done anything. BTW: I don't think Kasreyn has missed anything. Plch 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section about impalement in literature and movies. I am thinking of the Shrike Tree in the Hyperion Cantos for instance. 68.165.99.171 19:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources? All I got is The Historian.

I read in a website that even now six countries follow Impalement as their legal mode of execution. Is it true? If yes can anyone tell me what are those countries?Sauron 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Crucifixion ?

Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:Crucifixion#Merge with Impalement. --Ephilei 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course NOT! Impalement has a much more general meaning than a means of torture. This is rediculous. When you impale your marshmellows on a stick do you crucify them too?!

Unsourced claim

The article stated: During war in Bosnia, some Serbs captives was put on stakes by mujahedin in Srebrenica and some ("bosnian lambs") was put near fire to cook alive (source ICTFY Den Haag). Can this source please be given in full length? -- Zz 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiction

A reference to the film Cannibal Holocaust might be in order, it contains a rather iconic impalement scene...--127.0.0.1 14:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I added a paragraph about the film today. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Impaling today

As someone else stated, there are videos of impalings to be found on the net, which would suggest that this disgusting practice is still going on in various uncivilised parts of the world. Surely this article would benefit from some information in regards to this sorry state of affairs. Information on the areas where this kind of thing still occurs and its frequencyN^O^el (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims of this sort require particularly careful checking and should not be put into articles unless good sources can be cited (ie. sources that indisputably meet Wikipedia standards). I'm not saying that very bad things don't happen in the world but war does lead to the spreading of rumour and propaganda.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Meaning of "Impalement"

As this article is titled "Impalement" rather than "Impalement (torture and execution)" it should reflect the general meaning of that word. I noticed that someone had already put in wording mentioning impalement as a form of accidental injury, however the article still began by assuming that torture and execution were the main meanings. I have switched the text around a bit to give the general meaning first. I also mentioned impalement in stage illusions. I left the stuff about torture and execution mostly untouched but I put it into properly headed sections to make things clearer. I'll leave further editing of that stuff to others as it's really not my cup of tea. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Wikipedia articles are not about the general meaning, they are about specific meanings. The most common specific meaning (in this case "torture and execution") gets the main title, other articles about other meanings will have to settle for disambiguation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gravity and weight

On 7 Jan 2011, in the section Impalement#Torture and Punishment, the line Gravity and the victim's own struggles would cause him to slide down the pole was changed to Gravity and the victim's own weight would cause her/him to slide down the pole". I reverted the edit for the following reasons:

• Adding "weight" is redundant. What else would gravity be working on? Actually, according to physics, I think the correct answer is "mass", but the mention of gravity takes this into account. I concur with the original wording that the victim's "struggles" would move the body down the impaling pole.
• I concur that a victim can be either male or female, but standard English grammar allows for the usage of the masculine pronoun in non-specific cases. Might seem biased, but it is expedient, cleaner, and easier to read. I believe there's a Wikipedia guideline if anybody is really interested. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Video of modern impalement

Here is a video on YouTube of an impalement victim being treated in Libyan hospital after he was impaled on an iron rood. The video is extremely "graphic" and vulgar. Do not watch unless you are prepared to feel sick for the next week.

• 10 yrs old boy tortured by rebels......

Some details for those who prefer not to watch the film: The rood enters the boy through his anus. It does not exit the boy's mouth as in the standard impalement depictions, but has forced its way into the boy's arm, exiting just above the shoulder.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Does anyone know Wikipedia guidelines for including this in the article, under External Links? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam Impalement

There are numerous accounts of barbarous acts committed by Communist forces during the Cold War which have been perpetuated in the West and later proven to be false. I am not 100% sure that the cases of impalement in Vietnam are untrue, however, better sources are required if this is to be reported as fact rather than propaganda. Currently the sources are an unsupported second-hand account by an American veteran (hardly impartial), and an issue of Reader's Digest from 1968 which is nothing more than pro-war propaganda. If no sources can be found, I suggest this be listed as 'propaganda' rather than historical fact, allong the lines of the Germans bayonetting babies in WWI etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.10.68 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be an unsupported judgement call. One source isn't by some random veteran, it was the director of CIA operations. And I've never heard of the integrity of Reader's Digest being suspect in any way. If you feel the sources aren't good enough, then the burden is on you to find something that discredits them, or supports your hypothesis that the information was fictional propaganda. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A Cold War era director of the CIA? If there is a way to be any MORE partial on this subject I cannot think of it! Remeber that the United States government was a conflict party in Vietnam and the wider fight against communism. Regarding the Reader's Digest, it's an American popular publication from just before the Americans deployed wholesale into Vietnam in an environment of heightened pro-war propaganda, it's not academic, it's not peer reviewed and it's all third hand information.

I reject the idea that the burden of proof is on me; I am ready to accept right now that I cannot PROOVE that the Viet Cong didn't murder people in this way, but the evidence which is provided in the article is a long way from proof that something like this might have actually happened. For example; the fact that nobody can PROOVE that the US Government wasn't behind 9/11 doesn't provide me with the legitimacy to go to the 9/11 article and report such a hypothesis as fact--as a conspiracy theory, yes, but not fact.

All I'm saying is that what is written here is rumour not fact; and is even described as such in the extremely flawed sources provided. The fact that the only sources provided are thrid hand info from almost 50 years ago shows the paucity of evidence here.

About Athanasios Diakos

"...he was impaled, roasted over a fire, and died after three days..."

Are you serious? What is this bullshit line? Do you respect history or you just try to lower the Wikipedia standards? Do you have serious historical documents mentioning that after the impalement of Athanasios Diakos, the roasting of his flesh took place? And how did he manage to live for three more days, after being impaled and roasted? Don't you see the contradiction????

But judging from the citation of this line (i.e. a nationalistic newspaper), I understand the reason of the line's low historical level.

Please correct this line or I will complain to Wikipedia editors.

Cheers from Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.136.107 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We are the Wikipedia editors. You're complaining to us. Also, you can be a Wikipedia editor. So, you're complaining to yourself. Do you have a source that is more accurate? If you are serious and respect history, you can fix it. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Should article be upgraded to C-status?

Have removed refimprove on article heading, remaining unsourced material fairly limited, etc. Arildnordby (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a request at Death Wiki Project as well. if no one objects, I'll do it later on

Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think bullet points makes for easier reading!

Not that I want an acrimonious edit war, here..:-) Arildnordby (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bullet points are discouraged from text. See MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Single-sentence paragraphs are heavily discouraged, from Wikipedia and from writing & editing in general. If we have three sentences, each about a separate country, and combine them into a paragraph about the region. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks of Quotes

I must say, I am quite gratified at how the article has developed. However, I am wondering of the sheer number and size of the quoted narratives isn't making it all a bit unwieldy, especially those written in an antiquated style. One or two was fine for illustrative purposes, to highlight that there have in fact been eyewitness accounts, but too many and I'm thinking it has become disruptive. I agree thought that they are valuable for those who are interested in such detail. I propose that we summarize the quotes as succinctly as possible in the text, and move the quoted narratives into footnotes. Those who are interested in specific cases or regions can read more in-depth; while those who are interested in an overview of the subject can move more quickly from case to the next. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a good point. Some should be relegated to foot note status, or be paraphrased, with link provided.

However, the summaries should be made in such a way that the distinctiveness of the various impalement techniques, or reason thereof, are apparent in the main article. The article would be even more boring if it merely summarized, say: "The Dutch impaled", "The Ottomans impaled", the "Singhalese impaled", and so on. I fully agree that too much antique flavour can choke the reader, but entire lack of flavour is quite inedible as well. Perhaps we should make a case-by-case evaluation? Arildnordby (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. Are you familiar with the footnote template? There's a couple ways to do it, so that the Footnotes section can be distinct from the References. In a flagrant show of self-promotion, you can see the articles Lady Saigō or Coffin birth for examples of Footnotes with different in-line annotations and separate sections. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it will be best to have separate foot note section for those we wish to contain full quotes? It will be too messy to push them in-between Reference section?

Arildnordby (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That format is much cleaner and easier to navigate. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are to retain quotes, then it seems to me at least, best to call the section "Quotations", rather than "Foot notes", in that foot-notes typically are explanatory, or containing asides, rather than just being the quotation-in-full summarized in the main text? Rather insignificant point on my side, I know..Arildnordby (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no, that's fair. I have no objection, and I'm sure most other editors won't. The template allows you to label your annotations anyway you want, so in addition to the numbered in-line references, the reader can see a superscripted "Quote A" or "Quote 1" or whatever, just as I've used "Note a" in the past. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to use the template. At a particular place, within the curly-brackets, am I to write, say ref|c|Quote c, or is it enough to write ref|Quote, leaving this to be automatically given its right numbering?

Arildnordby (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't get template..

-(

Arildnordby (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For Dutch Batavia: Think Cook's assessment can be retained?

Stavorinus' tale might be relegated to the note Arildnordby (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to leave one in. I left off at "Quote f" in Arabia. I'll let you do the rest. I have to keep two tabs open, one to edit the text, and the other to edit the Quotes section. Do the Semi-colon headings work instead of the regular sub-section format? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Semicolons fine. I'm wondering if we should keep one of the North African quotes in the text, in order to highlight the spectacular throwing off the city walls down onto meat hooks? (I think Shaw's quote is better than Braithtwaite's..)

Arildnordby (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say something about keep the quotes that really focus on the topic, before I realized that throwing onto meat-hooks ounts, doesn't it? Sure, we can keep that in the text. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave further tweaking to you!

I think it is fairly complete now, only REALLY sensational or exotic impalement cases should be added. there is, of course, still some rome for improvement in the wording and re-organization of the material, but I'll leave that to others. Arildnordby (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good change in "Methods"!

Just want to say it is much better to refer specifically to Thevenot in the "Methods" section, than to have merely a general, unreferenced statement of procedure there, as the section read before. Arildnordby (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How about pulling out Warkworth entirely?

I've read "England" again. Do we really need to retain Warkworth's quote, either in text or quotations? After all, the paraphrase already present does a good enough job? Arildnordby (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem removing it, either to quotations or entirely. I mean, it's pretty cool we can get it in his words, but reading through the clunky, unpredictable spelling is taxing, and the account doesn't add much that's not already in the paraphrase. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, the reference directly leads to the quote, so that "authenticity nerds" can go there if they want to. I'll remove it.

Arildnordby (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tortuous phrase?

I'm not very pleased with my own clunky " According to Stavorinus, a characteristic suffering peculiar to being impaled is an "unquenchable thirst", and guards were posted to prevent anyone to give an impaled a relief from the ravaging thirst"

in the Stavorinus paraphrase in Dutch Batavia. Do you have a better formulation? Arildnordby (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to Stavorinus, one notable result or by-product of impalement is an "unquenchable thirst"; guards were posted to prevent anyone from providing drink to the impaled subject." Boneyard90 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I steal that one, with or without your consent! :-)

Arildnordby (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

separate area sections for Byzantine and Ottoman Empires?

After all, Byzemp was Euro+Levantine(asian), as was Ottomanemp, rather than "european" entities? Arildnordby (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal intrigues, and has a point. Plus, they were very different culture. Byzantine was Christian influenced; Ottoman was influenced by Islam. I think, at this point, you've already made some changes. I may make some changes to the section headings, for ease of navigation, if you don't mind. Or, were you planning to make more changes soon? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes? Dragontiger made a valuable contribution on Byzantium.

Arildnordby (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Byzantines and Ottomans important enough for separate section

At least when it comes to imperial policies on repression of rebels by means of impalement. For use of impalement for more mundane crimes, (like punishing apostasy or using false weights), these can be included in localized geographical sections. Arildnordby (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a great illustration in Tournefort of the Gaunch

but I don't have the skill to get it out as a jpg. :-( Can you? books.google.no/books?id=nbLip5edYDQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:"Joseph+Pitton+de+Tournefort"&hl=no&sa=X&ei=TzgBUdf6M4OA4gSK24HoCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Arildnordby (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What page? And I really doubt it. I think Google Books is set up to prevent catching an image or downloading anything. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Page between 98 and 99 (it does not have its own page number). On another article, a guy helped me to get it into jpg-format, from Google books. Perhaps I'll ask him to help me.

Arildnordby (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Sure looks relevant. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a cry-for-help message for him. Although I'm beginning to have my fill of reshaping this article, I find that the present "Ottoman Empire"-section would benefit from an overhaul; in particular with

a) Integrating better civilian&military crime elements that warranted impalement b) Flowing better together with sections nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, like Arabia, Balkans, Crete and North Africa except Morocco. c) Expand the source basis for the crimes of Ali Pascha; roasting humans on a spit over fire is truly gruesome, and ought to be extremely well-based, rather than just having a single source. But, I'll leave that overhaul to some other time.. Arildnordby (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly alternate Gauche-observation by de Thevenot?

At de Thevenot (who we have used on Egypt), at pages 68-69, there is a very good description of the Gauche contraption (he was there 40 year's earlier than Tournefort), primarily in the Levant, rather than Crete. It also states that it is very little in use, regarded as too cruel.

Either one of the quotes might serve in the main text? Arildnordby (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Describe the process, and reference both sources. You don't have to quote them both verbatim. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Or describe one, and say, this is corroborated by Tournefort who visited 40 years later. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of quality status

I have upgraded to Good Article, and made a notificatiob at the Assessment section on Death Portal. Arildnordby (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have assessed the article B-class. Please read Wikipedia:Good articles. There is a nomination and assessment process by an independent reviewer. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll nominate it, then! :-)

Arildnordby (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It reads like a penny dreadful at the moment! It's somewhat peripatetic as well. Good luck! Basket _Feudalist 10:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Much better! Basket _Feudalist 19:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In the first draft, I was afraid of OR'ing, by synthesizing and summarizing on my own, and therefore made the mistake of a mere landwise and repetitive article. Using the "References"-section as a second-tier evidence-collection section should adequately defend against charges of Original Research, while allowing the merely half-interested to ignore that. I have nominated it for a Peer Review just now.Arildnordby (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Couple of things

I want to discuss a couple of non-trivial issues I noticed in the article. The first is this text. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you've read a lot of material about impalement and did not see any examples of impalement after 1839. While I don't doubt that's true, I don't think it's something we can add to Wikipedia because it is synthesis of materials, defined as such:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

If I was really hunting for this sort of thing, I could probably find more, but this particular statement stands out because you are stating because of a personal lack of evidence that there is no evidence. You're concluding a negative statement, which, if you've debated religion ever, you know is impossible.

The second point I wanted to bring up, which I haven't edit yet is this text from the Ottoman Empire section:

Narrating the Hydra incident alongside an incident where some 40 Ionians were impaled by the Turks, the journalist at the Edinburgh Magazine presciently remarked, unable to hide his disgust: "..and if the Turks have hitherto been more barbarous than the Greeks, it is only because they have been more powerful"

Because this is an opinion, and potentially controversial, we really should be attributing this quote to the author, and in this case, none is given. You quoted the source, but the source does not give an author. We can't just give the opinion of some journalist in Wikipedia, that would give him WP:UNDUE weight. It looks to me like this bit needs to go, and it breaks my heart because it was an interesting read. Thoughts?PraetorianFury (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting perspectives! I'll think a bit about the first, though, but for the second: It is noteworthy that a contemporary commentator had this attitude (rather than believing outside commentators solely were philhellenes or philoturks); perhaps what is lacking here is an emphasis that we are speaking about contemporary attidutes to Greek War of Independence ouside the seat of war, rather than some objective judgment. The prescience of the journalist is proved by the blood orgy the Greeks engaged in 2 months later at Tripolitsa, and lack of his name is irrelevant in that case. However, the sentence need, perhaps, an explanatory introduction like: "Not all commentators on the rebellion ouside the seat of the war decided in favour of one of the opposing parties. One journalist at Edinburgh Magazine, for example, rather presciently remarked, unable to hide his disgust at the whole affair:"bla-bla". This change emphasizes better than present text I pick an example of contemporary reactions to GWI, rather than insinuating to be some sort of objective judgment upon it.Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still wish to keep the 1839 deadline. Perhaps a better version is: "The latest case found in the cited literature is from 1839", or something like that?Arildnordby (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

While this should not be mentioned explictly, since I don't have any relevant sources (later editors might, though!), the so-called Tanzimat regime in Turkey from 1839-1876 WAS a period od liberalization, secularization and humanising of Ottoman Empire, Thus, retaining an observed time limit here is in order, I think.Arildnordby (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

These are all great points if you're writing a book, where you can make your own conclusions and decide on your own what is noteworthy. But unfortunately that's against the rules here. This isn't a research paper or a book, this is an encyclopedia, and we merely report what other people have said, rather than coming to our own conclusions. If you have a source stating that there are no examples of Ottomans impaling robbers after 1839, then my concerns would be alleviated. That claim just can't come from us. If you're trying to make the point that impalement was becoming less accepted, the previous sentence already implies that, we don't have to come up with a specific end date that isn't supported by any sources besides your personal research.

And generally we should only publish the opinions of experts or specialists. Just because someone is a "journalist" doesn't mean their opinion is significant in anyway. Believe me, I've had plenty of edit wars over the intricacies of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, etc... I have to admit that at one point I was guilty of POV pushing, and one way to do it is to find anyone who says something that you're trying to insert into the article. There are millions of professors, journalists, purported experts, etc. out there, and among them, there is just about every opinion imaginable. So how do you decide which people are appropriate to quote for their opinions? I've found this test usually works for me: if someone has a Wikipedia article, they are significant enough that their opinion is probably noteworthy (with the exception of non-expert celebrities). Politicians, authors, etc will usually have a Wikipedia article if they are well known and thus notable. If you can't find someone with a Wikipedia article to say something you want to say, you really have to question whether or not that is a mainstream view. Do you see my issue with this quote now? Who is journalist and why should we give any weight to their opinion? What if another editor comes along and has their own journalist who disputes it? Who is right? Is this even a debate worth having publicly on the article? That's why I think the passage should be removed entirely, whether or not I agree with it. We've already discussed the barbarism of the Greeks and Ottomans. Let the readers figure out who is relatively more brutal. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the wordings radically. I have MANY references in this article, so I think it is legitimate to note that the latest included Ottoman case is from 1839. Furthermore, I have removed reference to the journalist, but retained the two August cases.Arildnordby (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better, thank you. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now ended the section with a quote from William St Clair's seminal work "That Greece might still be Free" instead.Arildnordby (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I should patent that editorial move. You just performed a Praetorian. You owe me a quarter. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, you deserve a... :-) (I would have given you a biggrin smiley, but a smile is all I know how to add here at Wikipedia!)Arildnordby (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Basket _Feudalist 16:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impalement/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PraetorianFury (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already read this article from top to bottom and fixed or helped to fix any outstanding errors that I could find. User:Arildnordby has poured his heart into this article and the quality is a clear reflection of that passion. This seems to clearly meet our WP:Good article criteria, so it has my endorsement. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If I should be a bit self-critical here, I think that a primary objection would be source quality, relative to Wikipedia reliability requirements. First off, I'd say that the major reason why not more contemporary authors have been used is that, in contrast to old sources, such sources have been damned hard to find (rather than that I haven't looked for them). Essentially, the problem I have encountered is that for such an obscure (and, frankly, disgusting) topic, there won't exist any widely available monograph on the topic, and that for modern treatments, scholarly elements that would distinctly improve the article will be found either in the form of scattered references in more general history books, or in specialized articles in peer-reviewed magazines, none of which, unfortunately, is directly available to me as an amateur. This, I believe, forecloses and prohibits, that the article can be taken to Featured Article status (although I hope future editors can bring, gradually those references into the article), but for Good Article status? Here, I think the crux lies on regarding the Reliability issue as a spectrum, in which Wikipedia editors ALWAYS ought to seek the best sources available, but if tose are lacking/hard to find, at the very least opt for sufficiently reliable sources to include. That is, a source can be regarded as "reliable", even though it is not what we optimally wish for. In the preparatory work of this article, loads of references have been rejected either as fantastical, dubious, or just as secondary, in the last case where I have tried my best to find the primary source. However, that other editors and reviewers at Wikipedia might have issues at such points is quite likely, and I hope this reviewing process might be constructive in that regard.Arildnordby (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion: While use of primary sources is not ideal, as Arildnorby has said, the claims they're being used to support are fairly mundane (or at least not controversial) and trivially verifiable. I don't foresee any editorial disputes resulting from a lack of sources. I'm satisfied that what is present in the article at this point meets the Good Article Criteria, so I have passed this article. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reducing the size of the article

This article is one of Wikipedia's longest pages which means it is unwieldy and hard to read. To benefit the reader, it should be reduced in size. For too-large articles I would normally suggest splitting it into sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY, but this one is simply too detailed, with too many quotes and too many individual cases. An encyclopedia article should be a summary of the topic, not a list of every case that can be found. As well, this article has a fair amount of WP:Synthesis due to the absence of comprehensive writings covering the breadth of the topic. Here is an example, taken from the Americas section:

While practically all instances of use of stakes designed to impale other human beings can be thought of as acts of aggression, either within the context of war, or as a punishment meted out to criminals deemed deserving of it, some Amazon tribes developed a use of stakes meant primarily as a defensive measure.

Nothing in any one of the references supports this summary, though it is certainly an accurate assessment of all the references.

To make this article shorter, I propose the following:

• Remove extensive quotes from the text and from the references.
• Remove any reference that does not discuss impalement as its own topic, that is, any book that mentions impalement only in passing.
• Greatly reduce the individual cases that are presented.
• Greatly reduce the Bibliography.

See Wikipedia:Article size for pointers about reduction in size. I commend Arildnordby for his determination to make this article as complete as possible, but I fear he has crossed from summary of published sources into authorship of an original work. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for great ideas! I'll do my best to comprise the article.Arildnordby (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work so far! You have reduced the article by 30% at least. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments about article after reduction

I am looking at this version of the article which is 124 kb instead of the whopping 300+ from a couple of days ago. Great work by Arildnordby to reduce the article!

• The focus of the article has been narrowed to focus primarily on executions by impalement. I think this is useful.
• The first section says impalement is "a very severe punishment" but wouldn't it be more accurate to say it was a one of the harsher forms of capital punishment? Was the impalee ever expected to survive?

I'll add "capital" (there is an anecdote, though, of a Turk who was helped off the stake during the night, and lived a crooked life everafter, but I see your point..)Arildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• In the second section the tone is somewhat too professorial with "where we have" used in place of the passive voice.
  • Actually that whole sentence can be rewritten. "A case in point where we have several explicit law codes" might be deleted entirely to become "In the Indian sub-continent, impalement as a punishment is mentioned explicitly several times in myth and in the code of law."

My aim was to make "impalement in law codes" the central concern, with Indian subcontinent as a paradigmatic example. I'll think about that, and the other occurences of the passive form, though.Arildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically done now.Arildnordby (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• At the Vlad/Dracula section, I don't see the need to repeat the 1521 "putative" account with its bloodthirsty language.

Goes for the early "myth explosion" around a notorious figure.Arildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Myth developments more appropriate in dissertations than in encyclopedical articles.Arildnordby (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "See also" wikilink to punishment should be brought into the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OKArildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is expanding again. It's up to 210 kb right now. How much detail should the reader see? Is the detail overwhelming the central issues of the topic? Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It won't get any bigger. I promise. Only bibliography of references already present will now be inserted (estimate max. 1-2 kB). It is important to realize that there isn't a single "big issue", or "central topic", "characteristic method"; therefore, the material has been re-structured along three main variables, 1) Divergent methods (how the execution was performed), 2) Topical issues (why they were executed) and 3) Regional distribution (where they were executed)Arildnordby (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

After this restructuring, I plan to trim the article down by some 20-30 kb, getting it down to about 180 kbArildnordby (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As an example, I will remove all mythical/artistical representations of Impalement; that is sufficiently distinct to be another article.Arildnordby (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the way you split the topic into three main variables. Keep up the good work. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping a critical eye on the article. I hope to make that 3-structure more apparent to the casual eye, so that the reader might zoom easily into those parts catching interest.Arildnordby (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Major size reduction effected

While a previous version was more comprehensive and nuanced, it was, presumably, too detailed to be regarded as properly encyclopaedic. A link has been retained to this earlier version, a strategy I hope, does not break Wikipedia norms, and that really will be of benefit for that particular subset of readers who really want a full description of the topic, with all its gruesome nuances.

Editors are most welcome to comment on my present version, and come with suggestions how it can be improved further (more cuts, perhaps??). In particular, I hope Binksternet might take a look, who came with earlier, good concerns relative to article size.Arildnordby (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A concern I have is that when adding in my simplistic manner a link to the prior version, then that is open for edits (and an editor might make a good faith edit of that version, thereby blanking out all the new revisions). Does there exist a sort of strict viewing of a previous revision, that does not include the Edit option (so that those who DO wish to change an older version must go into the page history tool instead)??Arildnordby (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked for a guideline on whether a link to an old version of an article has ever been allowed to live in the current article, and I have not found such a thing. I know that old versions are not allowed to live in perpetuity as a sub-article or as a talk page archive—see Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses number 3. That guideline is not specific to the question of a link to an article's historic version, the link placed within the article, but it is a parallel concern because to solve the problem of a user clicking on the historic version and editing it, the historic version should have its own page. Unfortunately, that takes us back to "Disallowed uses" of subpages. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple information on date of previous revision might be allowed, rather than a link? Anyhow, it is not terribly important to me, I can live with effective inaccessibility of previous version..Arildnordby (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

tagging

I've tagged the article for cleanup as the article reads of a selection of impalements rather than a report impalement and its implications. It reads of a bibliography of reported cases of impalement in prose form. The article needs to be cut down, cases can be listed in ==Further reading==, but commonalities of impalement should be reported.96.52.0.249 (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is a good article, your writing is not up to the standards required for a good article. You should revert you edits immediately.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You get to tag after you have successfully raised your issues. I agree with some of the proposed headings, should we discuss now? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I made edits such as rewriting the lede. I've provided edit summaries for them. Should be easy to interpret the reasoning behind my changes.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem experienced wikipedia editor, I really didn't liked how you went to revert 2 times. Anyways, at least my concern is with the lead. Why you reduced it? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Articles are not human, they do not feel any sort of emotion in regards to being tagged for cleanup
• Piping the red link to grave robbery may defeat the nuances of the actual phrase "grave theft"
• The previous version of the lede was a conglomeration of 2 paragraphs, I have broken that into 3. I rewrote the lede to include a more definite definition of impalement, including the anatomical aspect. Previously, it included a note which was not a reference; in it, the note was excessively lengthy and referred back to the article, rather than explaining the definition of subject matter of the article. Later on, additional prose refers back to the article in a meta sense, lessening the professional quality of the article and encyclopedia. I tidied up the lede by including wiki links to the lede, and using a more direct approach and structuring ideas within individual sentences, rather than using comma splices or lengthy phrases.96.52.0.249 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Then you should continue editing the way you wanted to. I would ask for the reassessment of this article, whether it meets the criteria of good article anymore or not. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I never did think this article met the good article criteria/criterion.96.52.0.249 (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment With these edits, the article no longer meets the standards of a good article and will have to be reassessed. They are largely synthesis and original research. For example, the first sentence states that impalement is a method for executing organisms. Only humans are executed.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Restored earlier version. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Great! --I am One of Many (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You've restored a wholesale revert of systematic intermediate changes due to the fact that only humans are executed. I've provided explanations for the changes made, you said I should continue the way I wanted to. Such a wholesale revision without debate of my concerns proposed is "unfair". I will ask for a reassessment and change the definition accordingly, with my version.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

First, please read about reassessing a good article. Second, there is no consensus for the changes you have proposed to make. Third, please do not engage in an edit war. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I did, and made an individual reassessment. Don't accuse me of engaging in an edit war, when you are the one to initiate reverts without discussion. It is now your turn to discuss your opposition to the proposed changes.96.52.0.249 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you "Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."? My objection is simple: your proposed changes are not encyclopedic. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

But they contradict the criteria for Good Article status. I've opened the reassessment for over 9 days, a reasonable time frame, during which no one commented. Lastly, my proposed changes follow wikipedia's established style and writing guidelines, which contradicts your judgement that your my proposed changes are not encyclopedic.96.52.0.249 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No inclusion of impalement in the Spanish Empire?

As far as I understand in the Spanish Empire, and particularily during its conquests of the Americas, impalement was a common torture and execution mode. A famous case is that of Caupolicán. Dentren | ^Talk 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ferenc Szombathelyi (Europe, 20th century)

Szombathelyi was executed by a firing squad. Hungarian chauvinist writer Tibor Cseres wrote in his book "Vengeance in Bacska" that Szombathelyi was impaled, but there is no conclusive proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.209.122 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Cseres doesn't even say that. He cites contemporary newspapers which says that Szombathelyi was shot, and mentions that there are unverifiable rumors that say he was impaled. His book can be found online in the Hungarian Electronic Library. Aquila89 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. Basically the same point is stated in Ferenc Szombathelyi. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"reprint" editions

*{{cite book|last=His|first=Rudoulf|year=1928 (1967 reprint)|publisher=Oldenbourg|title=Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina|asin=B0000BRMK3}}

was changed to

*{{cite book|last=His|first=Rudoulf|year=1928|publisher=Oldenbourg|title=Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina|asin=B0000BRMK3}}

is a reprint edition not significant?96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've posted here. It seems that more information should be filled, which I've done.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek atrocities during the war of indepence.

None denies that there were Greek atrocities during the war of independence , but they cannot be compared with the atrocities of the conquerors. The ancient Greeks or the Byzantine empire , didn't use such ways of punishments, which are extremely brutal. The emphasis on the Greek atrocities which are mentioned in the article is trying to sugar the pill.Jestmoon(talk) 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Name of Vlad the Impaler

The section introduces the name "Vlad Ţepeş" without explicitly saying that is the same person (this reader was at first confused, thinking it was possibly a different Vlad, who may have attacked Vlad the Impaler). I think the paragraph might better start with 'Vlad III ("Dracula", "Țepeș")', perhaps? Or the name could be introduced with it's correct translation.

Also, the two renderings of "Țepeș" and "Ţepeş" are different, using different unicode characters for both "Ț" and "ș" positions. I am guessing one of them is wrong, and someone who understands might like to correct it. At least I would expect consistency.

Hugh.glaser (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Impalement in the Arab and Muslim world

I think this is a good source about this horrific practice in the Arab and Muslim world : https://www.kabbos.com/en/32/articles/impalement-in-the-history-worst-way-to-die — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.118.22 (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Torture of captain rosinsky by soldies of red army.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Chithravadham" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chithravadham and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Chithravadham until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Date format BC/BCE

An edit today change three occurrences of BCE to BC. There remain 3 more cases of BCE but before reverting the change or finishing the job, I wanted to understand if this is a stable BC page? Per MOS:ERA all dates should be formatted and retained as per the stable preference. Even before today's edit, the majority of dates were BC so unless anyone knows different and objects, I will convert the last three to BC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No answers here so I checked page history. A couple of BCEs crept in as early as 2014, but the page is a stable BC article (check out 2013 versions and earlier) so I will revert all BCEs to BC as per MOS:ERA Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources Template

This edit: [1] adds an unreliable sources template with the edsum "template moved" and a date on the template of July 2020. However no such template was placed in July 2020. If there is an issue with the sourcing, could someone please discuss the issue on the talk page. Without some clue as to what the problem is, the template is not going to help. In the assumption it was added back in error, I am now going to remove it. If there is an issue, please do replace the template and describe the issue here, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)