Template talk:Capital punishment

message: In order to address the concerns expressed by the old "by country" section, I've made a new one which is not biased towards English language speaking countries.
The countries that are listed in the new section are there because:
(1) They are in the top 60 populated countries in the world, as listed here: List of countries by population
(2) They have a page specific to capital punishment in that country, as listed here: :Category:Capital punishment by country
I hope this new method assuages any concerns the previous list made.  --Shadowlink1014 06:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I agree with the first criterion. There are some countries in which the death penalty is quite notable even if it isn't one of the biggest countries in the world. I'm thinking particularly of Israel where they've only executed one person, Adolf Eichmann, and though they've sentenced others to death, they've overturned them all. It is an interesting situation when religious aversion to the death penalty creeps its way into politics. There also is an article Capital punishment in Israel. I don't know where the previous discussion is located that you mention nor do I know what the name of the template used to be, and that would be quite helpful. Meanwhile, I'm going to put Israel back on the list. If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to undo my edit, but if you do please justify your reason for doing so on this talk page. Thanks Valley2city‽ 22:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: By country methodology

message: There've been a lot of edits the past couple weeks, generally by anonymous IP editors, that seem to misunderstand this template.  At various times in the last week or so, Iraq, Iran and India have been deleted on the ground that there is some particular form of capital punishment that is not practiced in that country.
We've seen Iran removed because it does not practice death by crucifixion (); Iran removed because it does not practice death by boiling (); and India because it does not practice death by stoning (, ).
These edits misunderstand the navbox.  The navbox is included on a variety of pages that deal with capital punishment, and is an aid to navigate among other articles dealing with capital punishment.  The fact that someone comes across this navbox in the articles Crucifixion, Death by boiling or Stoning does not mean that any particular country listed in the navbox practices that particular form of capital punishment.  It means only that the articles Capital punishment in Iraq,
Capital punishment in Iran,  Capital punishment in India, and  for that matter, Capital punishment in the United States, are subjects related to capital punishment; as are the articles Crucifixion, Death by boiling and Stoning.  It is inappropriate to remove an entry for a particular country because it does not practice every possible form of capital punishment.TJRC (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  By country explanation 

message: Should that be included as a capital punishment? It is has only been used as a method of lynching and as as I know and from the reading the article, it has clearly never never been used by a legitimate legislative power. It is well known that necklacing has been used to kill people who have been found guilty of crimes by kangaroo courts but it has never been used for any "legal execution". Unlike the other more barbarous methods listed in the infobox, these have all been used by "official" organs of the state even if by our standards they are horrific today. Whereas Necklacing has not. 
I agree it is a "method of killing" but it misleading to include it as a capital punishment because that suggests it has been legally sanctioned by legitimate bodies in power for the purposes of execution. But this is not the case because necklacing is a method of killing only associated with unelected "mob". It shpould be removed from the template box because it is not a prescribed form of capital punishment only a method of killing. In choosing to include this article, it begs the question what other forms of killing are therefore valid? Burial up to the neck in sand, walking the plank, pushed off cliffs, pulled aprt from wild horses etc. By allowing this entry there is a case to include every kind of nasty manner to kill someone and say that this is a form of execution. It's bad form and that is also why this entry should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.72.87 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...and am removing it now. ~Araignee (talk • contribs)  05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Necklacing]] should be removed from the template

message: It strikes me as unprofessional.  Could it be removed?  --Quasipalm (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I almost reverted it when it was added a couple weeks ago, but thought I was in the minority.  Does anyone except the editor who added it want it to stay? TJRC (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm going to go ahead and remove it.  If anyone disagrees, please make a comment here.  Also, if there is another image that's appropriate and encyclopedic maybe it could be added instead.  --Quasipalm (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull image 

message: 'Capital Punishment' is not a universally understood term. When it appears next to a section in an article some people get confused. I think that a more universally understood name, such as 'Death Penalty' or 'Death Punishment' or 'Death Sentence' should be utillised as the header for the Sidebar to help with reader comprehension.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorjjdjsjiejejejjsjsjajqoak (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your raising this in talk. I think I disagree with your suggestion though; if they are in doubt they need only click on the link to find out. This is one of the main purposes of this template after all. --John (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that makes sense. Thanks.Jorjjdjsjiejejejjsjsjajqoak (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not everybody knows what 'Capital Punishment' means 

message: I think "forced disappearance" and "inert gas asphyxiation" should be removed from this section. "Forced disappearance" does not exclusively imply execution, and when it does, it's an extrajudicial killing rather than a legislated punishment. In any case, a forced disappearance is a means to an execution, rather than a form of execution. As for "inert gas asphyxiation", as it's a proposed method, I don't see how it merits inclusion as "current", especially as I don't see any evidence that's it's under serious consideration by any legislative body. I'm not sure if they should be removed completely, or moved elsewhere within the template. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the inclusion of amputation in the list. It talks about amputation as punishment, but as a means of applying the death penalty. --Derek Andrews (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is no mention of amputation in the Capital punishment page and although there is discussion of amputation as a punishment in the Amputation article, there is no suggestion that death is intended in this context. Further, Eye for an eye (added in the same edit) also seems inappropriate to me as it is not a method, but a justification. Because these changes seem uncontroversial, I will be bold and make the changes. If anyone disagrees, please let us know here what we're missing. GraemeC (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current methods" 

message: I removed the decorative image, due to the tall aspect ratio, which was creating quite a bit of blank space.  however, my changes were reverted, so I am now attempting a compromise with an image with a better aspect ratio.  please discuss here. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will replace it with :File:Death Penalty World Map.svg, which seems more broad in focus. Frietjes (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  decorative image 

message: This should be converted to a navbar and placed at the bottom of the article IMO. It would format better their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, that would be better. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, with a preference for it being collapsed - I don't think we can assume that many readers of individual articles will be eager to navigate around this otherwise quite overwhelming list. NebY (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  okay, as a first step, I have switched it over to collapsed lists.  I would still support changing it to a , but at least this reduces the visible footprint. Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Frietjes agree a collapsed navbox is a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

text: IP attempting to add this template to a bunch of articles again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbar

message: Should Stoning (and maybe it's islamic version "Rajm" too) be added to the template? i am surprised they aren't.--LIBYAĐRA☪OON: 03:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Stoning