Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Deterrence

I deleted this new section. Urutine32, you need to find sources that discuss the subject and summarise them. The sources should not be blogs, and they should be written by experts on the topic. There are other issues, for example: you can't say "advocates contend..." or "Abolitionists say instead..." when the sources merely say what the author thinks. zzz (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree to find a non-blog source for Gary Becker, but you can't delete him solely on grounds he his not an "expert" on the issue. The debate he engaged about it with Posner make this Nobel Laureate enough qualified, especially since he make here a moral judgment. Urutine32 (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
"you can't delete him solely on grounds he his not an "expert" on the issue"? On the contrary - that is a perfectly valid reason to "delete him". zzz (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to say that he is an expert and the grounds are not true. I apologize for not phrasing this more clearly. Urutine32 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
On what grounds do you claim he is an expert? zzz (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
On what grounds you claim he is not an expert? Urutine32 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
(Or to be more precise: not an expert enough and thus requiring his deletion). Urutine32 (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You state that he won a Nobel prize for economics. So I assume he is an expert in economics. zzz (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You have not responded to the reasons given for reverting your edit. See WP:BRD. Since your bold edit has been reverted, you are not justified in restoring it. Or to quote from that page: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." zzz (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't "reverted again", I made a different contribution with a new source conforming to your requirement. Writing this in bold will impress nobody.
You should not believe that economists care only about money and not about preventing crime. That's why Becker engaged in a lengthy debate with Posner on the issue and wrote about it. Just read the article about him to see a section about "Crime and punishment". Urutine32 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You claim: "I don't "reverted again", I made a different contribution".

Death penalty advocates contend that the death penalty is more deterrent to murder than any prison term. In 2005, Nobel laureate in Economics Gary Becker said that capital punishment would be justified even if it required to execute many murderers to prevent a single victim from being killed.

Abolitionists say instead that proponents of the death penalty have the burden of proof, and believe that there is no convincing evidence that it has any incremental deterrent effect compared to life imprisonment, especially without the possibility of parole.

Death penalty advocates contend that the death penalty is more deterrent to murder than any prison term. In 2005, Nobel laureate in Economics Gary Becker said that capital punishment would be justified even if it required to execute many murderers to prevent a single victim from being killed.

Abolitionists say instead that proponents of the death penalty have the burden of proof, and believe that there is no convincing evidence that it has any incremental deterrent effect compared to life imprisonment, especially without the possibility of parole.

  • Although it is obvious that I am being trolled, I will repeat my objection above which you haven't responded to: you can't say "advocates contend..." or "Abolitionists say instead..." when the sources merely say what the author thinks.
  • Unfortunately, there is no point in anyone other that Urutine32 attempting to edit this article. I regret having wasted so much time here. zzz (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course nobody will find any difference if you remove the reference I changed and that was your main reproach against the section. Urutine32 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And you called this removal a "minor edit". Urutine32 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The source was the main reproach against the section and I changed it. So what else I should change to restore the section? Do you want I quote an abolitionnist in particular? (I would choose Beccaria). It is crazy to have no section about deterrence in this "vital article" about capital punishment. Urutine32 (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose the adding of a section as follow (with replacement of the <+ref> of course):

=== Deterrence ===
Death penalty advocates contend that the death penalty is more deterrent to murder than any prison term. In 2005, for example, Nobel laureate in Economics Gary Becker said that capital punishment would be justified even if it required to execute many murderers to prevent a single victim from being killed.<+ref>G. Becker, On the economics of capital punishment, The Economists Voice, 3 (3) (2006), pp. 1–4</ref>
Abolitionists believe that the death penalty has no incremental deterrent effect compared to life imprisonment. In 1764, Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria argued for example that the duration of a punishment is more frightening than its momentary brutality.<+ref>C. Beccaria (2016), On Crimes and Punishments, Transaction Publishers, pp. 71-77</ref>

Urutine32 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Blanket deletion

Signedzzz blanket deletion included new materials about modern-day public opinion and contemporary era for which he gave no reason at all and were not previously opposed by any other user. How I can even try to reach a consensus in these conditions? I invite anyone else to comparate the current version and the version I proposed:

  • The current version of "contemporary era" is very bad, it's only a list of crimes against humanity immediatly followed by the current use of capital punishment around the world. There is nothing about how abolitionism progressed in history.
  • The current version of "modern-day public opinion" has a random organization and even include a "citation needed" since a long time. Signedzzz even restored an old Gallup poll that was updated in the version I proposed.

Urutine32 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A third-opinioner coming here might ask himself why I asked for a third opinion while the reverting editor has not engaged in discussion over these particular issues. I answer in advance that I do so on recommendation from Richwales, an administrator. Urutine32 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 3O Request Urutine32; unfortunately, it is rather difficult to provide a 3O here, given that no discussion on that specific issue has taken place. If @Signedzzz: and yourself would care to summarize your positions, I will do my best to provide a neutral third opinion. At the outset, though, it seems as though there are many issues bound up in a single edit. I would suggest breaking them up, so that changes for which consensus exists can be carried out. For instance, updating the gallup poll should be uncontroversial, as should the typo correction that signedxxx performed. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe that what I have written at 08:44 summarize enough my position. I don't know whether Signedzzz will agree to give some explanations, and I believe you should ask him yourself to do so, because he is likely to ignore me. Urutine32 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe we are in different time zones, and therefore figuring out what you typed at 8:44 is difficult. Please humor me, and state your position again. I have already asked Signedxxx to state their position as well, as you can see. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to say "08:44, 21 June 2016", and also that Signedzzz should be called in his talk page. Sorry I should have been clearer... Urutine32 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: My position is just that the version I proposed is better because it contains more info and which are more relevant to capital punishment, with illustratives examples more carefully chosen. I'm not even sure that Signedzzz really disagree with the changes on the merits. Urutine32 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Urutine32, you misunderstand. I am not here to express a generic preference for one version over the other. Generally, there will be a middle path combining aspects of both your versions. Therefore, I would ask you again, what are the specific changes you want made, and why? Also, please stick to the content, and desist from making snide remarks with every post. @Signedzzz: if you could weigh in here as well, I would appreciate it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:But I am not snide when I say I'm not even sure that Signedzzz really disagree with the changes on the merits, it's indeed very serious. I known third-opinion is for compromise, but I need to know Signedzzz requirements so I can adapt the version I proposed to them. What I propose for contemporary era is:
  1. Add info about new methods developed by the US in this period (first paragraph in the version I propose).
  2. Replace the enumeration of crimes against humanity by the Holocaust as illustrative example. Summarize also about the use of executions by totalitarian regimes (second paragraph).
  3. Add infos about how abolitionism progressed in history, with the important examples of US, Russia and Pakistan (third to fifth paragraph).
  4. Improve the final description of the current capital punishment use in the world (sixth paragraph).
Urutine32 (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What specifically do you want to change? I have checked the edit and none of it is an improvement. zzz (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have already explained what I want to do and why two times, I don't understand why your require a repetition. Can you explain more precisely why you believe they are not an improvement, for each material I have mentionned. We need to know more on your motives to find a compromise, as explained by @Vanamonde93:. Don't hesitate to make a list similar to the one I made on 09:58, 28 June 2016. Urutine32 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For example, in Contemporary era you removed "Also, modern military organisations employed capital punishment as a means of maintaining military discipline. The Soviets, for example, executed 158,000 soldiers for desertion during World War II", (which was sourced), and added: "After the Second World War, demand for justice was strong among the victims of these crimes against humanity, and many death sentences were issued and carried out by domestic and international courts, notably during the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo Trials." (my emphasis). zzz (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Signedzzz:Ok. Though you gave no explicit reasons I guess the grievances. I agree to remove "demand for justice was strong among the victims of these crimes against humanity". For the sentence about military justice, I believe it to be unnecessary because almost all historical eras have used the death penalty for military offenses: that already stated in the first and fifth sentences of the History section. Urutine32 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You gave only two examples on 16:09, 28 June 2016, but I reiterate my call you make a list of all your grievances against the contemporary era section version I propose in a single message, so Vanamonde93 and me can find more easily a compromise (unless you have no problems that we discuss each sentence you removed or restored one by one for 10 or 20 days...).
You should also consider re-participating to the earlier discussions about deterrence, humane executions and the Tang Dynasty, because I don't plan to abandon them.
Urutine32 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is a bit of a mess, and given that you both are currently warring over specific sentences, it is difficult to give a third opinion here. I will say, though, that the the burden for verifiability rests with the editor who is adding material, in this case, Urutine32. You need to provide a source for any material that satisfies WP:RS; and in general, primary sources, such as the one that was just added and removed, should be used only as supporting documents or for absolutely non-controversial information. I strongly suggest creating a list of proposals here on the talk page, and working through them. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I will work on such list.
Urutine32 (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Signedzzz, here is the list of my proposals for modern-day public opinion; those for contemporary era will come latter. We can discuss each proposal separately in its own section. Urutine32 (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Modern-day public opinion proposals

Prospective paragraph 1 (also current paragraph 1)

Proposed change 1

Add: "Public opinion generally supports the death penalty in countries retaining it. Gallup, Inc. regularly monitor support for the capital punishment in the United States by asking "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?" The result never fell below 60% in favor since 1976."

  • Source: "Solid Majority Continue to Support Death Penalty". gallup.com. Retrieved 1 June 2016.

Would replace content removed in proposed change 4.

Proposed change 2

Add: "Support rates higher than 80% are found in countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia."

"Nearly 90% against abolishing death penalty: poll". taipeitimes.com. Retrieved 1 June 2016.

"Widodo Earns Indonesian Approval for Death Penalty Stance". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 June 2016.

Proposed change 3

Remove: "Countries where a majority of people are against execution include New Zealand, where 55 percent of the population oppose its use,[42] Australia where only 23 percent support the death penalty,[43] and Norway where only 25 percent are in favour.[44] Most French, Finns and Italians also oppose the death penalty.[45]"

  • Reasons: Summarized in proposed change 7; too much examples; random selection of countries.
Proposed change 4

Remove: "A 2010 Gallup poll shows that 64% of Americans support the death penalty for someone convicted of murder, down from 65% in 2006 and 68% in 2001.[46][47]"

  • Reasons: Replaced by proposed change 1: updated; longer period covered.

Prospective paragraph 2 (also current paragraph 2)

Proposed change 5

Add: "Most countries having abolished the death penalty have done so "in spite of public opinion rather than because of it"

  • Source: Bibas, Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure, 81 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 911, 931–932 (2006)
Proposed change 6

Add: "and in several of these countries such as South Africa, the electorate support its reinstatement."

Would replace content removed in proposed change 11.

Proposed change 7

Add: "But in most abolitionists countries from the Western world, public opinion now opposes the death penalty."

"Tough fight remains to halt barbaric death penalty". Canberratimes.com.au. Retrieved 9 July 2014.

"Can Norwegian punishment fit the crime? - USATODAY.com". Usatoday30.usatoday.com. Retrieved 9 July 2014.

"International Polls and Studies | Death Penalty Information Center". Deathpenaltyinfo.org. Retrieved 9 July 2014.

Would replace content removed in proposed change 3.

Proposed change 8

Remove: "Use of capital punishment is growing in India in the 2010s[48] due to both a growth in right wing politics[citation needed] and due to anger over several recent brutal cases of rape.[48]"

  • Reasons: Little accurate for a one billion-population country who executed three persons in a decade, all for terrorism. A “citation needed” here for long.
Proposed change 9

Remove: "While support for the death penalty for murder is still high in China,"

  • Reason: The source provides no number, nor say "high".
Proposed change 10

Remove: "executions have dropped precipitously, with 3,000 executed in 2012 versus 12,000 in 2002.[49]"

  • Reason: Not about public opinion at all.
Proposed change 11

Remove: "A poll in South Africa found that 76 percent of millennium generation South Africans support re-introduction of the death penalty, which is abolished in South Africa.[50]"

  • Reason: Transferred to proposed change 6.
  • Urutine32, you know none of this is going in the article. In fact it is probably enough to get you banned from editing. Please stop wasting my time. zzz (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I have published this list of proposals on the express recommendation from the editor who came for third-opinion; this list is open for comment for everyone, not just Signedzzz.
I agree some changes I made previously to the contemporary era section were badly sourced, and I thank Vanamonde93 for having explained that to me here and in his talk page. That’s why I have worked to a better version.
But the current contemporary era and modern day public opinion sections Signedzzz restored are worse, and contain many unsourced materials. Also, I still don’t know why Signedzzz oppose the 11 changes I propose above for the modern-day public opinion section, since all are properly sourced or grounded. So, I will add the issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard as Vanamonde93 has suggested to me in his talk page. I have 22 other proposals for contemporary era, but I will publish them here only if a registered editor asks me to do so. Thank you.
Urutine32 (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For honesty, I add that I was recently blocked for edit warring with Signedzzz on these issues. At the end of the block, administrator Richwales explained to me in his talk page that I wasn’t entitled to restore the changes even when the other editor refused to give any reason for reverting, and that I should follow instead a proper dispute resolution process. That's why I first asked for third opinion and I now bring the issue to DRN. Urutine32 (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

Please let me edit.

209.165.224.67 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Map Mistake Turkey

Hello friends, the map made by User: Eduardo Sellan II, apparently now User:Alumnum, contains a mistake: it shows Turkey in light green, with capital punishment "abolished except in wartime" but that was correct for 2002-2004; since 2004 (see Capital punishment in Turkey sourced to [1]) the capital punishment is abolished in all circumstances, like in the rest of Europe. Can anybody correct the map? Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I can do that. Wait a moment please. - Alumnum (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The colour of Turkey in the map was changed yesterday from blue to green by User:Bibilili under the following reason: "Turkey proposes to return the death penalty for (exceptional) crimes due to the aftermaths of the failed coup", referring to the recent coup attempt. Well, the map must only be changed when the law is effectively approved, not when it is proposed. So I'm reverting. - Alumnum (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done. The map was changed. It may experience some delay to appear, but you should soon see it reverted back to the previous version. - Alumnum (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Alumnum. Was surprised about what I thought was an "old mistake", because in fact, no law change has taken place so far. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrongful execution in the WP:LEAD

Because wrongful execution is a primary part of the controversy, I object to [2]. The answers to the questions and references in the edit summary are in the section on wrongful execution. I asked the reverting editor about this on their user page, and they repeatedly deleted my questions. EllenCT (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your addition to the article was potentially controversial and was not substantiated by any source citation, and it was therefore subject to removal. The fact that similar content may have been substantiated elsewhere in the article isn't good enough — it needed a source citation at the point where you added it. You might want to add your material back into the lead section — but you should add your sources (via inline citations). If these sources are already in the article, use "named footnotes" (as described in WP:REFNAME) to cite the same source in multiple places. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Capital punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Map changed back: US uses capital punishment throughout its territory

I've reverted the map of capital punishment status by nation to the previous map, which showed the entire United States as a retentionist country. This is because at the federal level, capital punishment is available for a number of offences, which applies across the entire US, not varying from state to state. Since the map is dealing with the state of capital punishment by country, the fact that capital punishment is used throughout the US should be set out in this map, rather one that breaks it down by states and, in my opinion, misleadingly suggests that there is no capital punishment in some parts of the US. This approach is supported by the fact that later in the article, there is a map of the US which shows the use of capital punishment by states. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Capital punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Colours

The map colors should be changed, they are biased by connotation. Red implies wrong or regressive.

I propose the map should be blue for retentionist (traditionally conservative political colour) while abolitionists should be yellow (traditionally liberal political colour) and countries with laws not in use regarding death penalty should be green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of the death penalty in Asia map

What kind of a faulty map is that? First of all, Egpyt is in Africa.. Second, what is the definition of Europe and Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrium (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture: Execution of a war criminal in 1946

Hello, it says that the picture was taken in 1946. However it shows the execution of Franz Strasser, who died on Dec. 10th 1945. Also the details on the picture state the wrong date. --Clemenspool (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the racial, ethnic and social class bias section. I believe that this section could have been improved with more statistics. I also believe that this section could benefit from commentary regarding the implications of the racial bias associated with the death penalty. Furthermore, since the death penalty varies from state to state, I would have liked to see a more detailed description of how each state is sentincing proportionally more minority groups to the death penalty than whites. Allyborghi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Source

Citation number 54 appears to be a questionable source: "Death Penalty". Newsbatch.com. 1 March 2005. Retrieved 23 August 2010. Newsbatch.com also fails to cite where it found the information listed from the UN. Chris Gannon 12 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing Citation

The following information under the International section has no citation or way to find where the information came from: "Again in 2008, a large majority of states from all regions adopted a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee) on 20 November. 105 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, 48 voted against and 31 abstained." Chris Gannon 12 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dead Links in Citations/ Wrong Information

Citation 136's (Amnesty International, "Singapore – The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions" (January 2004)) link is dead. The page no longer exist.

Also, the information given from link 137 is false. It says "Since the death penalty reinstatement in the United States during the 1970s, no inmate executed has been granted posthumous exoneration.". After a little research, I found multiple examples that prove this statement wrong.

Michadea (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Misleading claim

In the Contemporary Use section, it is stated that "The United States and Japan are the only developed countries to have carried out executions." This claim does not explain how the word "developed" is defined, nor does it include some kind of categorization of UN countries, which could possibly show evidence that Taiwan and/or Singapore are now considered developed countries. --Andrewcm123 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this causation?

"Use of capital punishment is growing in India in the 2010s[45] due to both a growth in right wing politics". There needs to be a citation for the end of the sentence because we do not know that the growth in the right wing politics is what caused this increase in capital punishment in India. Tnoble2 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

please let me Retrop70653 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated Statistics on America's opinion on the Death Penalty

The Gallup poll for the United States opinion on the death penalty is from 2010. There are updated Gallup polls from 2016. The page sights the decrease in the death penalty and according to the new polls the support has decreased even more to 60%.

Gallup Polls: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

CaseyBechtel (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)CaseyBechtel

What I was most concerned with was the timeline. The headings, modern era, contemporary era, and modern day opinion seem to be too general and non specific. I believe this article would benefit from a more defined timeline. I also believe that this article should mention the prejudice that is associated with the death penalty and how people of color are historically more likely to be sentenced to death than white people are.

[1]

Allyborghi (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eberhardt, Jennifer L., et al. "Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes." Psychological Science 17.5 (2006): 383-386.


I've added the 2016 poll. I agree with Allyborghi that the article should talk about prejudice re. race and capital punishment. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Language out of place

In the column on the right hand side, the article in German is placed way below the standard position (following on Dansk) --Danbotix (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have this issue (the language links appear correctly ordered). Perhaps this was due to settings on your account? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Data

Hello all,

As I was reading this article, the information presented might have been misinterpreted.

"Venezuela followed suit and abolished the death penalty in 1854"

This seems to be not true, since other sources have listed the abolished date as 1863, such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Venezuela#cite_ref-1

The retrieved text from http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/5.htm

states as following:

"The abolition of slavery in 1854 was the only noteworthy act by the Monagas brothers"

It is the abolition of slavery, not the abolition of the death penalty.

§Barry Y. Wu

[1] [2]

Another editor has taken care of this issue. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Venezuela#cite_ref-1
  2. ^ http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/5.htm

North Korea second?

What cheap propaganda is this? If you dont have any data about capital punishment in N.Korea don't put it there.

Another editor has taken care of this issue. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request From Mad Bunny, 8 Jan 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The sentence "Amnesty International allowed a vote on a nonbinding resolution to the UN to promote the abolition of the death penalty." is gibberish. The article linked in the sentence makes no reference to Amnesty International being involved with the resolution, so the reference to Amnesty International should be removed.

It is unclear why the sentence "Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate denial of Human Rights"." is relevant to the article. This is a philosophical statement by a non-governmental organization and not relevant to an objective definition of the subject. That sentence should be removed.

The first part has been taken care of by another editor. The "the ultimate denial of Human Rights" reference is relevant as it is the stance taken by/opinion of a major player in the debate. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Benin

Please update the map by adding Benin to the countries that are abolitionist (by coloring it in blue). [3] 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9EBB (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 15:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I have provided a reliable source in the link above: the Amnesty International page that states "In 2016, two countries – Benin and Nauru– abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes." [4] Isn't that a good enough source?

It's also cited by BBC; read below the second graph: "Two countries, Benin and Nauru, abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 2016, while Guinea abolished it for ordinary crimes only. " [5] 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FFD6 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC) `

I will try to get this fixed. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
done. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

from While today the great majority of the world considers public executions to be uncivilized and distasteful and most countries have outlawed the practice to While much of the world considers public executions to be distasteful and most countries have outlawed the practice

Since public executions are still happen and although most people find them distasteful i dont think they would consider it uncivilized since it was still happening in western countries too as of the early 20th century 123.231.110.222 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'd also say that "uncivilized" in this context falls under WP:LABEL, plus the articles on the countries that have public executions do not make the claim that those countries lack civilization. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Dead source.

Source #117:"The High Costs of Death Penalty by Death Penalty Focus" link leads to a 404 error page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.89.168 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Capital punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate paragraph

Hello,

I would like to suggest to one of the registered users that the paragraph on death penalty in the bible (quoted below) be removed or heavily edited. A quick examination of the actual text of those biblical passages reveals that the death penalty is not prescribed for many of the transgressions claimed. For most of them, the penalty is merely to be "excluded from their people" ie banishment. The one about a rape victim being unable to call for help is also wrong - the actual passage says "does not", not "can not".

"The bible prescribes death penalty for not being circumcised (Genesis 17:14), for working during the seventh day of the week (Exodus 31:14, Exodus 35:2), for blaspheming the name of the Lord (Leviticus 24:16), for having intercourse during a menstruation (Leviticus 20:18), for male homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), for stealing a slave (Exodus 21:16), for sleeping with a female slave (Deuteronomy 22:22), for sleeping with a virgin pledged to be married (Deuteronomy 22:24), for sleeping with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15), for not celebrating passover (Numbers 9:13), for rape victims who are unable to scream for help (Deuteronomy 22:23), for cursing father and mother (Exodus 21:15-17, 3. Mos 20:9), for touching the Sinai mountain (Exodus 19:13), for hosting a ghost (Leviticus 20:27), for being a witch (Exodus 22:18), for setting up an image or a carved stone for yourself (Leviticus 26) and for praising other gods (Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Deuteronomy 13:5-10)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.191.129 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. I have removed the section as it only cites the primary source (the bible) and offers an unsourced interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Map

Madagascar must be changed to dark green on the map because it has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty in 2017. [6]

Map

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:6465:4F99 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Capital punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Iron Crown execution for regicide/treason

HI I don't know whether this overlaps with another capital punishment, but I want to link it to 

 Matija Gubec

György Dózsa Pavlo Pavliuk Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl and Golden Legend - Saint Christopher might have been executed by iron helmet Tuchin Uprisings jacquerie 1358 - The Routledge History Handbook of Medieval Revolt = edited by Justine Firnhaber-Baker, Dirk - also used in Revenge for a Father (played 1602; printed 1631). in Ukrainian I have been told it was told it was called slapstick or bouffant and page 851 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=orYTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA851&lpg=PA851&dq=execution+%22iron+crown%22&source=bl&ots=XscyqpL4jk&sig=On1Y3W_0XQUNg4AZ5CFMLZCgBRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidh7zzmObZAhUS7WMKHd-iDigQ6AEIYTAH#v=onepage&q=execution%20%22iron%20crown%22&f=false Wakelamp (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

In the Contemporary use section, the world map has been constantly updated. It says 31 December 2015, but was last update 26 March 2018. Can you please change 31 December 2015 to 26 March 2018? 2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done The map's last revised date and country count in the legend manually updated to 26 March 2018.   SPINTENDO          22:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern Era

Something is not quite right with this article. Is it biased? It states that utilitarianism is against death penalty because of Bentham's position on the subject, but forget to say that Stuart Mill, who took utilitarianism to another level (and made it what it is), wasn't against capital punishment, on the contrary. Also, the topic doesn't say anything about the majority of enlightenment philosophers who actually were in favor of the death penalty, like Kant (he clearly stated this), Bacon (at least for crimes against the Crown), Descartes (in his letters), and so on. Jurispragmático (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the section accordingly, with references of course. zzz (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The page is semi-protected, so as you are a new user you will have to make an edit request. To do this, go to the article and click on "view source" (should be near the top) and then on "submit an edit request." Make sure you explain exactly what you want changed and/or added and provide the sources. Thank you! BananaCarrot152 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Routledge History Handbook of Medieval Revolt

edited by Justine Firnhaber-Baker, Dirk - also used in Revenge for a Father (played 1602; printed 1631). in Ukrainian I have been told it was told it was called slapstick or bouffant and page 851 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=orYTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA851&lpg=PA851&dq=execution+%22iron+crown%22&source=bl&ots=XscyqpL4jk&sig=On1Y3W_0XQUNg4AZ5CFMLZCgBRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidh7zzmObZAhUS7WMKHd-iDigQ6AEIYTAH#v=onepage&q=execution%20%22iron%20crown%22&f=false Wakelamp (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Rome

Where is Ancient Rome in this article? Wakari07 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Also see Potestas, mos maiorum and the Law of the Twelve Tables. Wakari07 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018

In Modern-day public opinion, change: "A 2017 poll found younger Mexicans are more likely to support capital punishment then older ones." to "A 2017 poll found younger Mexicans are more likely to support capital punishment than older ones." Brlarini (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Indyguy (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

---The map is wrong, there ha not any execution in Cuba the last ten years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.162.8 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Most of the time, Cuba is listed as no data in maps like this, but it's clear that they haven't killed anyone in a decade.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

List of arguments pro and against

I think you should have a section devoted to the arguments for and against capital punishment, as stated by reliable sources.

Here are some that I have.

Pro. 1. Preventive. Fear of being punished by death make you think twice before you commit a capital crime. 2. Removed. People that are killed are removed from society and cannot do any more capital crimes. 3. Fairness. People feel that capital criminals deserve the same fate as those that they killed.

Against. 1. Ethics. Do you want to show that it is wrong to kill by killing. (This does not work, since if you imprison someone unlawfully, you are sent to prison, thus you show that it is wrong to imprison by imprisoning.) 2. Cowards. People are afraid that criminals will get desperate and do anything to escape being caught if they know they will be sentenced to death. (This does not work, since criminals do not want to be in prison either and will do anything to escape life sentencing.) 3. Feelings. People feel it is wrong to kill, and be responsible for killing. (This does not work, since capital punishment reduced the murder rate by "Pro" points above, thus the number of killings is reduced in the long term by having capital punishment.Per in Sweden (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC) 4. Non-revocable. Innocents may be killed by death penalties. (While this is a fair statement, people may sit their life-term as innocents too. Further, death in society does not disappear just because abolishing the death penalty; innocent people will die from murder, accidents, disease and old age. The point is keeping those murder rates (including state murder; death penalty is lawful murder, lawful planned killing) to a minimum, it is our belief that that the death penalty does just that, keep the murder rate of innocents to a minimum.) Per in Sweden (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC) 5. Flood gates. If you make death penalty legal, you open the flood gates to death penalty for all sorts of reasons. (While this may be true for some countries, it is important to keep the death penalty limited to ultimate crimes such as murder, high-treason (e.g. of country and/or humanity) that results potentially in mass killings of citizens, terrorism killings etc. NOT drug crimes, adultery, trafficking, sex crimes etc. You have to keep those extremists of politics at bay. Per in Sweden (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC) 6. Cheapens life. The death penalty cheapens the value of life. (Well, this is true, but so does high murder rates; the important things is to keep the notion of value of life as high as possible, to motivate people to respect the value of life, to keep a good motivating balance.) Per in Sweden (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's under Capital punishment#Controversy and debate. TFD (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
No. What I am asking for obviously is a devoted section, clear and concise. Per in Sweden (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well part of it is, yes.Per in Sweden (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request (fix DR Congo on the map)

On the map, Democratic Republic of the Congo must be colored brown (Abolitionist in practice) source: [7] 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5399 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - I agree that your source provides a good argument that the DRC is abolitionist in practice. However, Amnesty International, the organization that makes these classifications, does not classify it that way in their recent publication on the subject, which is what the map is based on I have added a citation to the caption of the map to make the source of the classifications clear. A2soup (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019

Under the sub-heading "Religious Views", the article states "the majority of Christendom opposes the death penalty" and cites an Orthodox church website as proof of the claim. This sentence should be changed to "the majority of Orthodox churches oppose the death penalty" to more accurately reflect the citation. After all, the Orthodox church is not representative of Christendom as a whole. Hyperglyph (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

​ Done I've removed the entire clause, as it wasn't supported by the cited source (WP:SYNTH). Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

In the introductory paragraphs to this article it is unnecessary demonisation of China to mention "China executes more people than all other countries combined.[11] " This is out of context and fails to account for China's far greater population. It should be removed from the introduction as it is unnecessary and serves only to help bias public opinion against China. The source quoted for this is also uncertain and states only "China is BELIEVED to execute" yet the article states it as fact. This is deeply misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FittyFitty5050 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done : China’s enormous use of capital punishment for even non violent offenses and following flawed Chinese legal procedures (there is no rule of law in China) is extremely relevant to the topic. Moreover, the fact that China is so secretive in its use of capital punishment is also pertinent to the article. Île flottante (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The mention in the introduction is out of place, if this is to be included in the introduction then the fact that Iran has a far higher use of capital punishment per capita should also be included. There is no proof of the scope of China's use of capital punishment and this article is profoundly misleading to state as fact that China uses more than all other countries combined. It should not be mentioned in the introduction and should be amended to read "China is believed to perform more executions than all other countries combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FittyFitty5050 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have evidence there is enormous use? Do you have evidence there is no rule of law? Do you have evidence there are flawed legal procedures? You seem to conflate opinion with fact. Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FittyFitty5050 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added "believed" to the lede as that is what is reflected in the ref and elsewhere in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hanging (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Palestinian National Authority, Yemen, Egypt, India, Singapore, Syria, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Liberia, Chad, Washington state in the USA)

Not done. You seem to want to remove Myanmar and Sri Lanka from the list of countries that have hanging as a method of execution but there is no evidence of any change in laws in these counries, Waashington state however was removed as their law was ruled unconstitutionl. Rmhermen (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

In the United States, 18 states and the District of Columbia ban capital punishment. This fact is incorrect. the correct number is 21 states. Mapache1998 (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy[talk – contribs] 05:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

russia

As of November 2018, there are 3 draft laws on the complete abolition of the death penalty in the State Duma of Russia. These bills are not rejected, but are under consideration. These are draft laws No. 99077740-2 on ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Regarding the abolition of the death penalty of April 28, 1983) and No. 99077736-2 on amending and supplementing some legislative acts of the Russian Federation (in part the abolition of the death penalty), introduced by the President of the Russian Federation on August 6, 1999 and draft law No. 110694-3 on amending and supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (on excluding the death penalty from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), introduced by Duma members Sergei N. Yushenkov, Ye.T. Gaidar, B. B. Nadezhdin, I. M. Khakamada, B. E. Nemtsov, P. V. Krasheninnikov and others on July 4, 2001. The last action in the base of the Duma with these bills was 06.10.2016 to appoint a responsible committee.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.171.118 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Opening section

the last paragraph in the opening section ("The United Nations General Assembly has adopted..." needs a little help. Particularly, the list of countries looks like it might be an accidental combination of two lists, with a transition missing. PurpleChez (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Remove statement that Catholicism "opposes capital punishment in all cases." As detailed in the "Religion and capital punishment" and "Catholic Church and capital punishment" articles, while the current Pope Francis teaches that the death penalty is intrinsically contrary to Christianity, historically speaking, the majority of Catholic theologians have not opposed it in all cases. Nj7086 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I see your point, but the sentence in the article only refers to the current state of affairs. It isn't talking about historical views. Marianna251TALK 18:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


Requested move 26 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOt moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


Capital punishment → Death penalty – I am requesting that this article and all other articles related to this topic be moved to Death penalty. Death penalty is by far the more common term. Ngram here Interstellarity (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • For reference: there was a previous move discussion resulting in no consensus to move, which can be found here. There are various other talk page threads about a move here, here, here and probably more. However, those discussion were a long time ago, so it's probably worth a fresh discussion. Marianna251TALK 20:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per WP:COMMONNAME. Clearly the most recognizable name for this particular legal punishment. ToThAc (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support I agree "Death penalty" is more common but one could argue that "Capital punishment" is more formal but considering they both mean the same thing (because capital punishment results in death) its probably best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Neutral per Marianna251. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for three reasons: WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant because it's satisfied by both terms, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is only fully satisfied by capital punishment, and WP:NPOV can only be properly satisfied by the term capital punishment.
First, WP:COMMONNAME. A general google search for death penalty/capital punishment returns roughly the same number of results for each. The Ngram (created from google books data) shows death penalty having more mentions; however, google scholar gives approx. 300,000 more results for capital punishment than death penalty. Legal language more often uses capital punishment, not least because it links to the concept of a capital offence. We could argue until we're blue in the face over which is the more important for determining COMMONNAME, but that would miss the obvious point: if there's grounds for an argument, there is no COMMONNAME.
Second, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Both terms satisfy the first four criteria, but only capital punishment satisfies the fifth: consistency. This is the search result for enwiki articles where the title contains "capital punishment". In contrast, this is the one for titles containing death penalty, which are mostly redirects.
Finally, WP:POV. Interstellarity's Ngram is a good piece of evidence for this. It shows "death penalty" dramatically increasing in popularity since ~1980. Amnesty International began the first international campaign to end capital punishment in 1977. It's not a coincidence that mentions of the term death penalty rose alongside campaigns against its use, and that colours "death penalty" with an inherent amount of WP:POV, whatever your position on the subject. We have an equivalent, easily recognisable, academic, neutral term in "capital punishment", which Interstellarity's Ngram shows has been in consistent use for hundreds of years, standing the test of time. Switching wouldn't achieve anything and would, in my opinion, be a step down from where we are now. Marianna251TALK 19:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:COMMONNAME. This article would be the one to set consistency (we could easily convert this to a multi-move); it's a more concise and recognizable term, to be frank, to call it the "death penalty". Both names are certainly common enough, I grant you that. But I see a parallel to the Yogurt page here: if this page and others such as Capital punishment in Canada were already titled death penalty, no strong argument could be made to move it to the euphemistic, Latin capital punishment. Red Slash 23:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree on this article being the one to set the consistency re: lists and articles that begin "Capital punishment/death penalty in [country]". However, the searches for article titles on enwiki show that capital punishment is used in a far wider variety of article titles than death penalty, not just lists and sub-articles to this one. Death penalty most commonly features in relation to organisations that have "Death Penalty" in their title, e.g. Death Penalty Information Center, which obviously aren't affected by consistency. This is the weakest of my points, though, and I'm fine dropping it so we can focus on the other arguments. Case in point, I disagree that capital punishment is a euphemism - see my reply to Mr Serjeant Buzfuz below. Marianna251TALK 08:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - agree with Red Slash: "Capital Punishment" is a Latinate euphemism; "Death penalty" is a factual descriptor. Disagree with Marianna251's statement that "Capital Punishment" is a neutral term. It is a euphemism to mask that the state is killing people. If the searches cited by Marianna251 show that the term "death penalty" has been used more frequently, that is a factor in suggesting it should be used here. Why it is being used more frequently since the 1980s is not itself a factor against its use. Frankly, I think that it is impossible to have a NPOV descriptor for this practice, because of people's pre-conceived impressions and opinions about capital punishment/death penalty. Accepting that, a more factual description should be preferred over a euphemism. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The claim that "capital punishment" is euphemistic actually demonstrates my argument about POV. Capital punishment isn't a euphemism; it's an internationally-recognised legal and academic term that is in common use. One could equally claim that paedophile is a euphemism for child molester, but there would be no point to such a claim, because both are commonly-used terms widely recognised to mean the same thing. The main difference is that "paedophile" is the common academic term, while "child molester" is used colloquially and almost always in a negative context. This situation is similar: capital punishment is the favoured academic term, while death penalty has gained popularity because of its use in negative contexts, i.e. campaigns against its use. (To clarify, I'm not saying that campaigning against the death penalty is negative - I'm saying that campaigning against anything requires close attention to the language used on the topic, and it's no coincidence that "death penalty" is the term of choice, even when it's not the term actually used by the law(s) being campaigned against. Anything with the word "death" in it will cause an involuntary avoidant fear response in humans - that's not a reason not to stop using phrases with "death" in them, but it is a reason to deliberately choose a term including the word death when you want to create a negative reaction to something. I'm actually against the death penalty in any form, but in my experience campaigns against never use the term "capital punishment", while campaigns for tend to use both interchangeably. That in itself shows a POV bias, much like there usually is when "child molester" is favoured. The terms can be used neutrally, but they're usually not, and we should have WP:NPOVTITLE wherever possible.)
On another point, If the searches cited by Marianna251 show that the term "death penalty" has been used more frequently - they didn't. The searches I cited showed that a) capital punishment is the favoured academic and legal term, and b) there's barely any difference between them in a generic web search. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I argue that we should use the favoured academic/legal/encyclopaedic term, which is capital punishment. Hope that makes sense. Marianna251TALK 08:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Marianna251, particularly regarding the point that "capital punishment" is the WP:COMMONNAME in scholarly writing, and the WP:POV/WP:RECENT concern with the term "death penalty". feminist (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given by Marianna251 and because the term "capital punishment" seems more versatile. It gives us terms like capital offence, capital charge and capital crime. It does not require the definite article. The word "punishment" is more common in a legal context than penalty. Srnec (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposed ....as per pervious talk ""Death penalty" applies to a prisoner who has been sentenced to die, but has not yet been executed; "capital punishment" refers to his actual execution." The death penalty is a sentence capital punishment is the execution of that sentence..Banu Bargu (2014). Starve and Immolate: The Politics of Human Weapons. Columbia University Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-231-53811-4..--Moxy 🍁 03:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the reasons stated above. Also, the literature on this subject usually refers to capital punishment. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Marianna251. Additionally, I do not believe COMMONNAME is relevant here. Both names are commonly recognizable, and COMMONNAME warns against confusion caused by excessive formality leading to a title readers might not recognize because technically, it's the most correct - e.g. Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster for Westminster Abbey. "Capital punishment" does not have that issue. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all the pertinent reasons cited above. Nihil novi (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both are very commonly used and both satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. There is certainly no overwhelming use of death penalty over capital punishment. But the majority of encyclopaedic sources use capital punishment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy closed per consensus. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Capital punishment → Death penalty – The discussion Talk:Death_penalty_for_homosexuality#Requested_move_25_September_2019 was recently closed as no consensus. I am proposing this again to match the consistency of the title there. Interstellarity (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • As before both should probably match each other meaning the sub articles follow the main one unless sources specifically usually use a different term for a sub topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, speedy close as disruptive. The discussion was opened 8 days after the previous one, with the same change, proposed by the same editor, was closed. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. If consensus is to be inconsistent, that's it. Srnec (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a good reason why Death penalty for homosexuality doesn't match the main article, I'd suggest speedy close this one and attempt to discuss the homosexuality one with the closer since there was consensus against the main article's move we should probably move the other. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy close: I'd do a non-admin closure on this myself but I'm involved under WP:RMCLOSE. IMO, this should have gone through WP:Move review instead of opening a completely pointless new discussion, although I think that would be better done on the Talk:Death penalty for homosexuality discussion. There was a clear consensus reached on this article, but there wasn't on that one. Either way, this new discussion is just a waste of time. Marianna251TALK 19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes that's what I was meaning, discuss the homosexuality RM with the closer and use move review for that if discussion with the closer doesn't resolve. I also agree with what was said in the previous RM about "capital punishment" being more formal usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, speedy close, & trout nominator. We've just had this discussion, and concensus was against this move. Nothing has changed in the last week or so. PC78 (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. Also suggest appropriate temporary restrictions on the nominator's editing privileges to deter this type of behavior. Before nominating again so quickly in the face of such clear opposition, the least you could do is develop (1) a new reasoned argument (2) supported by reliable sources. Not seeing that here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. Oh come on. This is fishing. It's the other article that should have been moved for consistency with this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Clearly it's not nice to reopen a discussion so quickly, but some of the arguments I see above are truly worrying. The English Wikipedia is an international project and should not conform to the habits of one specific area of the world. The fact that death penalty is the word used in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and in most international organisations is a strong hint that it's the preferred term internationally. Using "capital punishment" here must be some sort of historical artifact. Nemo 16:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • "Capital punishment" is the term used in reliable sources in every English-speaking country. "Death penalty" is generally a colloquialism. So which "one specific area of the world" are you referring to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Executions by country chart

The chart of top-executing countries needs to be updated, since it is the figures for 2018. It should now have the figures for 2019. (JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC))

More and more US propaganda?

"Although many are executed in the People's Republic of China each year in the present day"

Where is the source of this statement? The Stolen Lands of America execute millions of people around the world and then accuse others of being who they are? Why are North American executions not even mentioned in this advertisement? It seems that Wikipedia has become another tentacle of Operation Mockinbird. Rowemotto (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lets assume you did not read the whole article as the USA is signaled out many times for its position. ...as for China...source in article is ...[1]--Moxy 🍁 00:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nikkei Asian Review. "Beijing calls for an international "fox" hunt". Nikkei Asian Review. Nikkei Inc. Archived from the original on 10 March 2015. Retrieved 2 March 2015.

I really don't think that "drug posession" and "genocide" belong in the same category of serious crimes in the intro.

Bomb319 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

The imageː [The Death of Socrates (1787), in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.] has an emoji pasted on top of it. It should be replaced with an image without the emoji. Lorumipsumdolor (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Term 'Retentionist'; Map Issues

It is right to say that Amnesty International or other such organizations call some states 'retentionist'. But is it neutral for Wikipedia to adopt that usage in the voice of Wikipedia? I say that the neutrality of Wikipedia using Wikipedia's voice to call states retentionist is definitely debatable. Here's an edit I made in this vein: [8]. Neutrality needs to be checked when there is term used that the state would not apply to itself. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The map is unsourced, so I have hidden it. [9] Also, I think that in the context of English Wikipedia, it's not neutral to color countries with capital punishment in red, a color associated with blood and death in American culture. "The color red can represent hatred, anger, warning or death. It can symbolize death because red is the color of blood." Doesn't look neutral to me. In my eyes, it looks like the countries in red are being portrayed as violent and bloodthirsty. The association between red and violence is strong. Hence I also hid the other map [10]. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The map is sourced, the argument against the colours is unintelligible, and the terminology is both sourced and neutral (and is used in the article, so it makes every kind of sense to use it in the map legend as well.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea: "the argument against the colours is unintelligible" Do you agree that the color red is associated with blood and death in American culture? Don't you see the contextual problem here? A color associated with violence is being used on English Wikipedia to portray countries that use the death penalty, a practice that detractors of the death penalty would see as violent. It's not neutral to do that- the pro-capital punishment side of the argument doesn't agree that the death penalty is violent. Therefore, the maps are not portrayed in a neutral fashion. Also, there's the "no source" problem for one of the maps. Also, you wiped out the change from "1000+" to "1000s"- what was your justification there? I think it is very clear that the revert was unwarranted, but I understand the need to maintain order on Wikipedia. The change from "1000+" to "1000s" needs to be restored immediately- there can be no question on that issue anyway. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
(edit conflict) I don't claim to be an expert on American culture, though I did spend a little time just now looking up research on colour symbolism (the link you provided is to a wiki, so not useful). Love/romance, warmth, blood, and danger are the most frequent associations, it seems. It would surprise me if "American culture" (which is not a monolithic concept) had any strong associations between the colour red and death – but as you know, neither my beliefs and interpretations nor yours are relevant in any way, and it still makes no sense at all to want to remove a map because it contains a particular colour. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
You edited your comment while I was responding to it and I never noticed that when I posted, despite the edit conflict – I am not going to bother modifying my reply because this is a non-issue. Objecting to the use of a particular colour in a map is absurd to the point of incomprehensibility. --bonadea contributions talk 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Your point about whether red is an appropriate colour for places with the death penalty makes about as much sense as arguing whether a glass is half full or half empty. Some may interpret the red on the map to mean blood and death, while other might interpret it to mean, "Stop, don't commit XYZ crime here". Any colour we use could be interpreted as non-neutral. Green could mean, “Go ahead, execute these murderers”. Blue could mean, “It’s sad that this country has/doesn’t have the death penalty.” Stop overanalyzing things. 24.228.130.160 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what I'm doing as overanalyzing. [11] [12] The values and connotations ascribed to color in the context of a visual statement work as "proofs" in reasoning of the persuasive type. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: What colour would you prefer? It shouldn't be yellow because that could be interpreted by some to mean, "the death penalty is gross like vomit". We certainly shouldn't use purple because it sends an emotion of sadness. Can't use green; it's the colour of mucus! Wikipedia should not be associating a legal penalty with mucus. 24.228.130.160 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Issues of blood, violence and death are concepts directly and clearly associated with the color red, and give the impression that the death penalty is evil and violent. That may or may not be the case, but we don't need to imply it with this color scheme. We only need a neutral presentation on Wikipedia. Vomit and mucus are tangentially associated with the issue if at all, and I think yellow and green colors would be a much more neutral presentation than what we have now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The British flag has red on it! Britain is evil and violent! 24.228.130.160 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the map coloring should be changed. The topic is "death penalty", so it would make sense for places where the death penalty exists to be shaded in green or blue, and the places where it is abolished should be shaded in red or something similar. Colors are ambiguous, but it makes more sense to use red and green/blue in the abstract sense of "no/negative" and "yes/affirmative". Consider LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory, for example. It makes sense that places where their rights are respected to be colored blue, and where they aren't to be colored red. That being said, the NPOV issue is slight, and the article text is a lot more important. Ovinus (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. I think your idea would be good. On Wikipedia, blue/green tends to mean that a certain law or treaty is in place in a country, while red means it isn’t, or that it was rejected. It also seems like a lot of people do in fact see red as a more negative and “darker” color (myself included) especially when you go over to the Talk page of Capital punishment by country. It wouldn’t be too big of a deal to just change the colors to something less controversial. Another way of doing it would be using a different set of colors, or just using different colors for the Abolitionist and Retentionist categories. For instance, the map could be varying shades of blue or green, with the categories by level of abolition in no particular order of darkness.JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_punishment/Archive_12&oldid=1142755274"