Talk:Death by burning

/Archive 1

Some Terrible Problems in the Inquisition Section

In some places the text states (correctly, I believe) that the Inquisition did not execute anyone: secular authorities did. But other sections go right on claiming the Inquisition did this. One sentence even claims "the execution" did it: "actually executed by the Spanish execution." I am not an expert in this history, but both claims can't be right.

And footnote 37 is to a *novel*! No, you can't use fiction as a historical reference! GeneCallahan (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue and unrelated content

Removed the Hindu tradition section because both of the sources are referring to metaphors of those translations that are outdated within the mainstream scholarship, one of them(by abhinav publications) is clearly unreliable source.

Removed the "Fire and the fault of Karma" because it reads like one set of philosophical opinions with nothing to do with the death by burning. Whole page must include the notable instances and practices, not irrelevant set of unsupported views. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It has a lot of much to do with Death by burning. Its about the widow burning in ancient India where widows were burned alive after the death of their husbands. How come it is not to do with the Hindu Traditions? I don't understand that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harkins (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not supported by the reference, so it is Wikipedia:SYNTH, set of opinions do nothing especially when it is undue and unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a set of opinions but rather truth which you try to declare it false. You say it is unrelated. There are sources given next to every statement. Please respect the sources. And don't revert now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harkins (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Saying that "Life is filled with pain" has to do something with the death by burning? Or that Weinberger-Thomas(who?) is remembering that he had watched something but he don't remember the exact year? Simply nothing. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Read this. "A number of sayings/rulings of Hindu sages contain prescripts for death penalty by means of heated metal. The Laws of Manu, for example, states that the adulterer should be placed on an iron bed, well heated, and that the executioners are to continually add logs beneath it, until the "sinful wretch" is burned to death. The sage Vasishta, laid down that he who has sex with his guru's wife:"

You are only removing the Hindu related materials. May I know Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harkins (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Outdated commentaries that were copied from a missionary author, and edited by William Jones, they are regarded as fringed theories by the modern scholars or anyone after mid 19th century. Find me one source after mid 19th century that has used such defective translation.

I check all recent editions, but you have only targeted particular material, so it must be your issue. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So you mean that all the sources provided there in are incorrect and must be removed. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harkins (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the fringe information, you can do that. They are not supported by mainstream scholars or even little bit by any of the 20th century scholars. Look around, we don't use these names in any of the articles as source. It is the case with the 4/5 sources that has been added in your edition. You cannot add speculations or fringed theories on the article where small sections are used for providing the conclusion. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a little blurb on Thomas: "Catherine Weinberger-Thomas, anthropologist, professor emeritus at INALCO, academician in residency at the University of Santa Barbara, has notably published a book on the cremation of widows in India. The book has been translated in english and published by Chicago University Press under the title "Ashes of Immortality. Widow-burning in India." Seems like she is probably a good source if we use her work properly. What do you think?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, lines that Catherine Weinberger has written, in her essay "Fire and fault of Karma", are not solely related with this subject. They are just a few set of opinions, with no evidence. For e.g., Weinberger is claiming that suicide by fire is still carried out in Tamil Nadu,(south India) but what is the base? This practice was never carried out in South India.[1] Catherine Weinberger has extensively used William Jones and some missionary writers of 18th century for her discussion, she might be discussing about the different things that she has heard but anything related to death by burning has been added in a few paragraphs above, including the statistics. For more understanding, the main page can be used, and material can be selectively added there(already added though), but here, providing a few paragraphs is enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti just stop lying about the article. Catherine Weinberger has not written an essay but the truth. It is very much related to the subject about death by burning. It is the very truth that Widows were burned alive after the death of their respective husbands. I don't know how you don't take it as a truth but rather as a lie. The sources are also provided but you don't care for the sources because you are on your own about saving Hinduism from such blames. That cannot be done here at wikipedia. Also it is not good to remove the whole article which has been already here since long time. I agree with User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh that it is a very good source. Thankyou John Harkins (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti you also need to check the archive [2] where you agreed on the expansion of the article of Sati with other user. User: Arildnordby. and now you are reverting yourself because that user is no more present??? John Harkins (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop coming up with unnecessary and inflammatory explanations and talk about the credibility of source. I have removed your rant and send you a formal warning, don't do it again. Her essay is unsourced set of opinions with no relevance with this page, Catherine Weinberger-Thomas is discussing a lot about the outdated scholarships that are no more used anywhere. We have used Catherine Weinberger-Thomas's opinions, I have no where rejected the women burning, neither her whole book. Because that all belonged to Sati_(practice), and it was added there.

I have no where removed the mention of Sati, but only removed the undue and fringed material. You don't seem to be addressing any of your editions that how they don't contravene Wikipedia:UNDUE policy, as well as Wikipedia:Verify, or they don't differ from the mainstream scholarship. But since it is undue, it won't be added here. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti Is it promotional. How? The truth is promotional to you. By the way the truth should always be promotional without any exception. John Harkins (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian riot police officer burned alive

The picture caption is incorrect. According to officially available information no police officer was actually burnt to death, although some suffered burns of various degrees in a course of clashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine, I will replace the image with other. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)