Talk:Death by burning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Salem witches

Salem "witches" were hanged, not burned. -- Zoe —Preceding undated comment added 1 October 2002

Title?

I'd just redirect it to combustion, but the only reference to this article is from capital punishment. Is "Burning" the most appropriate title for the subject? --Brion 21:46 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

Abolished where?

Burning as a means of execution slowly decreased in popularity through the early nineteenth century, and was abolished as a legal means of execution in 1834.

Forgive me, but it was abolished where? Worldwide? In which countries? --KQ —Preceding undated comment added 2 October 2002

Execution by burning

This needs to be renamed something like "Execution by burning" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.87 (talk) 11 November 2002

Disambiguation

I'm sorry, but I think the Bob Marley disambiguarion is entirely inappropriate, I'm going to excise it. Mintguy 10:42 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Culprit

How is "culprit" neutral (as remarked in the changelog)? culprit comes from culpa, guilt, it implies guilt. I'll change it to convict. --Eloquence 18:00 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

Removal

I removed:

'The following paragraph does not specify which jurisdiction it refers to'

Burning as a means of execution slowly decreased in popularity through the early 19th century, and was abolished as a legal means of execution in 1834.

because it is a valid criticism, but should not be in the article. Tuf-Kat —Preceding undated comment added 26 February 2003

Strangling

It's my understanding that in the majority of Middle Ages witchcraft burnings (outside of Spain), the convict was strangled prior to the burning. Can anyone confirm this? If it's true, the article should reflect this and is somewhat misleading as it stands. The assertion was made on a television program entitled "Punishment" (2002) that appeared recently on the History Channel. A bit of google research seems to bear this out, although I haven't been able to find what I would consider definitive evidence. Bill 19:51 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

First sentence

Am I the only person who finds the first sentence of the article: "Execution by burning is capital punishment by fire" to be completely pointless. It's just replacing "execution" and "burning" with synonyms. It's like saying, "buying a car is purchasing an automobile" or "eating beef is consuming cow".--198.93.113.49 19:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How long would it take?

This is only tangentially related to the article, but I figured the experts could help me out on this one. Let's say someone has their entire body burn all over for the period of several hours (not necessarily at the stake). How long would it take for that person to be reduced to a charred skeleton? 24.199.116.198 16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

stranger than fiction

Truth is stranger than fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 7 November 2006

Burn offering

How similar is BURNING AT THE STAKE to the BURNT OFFERING of the Old Testament, or the Canaanite practices of BURNING VICTIMS for Ba'al Moloch? Was each Burning at the Stake a "mini-HOLOCAUST", by the dictionary definition of the word, "a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering"? Was the Burning at the Stake a "Burnt Offering" meant to appease and placate the voracious Catholic god? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 7 November 2006

Soviet execution?

The claim that Soviet agents were cremated alive is dubious, and cannot be attributed to a trustworthy source. I recommend removing this claim, or at least qualifying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.98 (talk) 25 May 2007

I don't recall the title, but a book by a former GRU officer stated that the standard punishment for traitors in the GRU was to be chained to an iron device and slowly fed feet-first into a furnace. Mikeg3 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Suvorov's" books are total crap and nowhere in the world could be considered a source. He simply writes a propaganda stories, embellishing them as he could, just to sell them. People like horror stories after all. ;) --77.35.18.210 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Category rename proposal

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) IvoShandor 09:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Some prisoners refused it for personal reasons.

What is this claptrap? Is the author of this page a specialist on burning people alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.126.203 (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

North Korean execution by burning?

The bit about North Korean generals being executed by burning is apparently not confirmed. The link www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GB18Dg02.html presents it as a rumour. It says: "However, the plot was discovered, and the generals were reportedly executed (some rumors say they were burned alive at the stake in front of a military audience to warn others of the consequences of disloyalty)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.70.236 (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Death of Joan of Arc?

I have a problem with the entry on Joan of Arc. It states that it took 3 burnings to successfully end her life whereas the contemporary witness sources do vary in the details, they all agree that she was dead after the first burning, the subsequent ones were to reduce the corpse to ashes to ensure there were no relics to be collected. Also the comment about her body suffering horrific damage, which may well be true, theres no contemporary account stating such, and as such, must be seen as the sensationalist and emotive opinion of the wikipedia/britannica article author. Kosh5 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other forms of ritualised death by burning not mentioned in this article?

Roman writers record that the Druids of Britain would fill great wickerwork men with live bodies, and then burn them as a sacrifice. Kosh5 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit, saints and heretics

I remember reading somewhere that many execution victims were ritually offered to the Holy Spirit, in the apparent belief that non-heretics such as saints would resist such a burning. This belief was for the most part overturned after late medieval historians complained that Saint Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. In any case, it would be interesting to find sources on this particular topic. ADM (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

...well why mentioning talmud here?

are you religiuolous? it sounds like an excuse for one religiolous to condemn the other... Death by burning is a strictly christian thing...witches and such... dont blame it on the jews... i am german i know what i talk about.. dont say that the talmud teaches about a more humane way of burning... there is no human way.. anyone that kill somewone in that way is bad... and the jew (WELL I REALLY DONT AGREE TO THEIR GOVERNMENT IN MANY ASPECTS), but: taking about this as the first example could be regarded as offensive even to me (still a born german :-), it sounds a bit antisemite...

86.140.160.163 (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because one is German, it does not mean that he or she knows anything about Judaism. The jews as you put it, don't have a government. Israel is just a state in which Judaism is the most practised religion. If the Talmud or anyother religious texts mentions burning; then it ought be mentioned in the article! --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The person who made the contribution with the title "well why mentioning talmud here (sic.)" should clearly stop writing in Wikipedia. His/her level of ignorance is spectacular, not even knowing the difference between 'Jewish' and 'Isreali'. His/her claim that burning is a purely Christian thing shows that s/he does not even check basic facts before writing: It's well-known that the ancient pre-Christian Romans used burning, and lots of other earlier civilisations used it, e.g. the Assyrians.) And the person calls the article "antisemitic" because it alludes (albeit unclearly) to the undisputed FACT that Genesis 38:24 says that Judah sentenced Tamar to burning. Mentioning this FACT is not inherently derrogatory to the Jews, any more than mentioning that most European countries used burning counts as a racist attack on those countries. I think the person who wrote that comment should wait till s/he has completed his/her school education before wasting the time of Wikipedia contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.81.123 (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone's knowledge of English should not deter them from contributing! The community is here to help iron out any problems. A translated page from another wikipedia is always useful. And wikipedia is no where near 'finsihed' nor shall ever be. Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 17:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of anti-Russian claim

Victor Suvorov is a mere traitor and libelist - his books are not a source in any term. In USSR traitors were executed as all other sentenced to death - in more humane way - by a pistol shot to the head. Penkovsky (indeed a GRU-traitor) was executed such way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.144.250 (talk) 24 September 2009

You will have to take that to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to establish your claim that it is not a reliable source. Until then it stays. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc "fake depiction"

I highly suspect that paragraph that claims that Joan of Arc's execution is wrongly portrayed, to be vandalism. She WAS infact tied atop of a pillar as seen here -- Kyrel (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Burning in India

Would it not also be appropriate to mention the practice of burning disobedient wives in India, or the burning of buddhist monks in other Asian regions? There is no mention of South or East Asia's practices. 96.240.181.29 (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a suitable source and are prepared to take the time to write about it, feel free! Remeber, wikipedia is the encyclopædia that anyone can edit! --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 01:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Source?

"(burning, however, was actually less common than hanging, pressing, or drowning as a punishment for witchcraft)."

Can we have a source on this one? Is it even true? It's definately plausible, truth is stranger than fiction, but outside Salem, most of the "folklore" is about witches being burnt at the stake, so a statement that says common knowledge is wrong should be backed up. 71.197.131.165 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We also need a source for the Brazen Bull, which IIRC is a legend, not fact. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Under English law, Witchcraft was a felony and thus punished by the civil law punishment of hanging, rather than the religious punishment of burning. The only time civil law prescribed burning was for women convicted of treason. Although in the instance of treason, the victim was usually beheaded. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 11:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Death by burning as a suicide method?

Should this appear here? I think it should be considered, as a form of protest against social contexts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ares857 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Burning at the stake in Islamic countries

Can anyone help me? I am trying to establish whether burning at the stake was an Islamic punishment. In 1572 a Nestorian bishop, Yohannan of Atel, was burned at the stake in Amid (Diyarbakir) in eastern Turkey. It is not clear what his offence was, and since burning at the stake is normally associated with the punishment of heretics in Christian countries, I can't help wondering whether he was denounced to the Moslems by the Catholics. Amid was the centre of the recently-established Chaldean Church at this period, and the Nestorians had contrived the murder of the first Catholic patriarch Sulaqa seventeen years earlier. A touch of revenge might well have seemed in order. The account of Yohannan's execution (contained in a report of 1610 to the Vatican by the Nestorian patriarch Eliya VIII, who was sucking up to the pope and may have wished to downplay any Catholic involvement in Yohannan's death), reads as follows:

They bound the hands of the bishop Mar Yohannan, and heaped up many logs, and bound him in the middle, and set a fire and cruelly burned him, and neither heaps of gold nor silver soothed their spirits.

(Christians were normally able to get their leaders off these sorts of punishment by paying a large bribe to the Turkish authorities.)

By the way, there's a good account of a burning at the stake in Christian Constantinople in Anna Comnena's Alexiad (twelfth century).

Djwilms (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited in footnote 16 at Dioceses of the Church of the East, 1318–1552 may be of use to you. TJRC (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but alas, they merely mention the fact that he was burned at the stake in Amid, not why or by whom (though it is strongly implied that the Moslem authorities were responsible). I've never come across burning at the stake as an Islamic punishment before, which is why I'm curious about this incident.

Djwilms (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Portrayal in film

The "Portrayal in film" section seems to unnecessarily concern itself with what is or is not computer graphics. I hardly think that is relevant.
138.243.195.136 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Siriusly, I mean, Y do we care about computer graphics or no computer graphics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.149.138 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we need this section at all? It is currently an unsourced and random-looking list of films in which people are burnt to death, not necessarily executed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to execution by burning in the Bible

I removed this paragraph because no citation is provided and the word referenced (serefa - or otherwise transliterated saraph) is indeed used for the actual burning of bodies rather than pouring lead down the victims throat.

Deleted text: The punishment called 'Burning' (Serefa) in the Bible, is not burning at the stake. Rather lead was heated until it was molten and red hot, and then forced into the mouth of the convict. Death was almost instantaneous as the veins and arteries in the neck were burned. This was one of the four prescribed forms of the death penalty, and like all of them was very rarely enforced. (The others are: Stoning, Decapitation (by sword), and Hanging.)

Example reference to death by burning (saraph) Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 - sacrificing their children to idols, thing that the prophet, in the name of Yahveh (God of Israel) condemns. Burning was not a means of exucution prescribed in the Law of Moses. List of Biblical references to burning (saraph) Gen. 11:3; 38:24; Exod. 12:10; 29:14, 34; 32:20; Lev. 4:12, 21; 6:23; 7:17, 19; 8:17, 32; 9:11; 10:6, 16; 13:52, 55, 57; 16:27f; 19:6; 20:14; 21:9; Num. 17:4; 19:5, 8; 21:6, 8; 31:10; Deut. 7:5, 25; 8:15; 9:21; 12:3, 31; 13:17; Jos. 6:24; 7:15, 25; 8:28; 11:6, 9, 11, 13; Jdg. 9:52; 12:1; 14:15; 15:6; 18:27; 1 Sam. 30:1, 3, 14; 31:12; 2 Sam. 23:7; 1 Ki. 9:16; 13:2; 15:13; 16:18; 2 Ki. 10:26; 17:31; 23:4, 6, 11, 15f, 20; 25:9; 1 Chr. 4:22; 14:12; 2 Chr. 15:16; 16:14; 34:5; 36:19; Neh. 3:34; Ps. 46:10; 74:8; 80:17; Prov. 6:27; Isa. 1:7; 6:2, 6; 14:29; 30:6; 44:16, 19; 47:14; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 21:10; 32:29; 34:2, 5, 22; 36:25, 27ff, 32; 37:8, 10; 38:17f, 23; 39:8; 43:12f; 51:32; 52:13; Ezek. 5:4; 16:41; 23:47; 43:21; Amos 2:1; 6:10; Mic. 1:7

None of them can possibly imply pouring molten lead down the mouth of a convict. Far more often it refers to the buring of buildings and posessions.

--Pogne 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This list includes biblical references to death by burning (Child Sacrifice) and many more about burning alone but I was unable to locate in any of these information that relates to the subject of the article. The record of Tamar does not speak of execution. We probably should remove this reference and include a specific citation.--Richwierd (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to burning people or pouring anything molten down their throat. Your quote above^ Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 - sacrificing their children to idols, thing that the prophet, in the name of Yahveh (God of Israel) condemns says the God of Israel condemns the pagan practice. The other Bible refs above also do not support the opening text. The text in question should be removed.72.161.85.59 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Faggot

This is in NO WAY offensive, but it is a very common urban legend that homosexuals were originally associated with the word "faggot" because they burned homosexuals at the stake using faggots (bundles of sticks) and I think this would be very necessary in the article as it is already in the Faggot (slang) article. What do you guys think? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Death

I'm not entirely sure how to go about this but am I the only one who reads the cause of death section as having a strange sexual tone? ha like it was written by some weirdass s&m person.. And it's entirely unsourced someone should probably take a look at that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.236.144 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that but I do not trust this section, especially as the last paragraph is in no way relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OJSlaughter (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Combustion'

The first sentence of this article, 'Deliberately causing death through the effects of combustion...' inappropriately uses the term 'combustion'. Combustion is a technical term with a precise physical and chemical definition. Strictly speaking, 'combustion' itself is rarely the cause of death when someone dies in a fire. This first sentence should instead read 'Deliberately causing death through the effects of FIRE has a long history as a form of capital punishment...' Unfortunately, many contributors to this encyclopedia believe that articles must necessarily use the most indirect and academically obscure language possible to make otherwise simple statements. Using overly technical language simply for the sake of sounding authoritative contributes nothing to the clarity and usefulness of this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.168.169 (talk) 27 October 2012

It means an act or instance of burning. What is the problem with them word? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/combustion 206.174.15.122 (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Apocrypha rv

I rv the following as apocryphal and incomplete at that, but if anyone thinks it should be restored....:

In England, only a few accused of witchcraft were burned; the majority were hanged. Sir Thomas Malory, in Le Morte d'Arthur (1485), depicts King Arthur as being reluctantly constrained to order the burning of Queen Guinevere, once her adultery with Lancelot was revealed, as a Queen's adultery would be construed as treason against her royal husband.

Quis separabit? 18:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable instances from myth and art should possibly be included, but only if referenced. this article still needs lots of cleanup of unreferenced stuff, and such material should risk getting kicked out, unless references are added. Good work at removing stuff!Arildnordby (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant intestacy claim for heretics.in Justinian, Codex Justinianus

As long as relatives "repented", they retained heritance claims, as per 1.5.3, in Justice Blume's translation. Furthermore "Death by burning" is nowhere attested in CJ: 1.5.4. The same Emperors and the emperor Thodosius to Senator, Praetorian Prefect. We persecute the Manichaeans or Doanastist with just severity. So this kind of men shall have nothing in common with the rest either in custom or in laws. 1. And in the first place we want (the fact of being such) to be a public crime, because the wrong committed against divine religion brings detriment to all. We purse them also by confiscation of their property. We permit it to be given, however, to their nearest relatives, in such a way that the order of the heirs in the ascending, descending and collateral line of cognates as far as the second degree shall be observed the same as in inheritance successions, and we permit them to take the property only if they are not themselves polluted by an equal guilt. 2. Further, we do not want them (the Manichaeans and Donatists) to be able to take any gift or inheritance, free from whatever source that may come. 3. Besides, we leave to no one who is convicted (of such heresy) any power of giving, buying or selling anything or even of making contracts.

Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove section on Bride Burning

The topic is too marginal; article should be confined to judicial burnings and human sacrifice, at most to unofficial, yet socially sanctioned lynchings, chastisement of slaves or massacres in war. Perceived crimes of murder belongs elsewhere, in my opinion.Arildnordby (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bride burning is death by burning, I see no reason to remove mention of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll reintegrate it if you want me to. It can then be the evaluation on a later stage whether the article might split into accidental burnings (which are deaths by burning as well), crimes of death by burning, and culturally sanctioned forms of death by burning.Arildnordby (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for expansion of Sati subsection

First off, unconditional apologies for my behaviour, I was way out of line.

In tune with the article (in particular as per heresy, sodomy, Portuguese&Spanish inquisition as well as witch hunts), I feel that a highly abbreviated history of sati should be included, as well as a brief mention of estimates that modern historians point to. It should, however, remain skeletal, not treading on the turf of the main article Sati (practice)

This is then what I propose (refs will be provided):

---

The first reliable evidence for the practice of sati appears from the time of the Gupta Empire, where the evidence consists of memorial stones known as devli. During the Mughal Era, several emperors sought to suppress, or regulate, the practice of sati, for example Aurangzeb (r.1658-1707). The British authorities outlawed the practice within their dominions in 1829

The British began compiling statistics of the incidences of sati from 1815 and onwards. Those official statistics show, for Bengal, where the practice was much more common than elsewhere, recorded numbers typically in the range 500-600 per year, up to the year 1829. These apparently "hard numbers", however, cannot be regarded as reliable, they are "fraught with problems, as Yang puts it. As an example, Yang points to that the British simply did not possess the administrative apparatus to make correct assessments.

---

Now, that is basically the text I would like to add, or at least, have as a hopefully constructive starting point. One comment, though:

Unfortunately, I cannot access those pages in Yang's text that enumerate the various criticisms launched at the statistics, and therefore, I cannot judge if this point about "not sufficient administrative apparatus" is the one that "ought" to be included. I do, however, think that it is important to include some specification of the unreliability; otherwise, meeting just the word "unreliable" may lead the reader astray. For, numbers can be unreliable in many ways, and people might think they are unreliable in ways they are not. To give just a few possible sources of unreliability: a) Did the British make up the numbers (very unlikely, but many readers might leap to that conclusion if they just see the word "unreliable", and nothing else b) The British were sloppy, making multiple incidents out of a single, real incident due to lacking quality control in the reporting system (that might be the case, but I don't know if Yang says so, and therefore, other readers might leap to that conclusion) c) Many districts didn't send in their reports, or the numbers reported there weren't included in the final statistics the Brits used for their total. d) Cases were misplaced in wrong districts, making the given local distribution spurious e) Misidentified cases, say accidental fires included (or its opposite)

Now, while we cannot guarantee that a reader does not draw unwarranted implications from what is written, by inclusion of a SINGLE specific criticism made by Yang can ensure that the reader gets THAT criticism right (whatever else he might make on his own)

Now, that was basically my proposal.Arildnordby (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the Sati section unchanged until Monday 27th; if no one has responded here, I'll insert the proposal above, with refs provided.Arildnordby (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be extended. By 25-26 I will add the preferred version. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine! Knowing you wish to come up with your own suggestions, I'll remove the deadline and wait until you come with it, in case real life or something else breaks your stated schedule! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just submitted my version, you can change if you want, I will point here, if it will need any improvement. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

a) If we are to add increase of sati due to Muslim invaders, then we already regard the Muslim/Mughal phase as notable enough to be included, and the mentioning of a Mughal emperor seeking to suppress the practice ought to be included as well, IMO. b) I am not wholly sure for why you wish to keep an unqualified "unreliability" statement here concerning the statistics, rather than ALSO including a concrete objection against it made by Yang?Arildnordby (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, removed that part(of statistics), explained through reference instead. It can be added as "note" too though, but since this whole page has no notes, let it be in references. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent compromise on b), I'll probably add within the semihidden reference, rather than within main text, one of those charges made by Yang against the stats. Is that agreeable?Arildnordby (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No matter. Your reliability discussion within ref is more than good enough, so I will leave it as it is. Woul like to hear your view on Mughal policy, though.Arildnordby (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've chosen to include Aurangzeb, because he seems to have been the most determined Mughal foe of sati. Humayun and Akbar can be accessed on Sati (practice), preserving it as main article necessary to consult on Mughal sati policy in general.Arildnordby (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In its current form, it seems great. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Having become adult in course of my fully justified 24-hour blocking yesterday, it seems we are working constructively together on these two articles! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Last changes you made into the section. First of all, there are multiple sources who view it as a newly developed practice. One is yang, another one is Doninger, and other than that, no one is saying that Practice was invented after islamic invasion. It has only said that "practice became widespread", and it existed before, which is much cleared if someone sees that earliest developed records dates back to 400 CE(gupta empire). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

True, and I think it is absolutely essential to keep within the articl the view that the onslaught of muslim invasions brought about an increase of sati. But, as Yang states, there is evidence that in SOME areas, the peak was reached in pre-Islamic times. This is an additional nuance, and should be included in order to give a the Neutral Point of View. On page 22, for example, she discusses whether Sanskritinization of society may have been the impulse for sati increase in such areas.Arildnordby (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is neutral already, in the sense that some rulers tried to stop it. But adding like "it existed before", is obvious information, but it became widespread. It shouldn't be attributed, unless there is a claim that there was as many incidences before the conquests. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It is not at all obvious information that the peak level in some areas were reached in pre-Islamic times.Arildnordby (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It refers to the same memorial stones, after adding in the same para that "according to one scholar, the sites of immolation, suggest the practice was increasing towards the end of the first and the beginning of 2nd millenium AD". They are already mentioned on first paragraph. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. There is nothing in the first paragraph that in some areas, peak level was reached in pre-Islamic times.Arildnordby (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, you used Yang as source as UNQUALIFIED source of "widespreadness". She said no such thing, but that this is a VERSION. I included that, and OTHER versions, nuancing the first version is wholly correct to give a faithful summary of Yang.Arildnordby (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just changed it a bit. Since he recalls the memorial stones, and regard them as evidence for "peak level", it should be along with first para. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources Misrepresented ?

Just curious but the sources do not match with what the following paragraph says:

Sati practice became widespread with the start of Muslim invasions and conquests of the Indian subcontinent, rapes were commonly carried out by foreign invaders, generating the additional meaning to sati as a means of preserving the woman's honour.[135][136][137]

But nearly all the sources such as this one page 611 make no mention of women burning themselves after being "raped by foreigners" (amd this is being cited as a source). I suspect Bladesmulti is fabricating sources again...? Given that your problematic editing on other pages has been exposed on ANI Bladesmulti can you justify why you're doing this repeatedly? StuffandTruth (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAT???? I thought the guy had some integrity, so I took him in good faith, but clearly not. Clearly, we cannot accept just his 36 hours block just recently, but must notify the administators of this extreme falsification (can you do that to blocking administrator User:Kevin Gorman ?) . Thanks for letting me know, I'll rewrite the whole damn thingArildnordby (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I honestly want him to get indefinitely blocked. Please gather any and all evidence like I did above. We cannot assume good faith edits with this user. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yang DOES, however, cautiously refer to this about rapes and increased sati as a result of that, as a VERSION. But, she proffers lots of nuancing/countering material blocked user wouldn't have included. Thus, I will base my rewriting on Yang, which I have access to.Arildnordby (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Include a balanced view then please. That's what everyone is looking for. Whoever makes a claim - make sure who is saying that and in what journal/book. Since we're dealing with history, scholarly opinion will only suffice. But both opinions must be registered. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sati is mandated in the Hindu religion

• see this --> It's mandated in the Hindu religion. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely regarded as meritorious, but for example the Brits, and Hindu reformers meant that such as Manu by no means commands it, the alternative being to live in strict celibacy&austerity after her husband's death. Clearly, however, this user has warped a lot by his edits, so even though views he has been pushed MAY be correct they ought to be gone through critically.Arildnordby (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing is misrepresented.

1. On page, the given source "Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh", page 115 it is written that historians argue, "to avoid intolerable shame, rape and torture, a huge pyre was built, and all the women and children jumped", and "The argument is that the practice came into effect during the Islamic invasion of India, to protect their honor from Muslims who were known to commit mass rape on the women of cities that they could capture successfully."

1. "At the loss of a battle or the capture of a city, in order to prevent captivity and its horrors, which were considered worse than death, and to avoid intolerable shame, rape and torture, a huge pyre was built, and all the women and children jumped. Sometimes, an entire tribe died by jauhar. This occurred several times among the Rajputs when the Muslim rulers invaded Rajasthan."

1. "Many Hindu women preferring suicide to being repeatedly raped and sold into harem slavery by Muslim invaders."

References

All of them are not incorrect, nor they are unreliable. Neither the first one. I don't know if it is "fantasy", but probably highly and reliably sourced. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sashi is notable enough to include for presentation of argument, cannot be gauged if Sashi is presenting a view he argues against, or in favour of. But, Sashi's quote belongs both here and in Sati practice, which I'm including right now.Arildnordby (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And whatever other editors might charge you of, I only did so on your Doniger p.611 source, which did NOT support what you included it as reference to. That remains a MIS-representation, even though your Sashi reference remains correct.Arildnordby (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doniger support the "honour" thing i think. But good that you know now, I didn't misrepresented source. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not on page 611. It consisted of a time line unrelated to the issueArildnordby (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Following discussion involved a sock puppet[4], whose comments have been removed[5] 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)

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.[6] 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)

I am here because I was pinged by Bladesmulti. I do not have any specific knowledge or interest in this subject, but am just here to provide some fresh opinion.

• It seems to me that the section "Hindu traditions" is very strange. This article is not about traditions or sayings in holy books, but about notable or verifiable instances of burning. I am sure one can find all sort of horrible sayings in all old books. Also, I find the use of a 1800s source not good, even if it was relevant. Weinberger's comments are already added in the Sati section.
• I have no comment on whether Sati is still carried out in Tamil Nadu etc. It seems to me that the section "Fire and the fault of Karma" is again talking about the motivation/traditions etc. behind Sati, and the general thinking/philosophy belongs on the Sati page, not here. As noted in the paragraph, the motivations were complex: how, where and how often it was practiced also was complex. Weinberger can be used in the Sati page and perhaps the motivations can be summarized here. I do not know enough about the topic to say something more specific. I hope this helps. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:59, 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)

Discussion of a recent revert

Regarding this recent revert with the edit summary "And you are lynching Negroes." I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union (I agree to a large extent with Noam Chomsky that the USSR can be described to some degree as "a dungeon with a floor on human suffering"). But the WP article "And you are lynching Negroes" strikes me as an awful article. It appears to be nothing more than an ad hominem attack piece, a hit-piece, nothing more than a vacuous piece of Orwellian-style propaganda. Some parts of the article are not supported by reliable sources, and the sources cited appear to be designed to block and preempt legitimate allegations of US cynicism and US hypocrisy by broadly and mendaciously painting any and all such allegations as ridiculous and thus a-priori illegitimate.

Take "And you are lynching Negroes", and invert it (i.e., perform a process similar to some extent to the spirit of WP: Boomerang), that is, replace every occurrence of 'soviet union' (or the other so-called 'communist' or 'socialist' countries appearing in "And you are lynching Negroes") with 'the U.S.,' and replace every occurrence of 'the U.S.' (or the 'West') with 'the Soviet Union,' and replace the phrase 'And you are lynching Negroes' with the mirror phrase 'And you are imprisoning dissidents in gulags', and replace every source ridiculing the Soviet Union with a mirror source ridiculing the U.S. (or the 'West'). The resulting article is the mirror image of the original article, that is, an ad hominem attack piece, an article that appears just as "legitimate" as the current article. Or in other words, just another piece of vacuous propaganda and intellectually empty garbage, not fundamentally different than the vacuous propaganda of "[And you are lynching Negroes]]".

It is not my intent to attack or injure any editor(s). My only intent is to express the view that using "And you are lynching Negroes" is not valid reasoning to support the recent revert. I'd like to respectfully ask the reverting editor to please articulate a legitimate, convincing reason for the revert, and please not cite nonsense such as "And you are lynching Negroes." Otherwise the reverted content should be restored. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nazis burning people, people burning Nazis... really?

Seems that if we are going to include the incident in which one Nazi official was burned by a mob, or the other where German minorities in post-WW2 Czechoslovakia were burned alive (both with German-language sources no less) we also ought to include the recent 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes where 30 or 40 people were burned alive by pro-Kiev radical nationalists. Or perhaps how there were cases of Nazi crematoriums burning people alive? As it is, the article is (sorry to say) biased with a pro-Nazi slant. Actually, the article is already becoming something of a compendium list. There has to be a way to separate some of these into more accessible articles, or at least structure it better. Does anyone have any ideas? I would hesitate to name it something like "list of historically prominent deaths by burning," but perhaps it could be structured more around the describing the historical background of the practice, and organizing the examples based on cause or motive rather than geography or time period? For example, burning at the stake is something of a religious practice against heretics which to some extent continues today. Another separate aspect was punishment for crimes like adultery or liberating slaves. Then there is self-immolation and firebombing. As long as we're examining the German angle, what about the firebombing of Dresden? Really it is a very broad topic, and I don't think it is well-served by lumping together all these historical examples as it stands now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.230.88 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death by burning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206201237/http://www.etsu.edu:80/cas/history/docs/southafrica.htm to http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/southafrica.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121104162847/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-180493576.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-180493576.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death by burning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140304212259/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm%20New%20Advent to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm%20New%20Advent
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130926003510/http://wais.stanford.edu/LatinAmerica/latinaDerivative to http://wais.stanford.edu/LatinAmerica/latinaDerivative

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs a flamethrower taken to it

The article is grotesquely overdetailed. EEng 10:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death by burning. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707174042/http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1535 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1535
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707174042/http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1535 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1535

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) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death by burning. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014220823/http://etsu.edu:80/cas/history/docs/southafrica.htm to http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/southafrica.htm

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) 08:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

unsourced pop trivia

Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

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

Bahá'í Faith

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

Main article: Bahá'í laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section merge to Capital punishment

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

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

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

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

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

Other uses of "burned alive"

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

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

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

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

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