Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 5

message: I spent a while yesterday trawling through the myriad spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes in this article, trying to correct them - there are still some left as well! I don't know who is editing this article that has such poor English, but I would encourage you to ensure the SPG is correct. Bad SPG reflects badly on what is mostly a very fine article. I say mostly, as there are a couple of points about it that I think need sorting. Firstly, the article header is very long and wordy - it could do to be cut down to around half of its current size. Secondly, I'm not sure that the "blood feud" part of the history section is particularly relevant. The section on sacrifice and entertainment needs rewriting to make it sound more encyclopaedic and less like a TV documentary. Overall, the article requires only touching up, but I think there are a few areas where it could do to be improved. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The prose needs some up-cleaning. I may get on that at some point. Kai 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of Article 

message: The Penatuch is a Greek name only the first five books of the book commonly called the Bible.  They are properly called Torah.  The Old Testament is the Christian name for the entire Jewish scripture, which is properly called Tanach.  So, the reference should be corrected to be consistent.  Perhaps the logical choice is to say the first five books of the Bible often called the Penateuch or Torah.  Veniceslug1 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penateuch or Old Testament 

message: Issues brought up by 208.54.15.1. Seems to me that death is inherently irrevocable and therefore redundant. The addition of redundant wording is likely placed to emphasize a POV. Wrongful execution rate is relevant, but that is part of the debate. Another perspective is that of convicts who are in prison who have killed other inmates, or those that have been released and killed again. So a "measure of injustice" should be balanced to reflect these points. Again this is part of the controversy and should be in the debate section so that both sides can be presented. Deterrence statistics is also a debate topic since some researchers have found a deterence effect while others have not. Obviously, most of these studies are biased themselves.  Just look at prodeathpenalty.com which states that there is a deterrence effect and then look at DPIC.org which states that there is not. Traditional christian perspective can also be included.  A reference to the Pope's opposition to capital punishment can be included since the Roman Catholic Church is an organized religion with a stated position on capital punishment.  Many other religious perspectives from the different denominations would be difficult to include since there may not be an official stance. Forking issue: the debate section is much more complex than the article and would overshadow it--also the debate section the way it is structured is inherently POV. The issues facing capital punishment are addressed on the bullet points of the DPIC.org and prodeathpenalty.com  IMO the debate section on this page needs to be removed since the POV edits are constant. The "wrongful execution rate" measuring "injustice," "brutality," and "inhumanity" already sounds like a POV argument. As stated previously, the fact that countries like the U.S. continues to release convicts who have killed in the past who eventually kill again can also be a measure of "injustice" and "inhumanity" and not just your perspective of injustice.  The use of "execution" over "killing" is logical. Read any newspaper in reference to an execution and they will state "Texas executed John Smith" etc.  Obviously you have a lot of POV issues if you are trying to change the wording of "execution" to "killing".  The article has had "execution" in the first sentence for the last 6 months! —This unsigned comment was added by Crzyfrd (talk • contribs) .
:This is a complicated subject, with a long history.  Nobody expects articles on these sorts of historical, ethical, and detailed legal topics to be short. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If the article is too big, a better split than general/debate needs to be found, because the elements of the debate permiate the entire general issue, and general aspects are heavily involved in the debate.  The wrongful execution rate is an important general aspect, in addition to being part of the debate.  It is all too easy to say something you don't like is merely part of the debate, instead of addressing it directly, especially when there is no counter-argument forthcoming. It seems to me that the fact that the wrongful execution and wrongful conviction rates are a measure of injustice, brutality, and inhumanity is obvious from first principles, and some people say that is a biased classification even when they know that it is obvious.  What makes people lie so blatantly?  Why do people support killing when they know that the wrong people are getting killed?  Is there any evidence that the wrongful execution rate is not a measure of injustice, brutality, or inhumanity?  Those words have objective definitions, and the rate of wrongful executions meets them all.  The word execution is ambigious, and a euphamism, or weasel word, for killing.  We are supposed to be writing in plain language, not weasel words. --James S. 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I laugh... this is almost comical.  I love how James writes the "wrongful EXECUTION rate" then later states that execution is AMBIGUOUS!!! What a retard! The anti-death penalty pages use "execution" but he wants only his POV presented. What a f%&king idiot. This guy does not have common sense and is so blatantly biased its just a laugh to watch. ER MD 20:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to refrain from making personal attacks.  See WP:CIVIL. --James S. 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not apologise to James. No need of profanity here. It was a laugh to watch when you kamikazed with James with your name calling. FWBOarticle
Agreed and implemented ER MD suggestion to replace "wrongful execution" with "wrongful killing." --James S. 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute