Talk:Scaphism

message: Wow, I thought the Uncyc article was a joke. Turns out it was an exact copy of the Persian quote.
117.226.171.104 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm

message: For the record, I have scarcely heard of more disgusting tortures. However, I re-wrote the article.  EventHorizon  talk 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: a non-starter. I've removed the fact pending a verifiable source: "Sair labeled the example as the Chinese box, but it appeared to be isolated instance". — Matt Crypto 01:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: citing a deleted page is...

message: This page is desperately in need of citations.  Without cites, it has a sort of prurient-urban-legend flavor. Ethan Mitchell 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be what you're looking for;  I'm looking for a hot blonde lesbian.  All joking aside, the fact that you're not happy with the sources that have been sited doesn't change the historical fact that this practice existed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.131.165 (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations?

message: It could have been better if someone added a picture related to this article --Infestor (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual 

message: From the description of the torture, it seems the boats would have been 'nested' one within the other with the victim between, rather than 'back to back'.  Or possibly gunwale to gunwale.  But back to back would be keel to keel and there'd be no 'inside' to be left to die in.  Bagheera (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to face-to-face. Bodyservant (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to Back?

message: A citation is needed on the practice of Scaphism in the Gulags, I have found no evidence in my research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet methods? 

message: There is no record here of this being repeated in modern times (meaning some hideous regime somewhere probably tried it and found it to be ineffective), and the following is all speculative, but bears consideration: a victim of this torture would die of dehydration before anything else. Your common bugs don't eat people alive as the torture seems to describe, and if you were force fed honey and/or milk, it would come out your mouth or rupture your stomach rather than travel through the entire intestinal tract and come out as anything resembling the original product.
If anyone knows a viable source that calls the whole thing out on its ridiculousness (especially one concerned with the dubious accounts of the greek historians), that would be good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.48.15 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, it is found in written history, but you don't think its true because it is "ineffective." This is what makes it the worst torture imaginable because it is almost ineffective, but the victim has to end up dying somehow, and that somehow is probably hard to diagnose.--Mapsfly (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: This sounds fake

message: It's entirely likely that people died of dehydration; the quote mentions someone lasting 17 days after repeated feeding with milk and honey. There seem to be enough references in ancient texts to suggest that something of this nature was carried out.
I'll change the link to Brewers from bootlegbooks, which doesn't resolve and in any case doesn't sound very legit :-) to words.fromoldbooks.org. The text there mentions a hollowed-out tree-trunk rather than boats. I think really the idea is of someone confined in a wooden construction until they die, with a poor diet, and with honey to attract bees or wasps or other insects to annoy them. Details beyond that may well fanciful.
Barefootliam (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing link; yes, it existed 

message: This article needs to be qualified to make clear that the described method of death may be wholly or partly apocryphal. Ancient sources often exaggerate the barbarism of their enemies. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then find a scholarly source that makes it clear and add it to the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section above for the doubts that have been raised before about the accuracy of this page. It's a valid topic but needs a lot of qualification. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested administrative intervention about your trolling. Absent that, I'll follow our bizarre rule against improving an article more than 3 times a day, but make no mistake: your tags are trolling, plain and simple, and they will be removed. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I have fully protected for 3 days; instead of reverting back and forth, use the talk-page to form consensus, get more eyes on this. Oh, and of course there is 3RR, not a bizarre rule at all. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is bizarre. Then again, maybe not - it's a sub-set of the idiocy of "anyone can edit", without which it wouldn't be necessary. You protected the wrong version though, so at least you did that right. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Philafrenzy, it's not for us to argue apocryphalism—that would be original research. As Joe mentioned, cite a reliable source, then your claim can be verified. *** Joe, cut it out with the "trolling" personal attack, Philafrenzy is an editor in good standing; if you find this dispute too stressful, take a break from the topic. Thanks. El_C 17:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does everything have to be a personal attack? I didn't call him a troll, & I never questioned that he's a user in good standing. He bombed the page with multiple tags clearly out of spite, and I'm sorry, but I consider that trolling. That doesn't mean I think he's a troll. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything, but trolling, is at best borderline. Trolling implies bad faith. It's like telling someone that they're lying, not that they're a lier. Instead of telling someone they've acted in a misguided way, you are insulting him by saying he is acting like a provocateur. El_C 18:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Note: WP:WRONGVERSION is worth reading in times like this. -- — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I am not going to engage with Joe's accusations. I raised this some time ago and others have too. My points are 1) the lead is too short and doesn't summarise the rest of the article properly 2) the article needs a re-write to make it clear that these stories derive from ancient sources that are often unreliable and have no independent verification 3) the article generally needs a lot more sources and inline cites. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I agree. This a bit like everyone believing they poured boiling oil from castle battlements five hundred years ago. I have done a thorough search of both googlebbooks and scholar, and there are no reliable academic sources that even mention it. There are, of course, plenty of  and tourist guides and books called 'The Scary Old Days in X' and 'The Bloody Times of Y' etc. We might as well use Robert Bloch as an RS on the social history of the motel. The thing was probably used once as a novelty, and became useful propaganda in the hands of the Persians' enemies. Incidentally, we don't use British sources from the British Raj as RS to discuss Imperial India, so it would be foolish not to follow a similar approach re. ancient Greek sources. -- — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What a brilliant argument! Noting which sources we don't use to discuss an article that doesn't exist. It has fucking in-text attribution. Right in the article itself, are direct quotes that make it perfectly clear to the reader that these are direct quotes from ancient Greeks. Now, if the article stated as unequivocal fact that this shit happened, using ancient Greek sources to do so, you would have a point. It doesn't. Now, if you have a source that disputes, say, Plutarch's account, by all means, add it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well; there's no need to revel in a low-boiling point. Although one has the advantage (?) On the interwebs, of seeming a stalwart. The question was of apocraphy; I note it has not yet been addressed. Cheers  — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. Unless you find a source, which I suggested, and El C (in a manner much more personable than I) seconded, it's unlikely to be addressed any time soon. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about how true this article is, but it probably DOES need better referencing and I don't think there's anything controversial about it being tagged as such. pbp 02:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs qualification

message: Are we just expected to have all these tags indefinitely? Philafrenzy, this question is for you. El_C 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They each address a different area of deficiency within the article. We will have them until someone has the time, knowledge, and sources to fix these problems. Sorry but I can't guarantee it will be me. I am not the first to identify these problems, just the first to tag the article. In my view, an article with this number of problems should have these tags. Apart from anything else, it warns the reader that the article probably is not very good. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems excessive. I don't know that the article rises to a level of concern of the combined weight of all those, even though each tag may individually be valid. El_C 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The "factual accuracy" tag is not only unnecessary, but misleading. The accounts of scaphism in this article are clearly attributed to their authors, not just with refs, but with in-text attribution as well. The tag amounts to original research, as nothing other than original research has been brought forth to dispute the information. A scholarly source saying that these accounts are exaggerated or untrue would be most welcome. The "fiction" tag identifies the same "problem"; even if one of them were appropriate, double-tagging is against guidelines. (It also has a section titled "Fiction", so it does clearly differentiate.) The "lead too short" tag is just silly. It was added as revenge (along with the second "fiction" tag) for me removing the original tags. It's a short article about a somewhat obscure topic. Lengthening the lede would make it disproportionate in size to the rest of the article. (I'm sure we must have a "lead too long" tag somewhere?) The "refimprove" tag is also unnecessary, but I left it in place (for the moment) as it's not as egregiously out of place as the others. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Just choose the tag you think is most pressing, because you're not likely to keep all of em. El_C 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully protected the article for three days to nip an edit war in the bud. I am hopeful that by then we'll have the matter resolved. El_C 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Reinstated the tags as the problems still exist as identified by multiple editors above. Please don't remove until the issues have been properly addressed. We owe it to readers to alert them to the inadequacies of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks. Perhaps you missed El C's instructions to "pick the tag with the most pressing issue". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

text: That's not how tags work. Each defect has the tag appropriate to it. Happy to leave out the one about the lead but the others are separately relevant. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: El C and I both pointed out that you've offered absolutely nothing other than your own original research concerning factual accuracy. I'm still waiting for a scholarly source that disputes the information in this article. Then and only then will you get to keep the tag in place. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag overload

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scaphism. 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/20050903181149/http://www.4literature.net/Plutarch/Artaxerxes/4.html to http://www.4literature.net/Plutarch/Artaxerxes/4.html
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) 15:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I agree pretty strongly with above comments about this article, the sole source for "boats" is Life of Artaxerxes II, written, in part, to demonize the Persians & expound his own 'better' ideas about governance. The article fails massively in putting the source in context of its reliability, and implies there are multiple sources...whereas in reality there is only the Plutarch story. For an article based on a single source written hundreds of years later, from an author regarded as biased & unreliable & not even intending to be accurate but to write fables...and who, himself, attributes the narrative to a lost source from Ctesias (often called 'Ctesias the liar')...this article treats the death of Mithridates as way too factual. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear lack of veracity 

message: On further examination I am even more firmly of the opinion that this article cannot be supported by wikipedias policies. It completely lacks RS. The only source is Plutarch (who prefaces that section by saying he got much of it from Ctesias & that Ctesias isn't reliable), who is not a reliable source. Not unbiased, not neutral, certainly not a reputation for fact checking & accuracy. He doesn't even seem to intend it to be taken as fact, merely as a story he's repeating. It is strange that this article exists when there is no article on 'The Life Of Ataxerxes II' itself. Life of Artaxerxes may be a notable historical text, and is a source for what itself states, but certainly isn't for facts. Maybe this & Mithridates article would be best merged into an article on the work itself, describing the text without pretending what it says is reliably true. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I've done some tidying up today which I think resolves most of these concerns. - Snori (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidied

message: Apparently the author Antonio Gallonio drew a visual representation of the practice in 1605, which can be found here. Does anyone know if the licensing could be sorted out? The article would benefit from a picture. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Looking up scaphism reveals few reliable sources, but also none that outright call it into question. Most sources mention that Plutarch wrote about it and leave it at that. I removed some material about it being a "literary invention" that wasn't backed by the sources (they didn't mention scaphism at all) which means that as it stands, the article neither confirms nor denies the practice's existence. If someone can find a reliable source specifically discussing the historicity of scaphism, by all means edit it in. For now I'll just leave the "alleged" in the opening sentence even though it violates WP:WEASEL because honestly, the evidence IS slim. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The practice sounds unbelievably dubious, with little evidence of its use, but even if myth it's something which was written about in history, and is a known idea. I think it could have an article, optionally the subject is part of an article on ancient propaganda, or more specifically perhaps, an article in general about purported methods of exotic executions, which may or may not be dubious. It seems that maybe the article as of now ought to feature a section highlighting that the idea is questionable at best.81.227.20.48 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the practice's historicity

message: I removed the wikilink to poena cullei because it is unlikely that is what Zonaras meant by "sewing up in rawhides": thought the infamous Roman 'cullei' sack was indeed made of rawhide, it was a normal neck-tied variety of sack and the offender was not sewn inside, but placed in there with a variety of animals and thrown into a river. A simpler and older method of execution (discovered independently by a wide variety of tribes, including the Amerindians, the Picts and the Scythians, to just name a few) involved simply tightly sewing a man into a common rawhide (soaked in water) and waiting for it to dry and shrink, whereupon the victim would be gradually and painfully crushed, eventually dying of suffocation. In the early medieval era this was refined into a torture method by the Scots, a predecessor to the Spanish boot known as "the buskin". J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sewing up in rawhides"