Talk:Decapitation/Archive 1

Beheadings in Saudi Arabia
I feel that although mentioned in the article it deserves more attention that beheadings in fact account for the vast majority of executions in Saudi Arabia, some 50 in 2003 according to Amenesty International, the majority of them being foreign nationals. See also http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/sau-summary-eng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.167.207 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2005 (UTC)

Ostrø removed
I removed Hans Christian Ostrø from the list of Iraq decapitation victims. He was beheaded in Kashmir in 1995 by the Al Faran group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddycruel (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nil?
Removed Nil under the Hindu subheading, as it didn't seem to be linking to a person named "Nil" Mako 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Iraq War
I think we should start considering the necessity of displaying all the decapitation victims from the Iraq War. Although their deaths were gruesome, only a few were actually notable. JHMM13 (T | C)  19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#Decapitation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.55.74 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dickens
Isn't there an account by Charles Dickens of his observations on a beheading - the neck contracts into the shoulders etc? It was in a collection of great war-journalism published 10 years ago, I think. The Iraq beheadings don't belong here. Fiach MacHugh O'Byrne has a good story on a political beheading in 16thC Elizabethan Ireland, under the section Missing Head.--shtove 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture
The painting heading this article, in my opinion, isn't particularly clear. It's got a crowd, and halos, and a limited colour scheme, which all detract from the actual beheading; I couldn't even see what it was meant to be without zooming in. Perhaps something more baroque is appropriate? , perhaps? --84.65.156.77 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran ?
In Iran the capital punishment is carried out by hanging so i removed the iran from the list of counties in which the beheading is lawful or being practiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.9.45 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Traditional decapitation methods?
Under the heading "Decapitation in the modern world" I think the phrase "Traditional decapitation methods, both ancient and modern,..." is both wordy and implies that decapitation is a tradition. I propose that phrase be changed to "Historically, most methods of beheading..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.83.233 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal?
I seem to recall a story about a scientist who might have lived some time immediately before or after the French Revolution who, in the process of attempting to determine how long it takes for death to occur to a beheaded human, volunteered himself as a test subject. If memory serves, he told his assistants before heading to the guillotine to count the number of times he blinked his eyes after being beheaded, perhaps using that as a way to indicate the precise moment of death. Anecdotal or based in fact? TKarrde 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're probably thinking of Lavoisier. the damned fanatics took his head off for being a farmer of taxes in the ancien regime, despite his great services to science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.136 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WHO definition

 * The WHO defines decapitation as a malady with a mortality rate close to 100%, which was a pandemic in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century, but nowadays is all but erradicated in developed countries.

This sounds to me like a joke, but if it's not it needs a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.210.251 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Almost" always fatal?
"Decapitation is almost always fatal, as brain death usually occurs within seconds to minutes without the support of the organism's body."


 * When is it not fatal? --Ihope127 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a scene in Severance (film) in which survival after decapitation is discussed, and then illustrated in true gory horror detail. Anyway, you should stick this quote on the Bad Jokes page.--Shtove 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How about nonmammals? How about Mike? Frencheigh 13:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

redirects
the link decapitated goes to a metal band. Within the larger scope of wikipedia, I think it would make more sense to redirect to decapitation, as it is much more likely for internall linking to take place with term in mind rather than the band. If no one objects, I'll fiddle with the redirect in a few days. --Detruncate 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Beheading in the Roman Empire
Thought I might mention that beheading was a form of punishment for citizens in the Roman Empire, whereas provincials and non-citizens were crucified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.198.103 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More gruesome photos displayed
 Someone using several variations of the username ToughLuckMeadow has been repeatedly posting the same graphic on this page. If anyone can come up with a legitimate reason this photo needs to be displayed in the article (as opposed to linked at the bottom, or preferably deleted), I'd be very interested. Otherwise, wouldn't this be considered vandalism? --Lukeonia1 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How is it vanadalism? It's a real picture of the article being discussed.

It shouldn't be labeled as "Vandalism" just because some of you are morally opposed to those kind of pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I take that back. It wouldn't be vandalism as such because it does indeed relate to the article. What I'm saying is, I don't see how the image adds anything to the encyclopedic value of this article. We can all visualize what a severed head looks like, and there are illustrations of that both above and below this on the page. According to your logic, I could legitimately post hello.jpg in the anus article (or the Goatse article itself for that matter) and it would have to be allowed to remain on the grounds that it is "a real picture of the article being discussed." What's the difference, other than the subject matter? --Lukeonia1 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just thought there needed to be a picture of the real thing instead of just illustrations from paintings hundreds of years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

''How is it vanadalism? It's a real picture of the article being discussed.

It shouldn't be labeled as "Vandalism" just because some of you are morally opposed to those kind of pictures. & How is it vanadalism? It's a real picture of the article being discussed.''

Listen you devious little rat, some things in life are just not acceptable & your one of them, take your gutter material elsewhere, down the toilet where it belongs with yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.t2006 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about instead of acting like a whiny git, you just walk away from Wikipedia for a while? In fact, don't bother coming back. --Agamemnon2 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno if Aga is on my side or not, but like I said, just because you may be morally opposed to those kind of pictures (Like the fine comment left about me with a gutter mentality) doesn't mean it's labeled vandalism.. It's fair use in the article being discussed and it should be left there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 April 2007  (UTC)


 * Agamemnon2, please remember to be civil and assume good faith.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the photo is necessary, it's a bit excessive. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I think the inclusion of this image detracts from the article by adding an unnecessary shock value. Its inclusion will offend some, but its exclusion will offend none. Without getting into a debate on Wikipedia censorship, which is preferable? If we include this image in the "related" article, why don't we do the same for other shock sites? Same reasoning, same effect, different genre. --Lukeonia1 09:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons mentioned above. I believe this picture does not contribute to the encyclopedic value of the article. I think it should be deleted.

Please see Profanity. I believe we can all agree that the deletion of this photo does not cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and that no equally suitable alternatives are available.Maziotis 13:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it did have a reason, the image should be put there without a thumbnail preview using this tag Image of the jigsaw globe logo, with a warning of EXTREMELY graphic content. --(193.190.253.129 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for Comments: Graphic image inclusion
 This is a dispute over whether or not a graphic image should be included in the article. --09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * I don't see how the image adds anything to the encyclopedic value of this article. We can all visualize what a severed head looks like, and there are illustrations of that both above and below this on the page. --Lukeonia1 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just thought there needed to be a picture of the real thing instead of just illustrations from paintings hundreds of years ago. --Unsigned
 * It's fair use in the article being discussed and it should be left there. --User:ToughLuckMeadow
 * I don't think the photo is necessary, it's a bit excessive. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I think the inclusion of this image detracts from the article by adding an unnecessary shock value. Its inclusion will offend some, but its exclusion will offend none. --Lukeonia1 09:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any disputes but I don't think that there is a need to remove the picture..the picture is free..the article is about beheading, what did you expect? it is encyclopedic as it demonstrates the article in question..whether we like it or not, it shouldn't be removed.. Wikipedia isn't censored as you know...--The Joke 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I have doubts about how free the picture is. Did the uploader really take this picture himself? Normally, I'd do an image search but don't feel like doing it for this topic (I personally would have preferred not seeing the image, but other than reverting vandalism, I wouldn't edit articles like these). Another thing: Wikipedia is not censored, but what is the informational aspect of this image? I think that the image is pretty worthless without any context. --JoanneB 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the image license is correct. It's highly unlikely that someone who shares a computer with his brother is both the producer of a band and the photographer of a decapitation, and this user has vandalised in the past, I don't think he should still get the benefit of the doubt. I'm deleting the image until he comes up with a decent explanation. This is not about whether we should have an image like this, if there are images with a right license, this just isn't one of them. --JoanneB 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I draw a distinction between content that is meant to offend, and content that is not meant to offend but offends anyway. The former is plain vandalism. The latter is not. Furthermore, the offense generated by the latter is the responsiblity of those who choose to take offense, not the editor who posts it in good faith. The image does not offend me. It illustrates the article, which is the intent. So my vote is to keep it. But let's get a consensus either way and then abide by it. --SECurtisTX | talk 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote to Keep


 * I've reviewed this discussion only briefly, but I'm dubious that an allowable license can be established for the image in question. I think JoanneB is correct in her handling of this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the request for comments about this issue. It's difficult to comment accurately on this since I haven't seen the now deleted picture, but the reasoning that intent would somehow make a certain image less offensive isn't all that considerate of those who no doubt will be offended or put off by something that is rather explicit. Any addition that in itself requires a disclaimer or explanation should generally be avoided.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fair use rationale for Image:JackHensley.PNG
Image:JackHensley.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the image is actually public domain and cannot be legally copyrighted by anyone in any country. The image is one frame of a video, so it's display is governed by the rules that apply to the original video according to US Code Title 17 sec. 101. I think we all can agree that the original video was created by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died without copyrighting this video. I think we can agree that this video was released into the public domain by al-Zarqawi with the goal of being seen by as many people as possible. Also, this video was created during the commission of a murder and an act of international terrorism specifically to spread fear as part of the terrorist act. Receiving royalties from this video would be deemed profits from an act of international terrorism, which is a much more serious crime, and so the question is moot. Even if it can be copyrighted, no reasonable person would. Therefore, it is public domain.--Bodybagger 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrosist Website (BEHEADING WARNING GRAPHIC)
I'm just bored and I just want to know if we are going to keep the terrorist website up or just take it down due to the contents? (Pleasantview 07:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Liberation / Occupation
68.97.189.144 has twice now replaced "occupation" with "liberation" in the section for Sharia law. In my view, "occupation" is the more neutral term, in that it describes the situation as it is - the country is under a military occupation - while "liberation" implies a value judgement on that occupation. --Black Butterfly 08:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly alphabetical order.
Right now Scotland is between Mythology and Modern Era. How about moving Mythology to the top? Ancheta Wis 00:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't lose your head about it. --The monkeyhate 17:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fallbeil
According to the article on the fallbeil the Nazis executed prisoners facing upwards with their eyes propped open by matchsticks. In Plotzensee prison the fallbeil was masked from view by a curtain in front of which stood the person to be executed. No tipping board or bascule was used and the victim was manhandled onto the board and placed under the blade. If a struggle was thought likely then the victim was placed facing away from the execution apparatus with the curtain behind. The victim was then pushed backwards and face upwards. This was for the sake of expedition. Executions could be carried out quickly at intervals of three minutes. I have never seen a reference to the use of matchsticks -seems very unlikely as it would have interferred with efficiency! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probably Heisenberg (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous people who have been beheaded?
Some of the people on the list are only famous because they were being beheaded.--Steven X (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blushing after beheading
The guillotine section states 'witnesses say that it blushed as though angry, although, with no blood circulation possible, this evidence is obviously false'. I'm not sure you can say it's obviously false, as circulation isn't necessarily required for skin to redden - I would think that even a head removed from the body could still 'blush' due to breaking of the capillaries when slapped. Obviously seems a bit strong. Randomsoup 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Cephalectomy
The Cephalectomy page has been re-added as a page about a medical term after speedy deletion of a page about a band of that name. The evidence for its use as a medical term is flimsy at best; the band themselves claimed to have made the word up. I can only find one unrelated use of cephalectomy in medical literature (and no mentions in PubMed), as opposed to related terms in regular use - decerebration, encephalectomy, cephalotomy, craniectomy, etc. References in google books are all neologisms as part of a joke. In any case, since there is one reference for this as a medical term, it could be added in here somewhere, but it doesn't appear to rate an article --Bazzargh (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually looking closer at that paper, even that might not be using the word. Its a review of mice lacking the hormone TRH. The sentence picked up in the search appears to be a reference to a reviewed paper, and there are several papers on fetal encephalectomy and TRH. So the original paper may say encephalectomy and its just been split by a linebreak, or typo'd --Bazzargh (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After some discussion with the pages author on my talk page, I'm changing this to a proposed deletion --Bazzargh (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible photo
Is this a good photo to place under this article ? 89.1.72.27 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Shogun"
The novel Shogun is a fictional story making it an unreliable source to cite in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.130.48 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to the "East London Decapitator"?
In the #External_links section, there's a link to a Flickr profile of someone who calls himself the "East London Decapitator" - how is this link relevant? — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that it is a collection of photographs from someone who defaces/decapitates advertisements in East London. While I can't say for sure if it belongs here it looks interesting and at least somewhat relevant to the article.  NailPuppy (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian example
Under the "notable people" section, there was one I had to remove. I removed: '' In August 2007 a video surfaced on the Internet of Russian neo-Nazis beheading a one man and shooting one other. One of the men was from Dagestan and the other, from Tajikistan. '' for two reasons: 1. There is nothing to indicate these two individuals were notable and 2. The source cited makes no reference to this being decapitation. 23skidoo (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of part of a section on decapitation in Iraq
I removed the edit because first it was unsourced or improperly sourced: reading thorugh the sources, they did not say what was being affirmed in the paragraph. Second, it contained several errors: the Zabihah is performed with a slicing, not a sawing motion. The execution of the animal is meant to drain it from as much as possible of its blood, granted, but the addition "before the heart stops" is both dubious and unnecessary. And lastly but most importantly, it is done to minimize the pain of the execution (short of stunning) for the animal, which is plain contrary to what the original editor stated in the paragraph.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Frisia
I added a section on beheadings in Frisia during the Frisian peasants rebellion from 1515 - 1523 in which Pier Gerlofs Donia beheaded muany enemies. Ironically, his successor and co-founder Wijard Jelckama was beheaded himself in 1523, ending the rebellion. I also included an image of a statue of the man himself. Just to inform you people here. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

History:Japan
Part of this belongs in the Modern World section. Grassynoel (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Celts
There's surprisingly little (in fact, nothing at all) about the veneration (and collection) of heads by those in the European Celtic cultures. This was widespread in the British Isles. Lianachan (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

never reverted vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decapitation&diff=252047518&oldid=251858798 shame. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

US
I think corpses in parts of New England were decapitated for some time for fear they were vampires. Not sure if it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.173.133 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

England/Britain!
it says very little if anything about decapition in england, which looking at how long the list is compared to other countrys in the List of people who have been beheaded artical, Germany has a section. So in short can we add sections about england/britian and france. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.184.16 (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

History
Should we perhaps summarize cases, such as what type of people decapitate, rather than individual cases? Faro0485 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Santorini
The incident in Santorini, Greece, in August, 2008, deserves mention. Unfree (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

American patent
The article says: "There is no way to provide life support for a severed head with current medical techniques, although, in 1987, an American patent was granted for a device designed to provide "physical and biochemical support for an animal's head which has been "discorporated" (i.e., severed from its body).""

Well, I work with patents and I can assure you that this is not relevant. The patent offices of the world do not test machines to see if they work. Why should they? A patent of a non-working machine is worthless so if some fool wishes to waste money this way, it is his problem. Sometimes they do require further explanation if an invention seems to contradict the basic laws of science such as perpettum mobile machines. So the fact that US patent office has granted this patent is not a valid argument that it works. There are actually plenty of non-working patents out there. I'm removing this text. It is misleading in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The American patent office has refused to consider perpetual motion machines for a long time. Unfree (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

State vs Extremist
Shouldn't there be a distinction between state-sponsored decapitations and those executed by an extremist / terrorist group? This would be under "Decapitation in the modern world"  -brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by MingMecca (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a distinction should be made between capital punishment and beheadings carried out by individuals with no judicial process. -sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.83.233 (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree-where is the difference ? Ghandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.139.21.154 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed
I've removed the following piece from the article:

The soldiers were part of a small force of 13 Russian soldiers that were guarding a small Russian compound near Dagestan. The small squad of only 13 soldiers were on patrol, or doing perimeter checks on the compound, when a large force of Chechen Rebels ambushed the Russians, with overwhelming firepower. A majority of the Russian soldiers fled completely and were not followed by the Chechen Rebels. A total of 6 brave and young soldiers fought back with the little amount of ammo that they had. Eventually the Russian soldiers ran out of ammo, and decided they were going to surrender. The Rebels accepted their "surrender" and lied to the Russians that they would be treated according to the Geneva Convention, and POW rules of human rights. That never happened, the Russians were beaten harshly and had their hands tied behind their backs. (WARNING: The following events are completely truthful and in no way racist towards Muslims, or Islams, And the follow details of this cruel and disturbing event is graphic in nature and very violent. Parents please supervise any one under +18. This is intended for Mature Viewers Only +18.)

Following the Russian soldier's surrender, the Chechen Rebels tied the Russian soldier's hand behind their back, and took them on top of a small hill in a near by field. After that, the Rebels slowly and cruely used knives to cut the throats of the Russians until the Russian soldier's heads were almost completely cut off. One of the soldiers, a young first Lieutenant had his throat slit but it wasn't a proper cut, and the young soldier's blood gush and pooled all around his head and neck. Also the Russian was laid face down and began to slowly drown in his own pool of blood, until he managed to whimper a few muffled crys and flip over on his back with blood everywhere. Earlier the first Russian that was executed put up a struggle and wrestled with his captors and made a failed escape when a rebel slammed a rifle butt into the Russian's face, breaking his nose and right after the Russian fell down a Chechen Rebel cut and slit his throat, and neck with a knife. This was filmed by an Iraqi "Gun for Hire." Towards the end of the video the 5th Russian managed somehow to weakly stand up and break free from the Rebels. The Russian was bleeding to death from his slit throat and managed to break free and as he began to run, a rebel shot the Russian in the back which killed the Russian instantly. The youngest Russian that was captured and killed was 18 years old.

The group of Chechen Rebels that preformed this cruel act were killed in a counter attack, and ambush by Russian forces later that year. (These events took place in 1999.) Only one of the Chechen Rebels was arrested, and that was the leader of the Chechen group that carried out the killings. The Russian military arrested him in 2001, he had fled to the wartorn Eastern European nation of Georgia. He is serving a 8 year kidnapping sentence, along with the charges for Crimes against Humanity that took place in that field when they killed the Russian Soldiers.

Even ignoring the NPOV problems and incorrect tone, this is too much detail for any specific incident; we can't have a quarter of the article devoted to a single incident. Matt Deres (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Judicial and terrorist beheading
My opinion is that we should distinguish between the "regular" decapitation as a form of capital punishment, regardless of any opinion on the topic of capital punishment itself, on one side and the brute beheading as performed by non-state actors as terrorists and war criminals on the other side.

Of beheading of the latter category videos are published with the purpose of propaganda and intimidation: both by the terrorist as well as their opponents who publish them to expose their brutality and arouse indignation (shown on the website www.truthTube.tv) etc. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese example
I am correcting a couple of errors on historical facts in this section.

1) Decapitation (without seppuku) was not considered the severest and most degrading form of punishment. Crucifixion was considered more severe and degrading. 2) It is not historically true that Ishida Mitsunari was buried in the ground and decapitated with a saw. Well-known examples to which the described execution method (nokogiribiki; 鋸引き) was applied include executions of Sugitani Jenjubo (杉谷善住坊), who attempted to assassinate Oda Nobunaga, and Oga Yashiro, a traitor to Tokugawa clan. Ishida was executed by normal beheading. Hkwon (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo of beheaded and dismembered corpses
Do we really need something so graphic here? I'm sure there are plenty of other illustrations that could be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely baffled. What purpose does this serve? Where did this come from? What's the story behind the obviously Photoshopped picture?? What is this doing on the page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLordWaffles (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The image Bodyparts.jpg is causing controversy (also in the section above). I would dispute that it is fake and photoshopped, but there are concerns about whether it is really necessary for the article. What do other users think? The image is here, not for the easily offended.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from possible questions of ghastliness, I don't think this image is appropriate here because it doesn't deal specifically with decapitation (the torsos have had the arms and legs removed in addition to the heads). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First, a note for others joining the conversation and wondering what image we're talking about; it's File:Bodyparts.jpg. (If I'm wrong, please correct me; it's important that we're all discussing the same image.)


 * My take is that it should remain out of the article. I'm not offended by its goriness; decapitation is gory.  But I'm with Richwales here; the photo does not really illustrate mere decapitation; it's more dismemberment.  It doesn't seem point-on to this article.  As a side note, I am skeptical of the claim that it is an original work of the uploader, as stated on commons:File:Bodyparts.jpg.  TJRC (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Followup: I raised my concerns about the copyright at commons, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bodyparts.jpg; and the file was subsequently deleted. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre
Hi. An IP editor has been repeatedly making [ changes] to the "Bosnia and Herzegovina" section which remove all existing mention of decapitation during the Srebrenica massacre and replace the existing text with a general summary description of the incident and its status as an act of genocide. While this new material is probably appropriate in some other articles, IMO it does not belong here — and it certainly doesn't belong here if it is going to displace a focussed description of the use of decapitation during the Srebrenica massacre (together with appropriate references to presumably reliable sources). I don't want to see an edit war happen here, but the issue seems to me to be pretty cut and dried, and I think it might validly be said that this sort of change — which the IP editor redid even after having been notified of the concern on the IP address's talk page — goes beyond a content dispute and borders on vandalism. What do others think?

I should probably also mention that, to the extent that problems with this article touch on the general subject of the Balkans, the ArbCom discretionary sanctions arising from the Macedonia case would apply here (see WP:ARBMAC). Yes, I know Bosnia/Herzegovina is not in Macedonia, but please note that this particular ArbCom sanction applies generally to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" and not exclusively to the subject of that particular case (Macedonia). — Rich wales 16:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, the material that has nothing to do with decapitation does not belong in the article. I'm not familiar with the ArbCom matter and express no opinion on it one way or he other.  TJRC (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP editor did the same thing again, without any attempt to acknowledge or discuss the matter either on the IP address's talk page, my talk page, or this article's talk page, and without any explanation via an edit summary. I have reverted the edit, blocked the IP for one week, and logged what I did as an arbitration enforcement action at WP:ARBMAC.  I considered an article ban instead of a block, but I concluded the IP's prolonged refusal to engage anyone meant he was unlikely to pay any attention to a ban.  If similar disruptive editing of this page continues via a different IP or a brand new account, I believe the next step should be semi-protection of the article.  —  Rich wales 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of "often"
Separation of the head from the rest of the body often results in death in humans.

often!? --Il hamster 08:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Often, or almost always. However, it is possible to survive an internal decapitation. 169.199.106.20 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That link is dead. I do not believe that is true. The brain needs oxygen which is why you have 'brain death' if you have a lack of oxygen and your heart starts to beat again. Cut that oxygen and the brain is dead. Mylittlezach (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Internal Decapitation
This article does not mention a rare, but related, injury called internal decapitation. Nor is there an article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.99.61 (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * More info, please.--Shtove 07:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's where the spine is severed inside the neck, but no outward damage is observed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.194.33 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

the "spine" is not severed - the atlanto-occipital joint suffers a dislocation with resultant tearing of ligaments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanto-occipital_joint damage to the spinal cord is dependent on the severity of the dislocation - cases range from nearly full recovery to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.165.183 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That does not sound like true decapitation. Sounds like a spinal injury. Decapitation is the severing of the head from the body. Either the head is severed or it is not. I do not believe that 'internal' decapitation belongs in this article at all. Mylittlezach (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we upload a mexican behading video?
This article needs it. 68.228.240.147 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo of beheaded and mutilated heads
I just want to register my absolute DISGUST that a photograph was inserted at the bottom of the article of two heads with penises in their mouths. I'm sure someone will try to justify this on "encyclopedic grounds". Utter nonsense. I didn't want to see that, nor did it help me in any way to understand the topic of the article better. And there was no warning. I am removing this bestial photograph immediately and hope no one even thinks of re-inserting it. THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY CAN DO BETTER. 184.175.14.142 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Personally, I am in no hurry to put this back, but inclusion would require WP:CONSENSUS.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The pictures are inappropriate for all ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.27.2 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not aim to limit itself to kids' level. As Ianmacm noted, WP:NOTCENSORED is the relevant policy here.  (Clarification: 74.176.27.2 is apparently referring to the general grotesqueness inherent in the depiction of any decapitation.  The "two heads with penises in their mouths" referred to in the 12 March 2013 comment above were removed almost a year ago.  I concur with that removal; decapitation can be adequately illustrated without penises in mouths.) TJRC (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

old reference
"This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). "article name needed". Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (first ed.). James and John Knapton, et al." is not sufficient. It is necessary to indicate exactly what text has been copied from it, just as for anything else in Wikipedia. Otherwise it fails attribution. (& it would be even better to remove the text, rewrite that part from a modern source, and give the material there as an interesting external link.  DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Head transplants on monkeys
I thought that whereas monkeys have been kept alive for a few days after a head transplant, they have always remained paralysed after the operation. I'm not sure I'd call that a "successful" operation, jguk 14:27, 12 February 2005 (UTC)

Was the potentially mis-sourced material checked against the suggested source?
Here, you removed the following material from the United States section:
 * Indians and Black slaves were often beheaded during slave revolts or "Indian wars." The most notorious example was during an uprising near New Orleans in 1811. Over 100 slaves were beheaded, and some had hands or feet chopped off before beheading, or were slowly roasted over fires. Many of their heads were then mounted on pikes and left in public as warnings.
 * Maryland law required slaves be punished specifically by "brutal" means for the worst crimes, and one way specified as an option was by beheading.
 * In the Seminole Wars in Florida, Seminole Indians were sometimes beheaded, the most famous example being Chief Osceola.
 * In the California Indian genocide during the Gold Rush, many of the 120,000 to 300,000 Natives killed were beheaded. The state of California and some local governments had money set aside in their budget for the scalps of Indians, and sometimes the murderers in gold miner militias simply chopped off the heads.

This material was inserted some 18 months ago here, by an IP with rather few edits (but no obvious vandalism among these). Therefore, my guess is that you were right in assuming that the material was erroneously inserted between the Utah note and the source for that note, without thought about the validity of that source for the additional statements. On the other hand, if an experienced wikipedian had done a similar insertion, it might have been correct, because the inserted material might have been verified by the same source.

Thus, I wonder if you actually have verified that the source does not contain support the inserted material; or if you just (like me) guessed it. JoergenB (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is nothing on the cited page in the cited source about Maryland, Seminoles, New Orleans, black slaves, or California Indians. Kablammo (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. JoergenB (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibility of survival
I have been removing the part that says that it is impossible for humans to survive decapitation, but since it was restored twice, it seems like a good idea to start a discussion about it. In the most recent restoration, the edit summary said "There have been no recorded instances of a human ever surviving it. Also, all animals on which a head transplant has been performed died."

However that argument is not very applicable. No recorded instance is not at all the same as it being impossible. Also since it has been successfully performed on dogs and monkeys there is even good reason to believe that it is in fact possible. Yes, all animals on which the procedure was performed eventually died, but some of them did survive for quite a while and the cause of death in some (or perhaps most?) of the cases were not due to the decapitation, but rather because the animals were killed after the experiment was over.

Even if we were to assume that it is currently impossible to survive for a long time after a head transplant, the restored text would still be problematic. The restored text says that it is not possible. Not just that it is not currently possible. Also it says that the reason is that "it deprives all other organs of the involuntary functions which are essential for the body to function while the brain itself is deprived of oxygenated blood.", but that is not a major difficulty for achieving long-term survival after a head transplant.Andreaseksted (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no objections to the reasoning above, I have now once again removed that part from the article.Andreaseksted (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It can at least be safely said that it is impossible for humans to survive a properly done beheading. 192.121.232.253 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Suicide
The claim that suicide by decapitation is rare seems completely false to me. As far as I know, decapitation by train is a very common method of suicide in the western world; could someone maybe have a look at this and make the article reflect it? -Mojace (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh, jumping in front of a train is not the same as getting beheaded by it. If "beheading by train" means doing it Anna Karenina style and pushing one's neck between the wheels, then no, it's not a commonly used method, it's actually very rare. 195.67.149.175 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"George S. Patton III" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect George S. Patton III. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenia
You have added a section on Armenia in this article. Decapitation or beheading, is the total separation of the head from the body. "Cutting the throat" (as you have written) or "sticking a knife into throat" (as your reference actually says) is act of homicide but not decapitation by definition. Can you please remove your addition accordingly? Regards, Armatura (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most likely. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? Armatura (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What's wrong? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  15:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly did you mean by writing "Most likely"? Armatura (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, me agreeing with your point. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Decapitation of war prisoner by Japan soldier
See it as dishonorable ist Western culture point of wiev probably. I would like to know an japan wiev because decapitation was also end of seppuku, made with honor by closest frend. In centuries of Samurai ist was used also by winer of the Beatle to present kiled enemies but I am not sur it was in meaning of dishonor. Slav Sepo (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Omission and exaggeration
I have been researching World War II for novels I have already written and that are works in progress. I am a member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. I was a member of Wikipedia, but had to reestablish a new identity just now. I am appalled with this article on intentional decapitation (beheading). My nation which, with its share of military abuses (not unlike others) is somewhat singled out for beheading enemy soldiers in battle, something my country is not known for. I am aware of America's flawed conquests; my novels point them out. The Philippine American War was our worst moment, and my wife is from the Philippines. All militaries commit some crimes because of the brutality and passions in war, but American forces were not known historically for beheading. I believe the claims may not be well sourced. It is my mistake for not checking that detail.

But the worst thing about this article is the omission of the massive murders (often through beheading) committed by the Japanese in World War II. It is an insult to scholarship. I actually wonder if this article has been vandalized. Rape and murder of civilians was literally a standard operating procedure. It was worse in some areas than others. They apparently did not like the Chinese. Females of all ages (including little girls) were brutally raped and then brutally murdered, unless they were turned in to comfort women (forced military prostitutes). Manila in the Philippines fared badly near the end, when the Japanese Army personnel there realized they would not be rescued. In a book out just this summer, Manila in 1944 is being compared to the Rape of Nanking in 1937. Estimates vary, but probably well over 200,000 Chinese were murdered in Nanking. Surely, logic dictates that 25,000 to 50,000 were beheadings. That is one city among many the Japanese Army conquered, though granted the biggest. Your own publication has several articles on these issues, events, and massive atrocities; yet this article singles out the Americans who fought and died to stop Japan's evil as if the United States was the most active military to engage in beheading. There is not one word in the article about Japanese beheading in World War II a war crime as notorious as the Nazi Holocaust. There is one photo. As I mentioned, I actually wonder if this article has been vandalized. Surely, during the whole war period from 1937 to 1945, the number of beheadings must have soared in to the tens of thousands. They usually executed the innocent that way or by shooting.

Will someone deal with this, or should I try to? Robert F. Jackson (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a worthy topic for discussion if citations can be provided - a good amount of scholarly work (as mentioned above) has been done on both Nanking and Manila; resulting data should be included and properly cited. Having lived previously on the islands of Saipan and Guam, I will also suggest looking for information on the brutalities inflicted on the civilian populations of the Marianas Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldamarth (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)