Talk:Human branding

Removed word
I removed the word cauterized from the main title as although it is historicially correct to brand and to cauterize are now seen as two different things. For example to brand could be seen as a negative, to cauterise as a positive life saving event. --Edmund Patrick 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Flogging is not a minor punishment
It may be best to remove the following sentence from the Human branding page's "As punishment" section. "Like other judicial mutilations, it was sooner abandoned to flogging and similar corporal punishments which at worst only cause stripe scars on the sorely punished backside."

Many people have been flogged to death, a barbaric way to kill someone, and a way for authorities to execute a death sentence where none was given, nor merited.

Also, "sooner" doesn't have enough meaning in this context. It is confusing here.

If it's important to point out that there was an evolution where one or more corporal punishments were used exactly where branding was previously used, then I would reword the sentence. Even mild or moderate floggings can have serious medical and psychiatric consequences.

I do appreciate this section's sensitivity to the impact of the pain and humiliation aspects of branding.

Wayne of Micanopy 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the phrase, as the 'sooner' turning never worked for me either, hopefuly addresing some of your concerns. I do however stress the term 'judicial mutilation' clearly excludes arbitrary punishments as well as deliberate excecution Arcarius 11:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

flogging
I agree re-wording the paragraph is a necessity. The information that needs to get across is 1) flogging did replace branding 2) that does not mean that it was in anyway a 'lesser' punishment 3)people then may have looked upon it as a lesser punishment but it was also 4) as a arbitrary punishment as branding. It will be some time before I can do anything on this page so please do edit. --Edmund Patrick 08:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominally Minorized.
What does the phrase "nominally minorized" mean in the Persisting Practices section? "Nominal" means "existing in name only," and "minorize" isn't even a word. Assuming the person who added it (two years ago) meant "minimize" it would mean "to reduce to the smallest possible amount." So the phrase would seem to mean "reduced to the smallest possible amount in name only." Does this mean it has been reduced or that it hasn't been reduced? If it hasn't been reduced why say anything at all? If it has been reduced why not just say "now rare?" Also, if it's a modifying phrase why is it in parenthesis? Why not just say "the nominally minorized tradition" as opposed to "the (nominally minorized) tradition?" 192.82.6.21 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?
The article is identical to human branding save for the short line "redirected from...". Someone look into this, it's causing my anatomy class a good bit of pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphoray (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you put a link to the article that is identical to human branding, this is the talk page for human branding. Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Redirected from" means that what Morphoray typed is NOT a content page, it just served to point you to this page, which obviously must be identical to itself. Arcarius 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ordered to be branded with a large V
"vagabonds and Gypsies were ordered to be branded with a large V on the breast". What does the V stand for? Gusperry (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Vagrant at a guess."--70.59.166.161 (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, er, Vagabond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.231.123 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification
I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if anyone wants to join go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Reich?
Deleted the section on the Third Reich, as the prisoner identification and SS blood type identifications were both tattoos. Interesting, but having nothing to do with branding.

--Except that both the branding and the tattooing were imposed in a way that contemporary society cannot forgive. Here's the link that might go into a part of the article to address this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattoo#Identification People have also been forcibly tattooed. A well-known example is the Nazi practice of forcibly tattooing Nazi concentration camp inmates with identification numbers during The Holocaust as part of the Nazis' identification system, beginning in fall 1941.[9] The Nazis' SS introduced the practice at Auschwitz concentration camp in order to identify the bodies of registered prisoners in the concentration camps. During registration, the Nazis would pierce the outlines of the serial-number digits onto the prisoners' arms. Of the Nazi concentration camps, only Auschwitz put tattoos on inmates.[10] The tattoo was the prisoner's camp number, sometimes with a special symbol added: some Jews had a triangle, and Romani had the letter "Z" (from German Zigeuner for "Gypsy"). In May 1944, the Jewish men received the letters "A" or "B" to indicate particular series of numbers. For unknown reasons, this number series for women never began again with the "B" series after they had reached the number limit of 20,000 for the "A" series.[11] The practice continued until the last days of Auschwitz.[12 ]MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Persisting practices - References
Everything listed under the heading "Persisting Practices" sounds plausible enough, but can someone cite references for the things listed? 216.70.8.194 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

in pectore

 * In the North-American Puritan settlements of the 17th century, men and women sentenced for having committed acts of adultery were branded with an "A" letter on their chest (men) or bosom (women).

What's the difference between 'chest' and 'bosom'? —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mutiny Act of 1858
The point made here about cowardly soldiers being convicted and branded for Bad Character is most interesting, but not cited. All attempts to verify this fact lead me to websites that cite this very page. It's a circular logic. Can anyone confirm a statute that recommends branding a soldier with BC for Bad Character? So far Wikipedia remains the only source asserting such -- although the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica may be at fault here. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.12.95 (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture
Removed "In Popular Culture" section as it serves no real purpose and has no citations. There are other sites for trivia lists. 72.39.209.177 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human branding. 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/20140419011436/http://www.uttaradimath.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=638&Itemid=225 to http://www.uttaradimath.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=638&Itemid=225

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)