Talk:Execution by elephant

WP:URFA/2020 notice
This is a great topic, but I fear the article as it stands is quite a ways away from the current featured article criteria. The main issue seems to be sourcing: statements like "Elephants were widely used across the Indian subcontinent and South Asia as a method of execution", "African powers were not known to make as much use of the animals in warfare or ceremonial affairs compared to their Asian counterparts", and "There are fewer records of elephants being used as straightforward executioners for the civil population", among others, lack citations altogether. Additionally, while the heavy reliance on primary sources isn't a problem per se, it does raise issues of synthesis and other forms of original research. Hopefully these issues can be resolved; if they aren't, the article may be taken to WP:FAR, where editors will discuss removing its featured article status. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - There's some original research here, as well. Looking at the statement There are fewer records of elephants being used as straightforward executioners for the civil population. One such example is mentioned by Josephus and the deuterocanonical book of 3 Maccabees in connection with the Egyptian Jews, though the story is likely apocryphal.  3 Maccabees is a religious text that does not mention Josephus, does not identify the story as likely apocryphal, and does not support "there are fewer records ...". Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, File:Execution by elephant distribution map.svg is likely inaccurate, as it does not encompass Carthage. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree: that's one of the many "issues of synthesis and other forms of original research" that I noted above. Another example: taking four primary-source accounts and distilling them into "Elephants were widely used across the Indian subcontinent and South Asia as a method of execution", with no citations to secondary sources, is textbook WP:SYNTH. There's a lot of that going on here, and I fear that the relative lack of secondary sources available about this topic led the author to carry out the "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, [and] synthesis" role himself. Oh, and one more thing: some of the citation formatting is inadequate to meet crit. 2c. I'm really not sure what Jack Weatherford-Genghis Khan, p.116 and Natesan, G.A. The Indian Review, p. 160 even refer to. There are an awful lot of issues here; resolving them would seem to be a Herculean task. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging . Do you see anything obviously wrong with the Carthage content?  I have a vague memory about reading about execution by elephant in one of the Punic wars articles you wrote. This is looking like a FAR priority. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An elephantine task, surely. In terms of general structure, the modern continental division seems quite anachronistic for this topic and unrelated to the content at hand. The map used to illustrate the article also doesn't match the text, I can't identify what it's based on. CMD (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm: Oh dear. Looks like WP:TNT to me. There is nothing inherently implausible about the Carthaginian content, although a source would be nice. I have added a bit on a well sourced example of Carthaginian elephant executions. Among many other things MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate" looks like a significant issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

used in Byzantine Empire?
the text is taken from the reference, which itself has a (n unavailable) footnote. I think this needs its own reference, or anecdote with reference, as it is nowhere otherwise mentioned. 142.163.195.54 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

ehh
it has so many fail FA nominations. how about trying to make it GA instead Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * oh wait it used to be FA and then it got demoted. Okmrman (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)