Talk:Impalement

message: Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:Crucifixion#Merge with Impalement. --Ephilei 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Crucifixion]] ?

message: The article stated: During war in Bosnia, some Serbs captives was put on stakes by mujahedin in Srebrenica and some ("bosnian lambs") was put near fire to cook alive (source ICTFY Den Haag). Can this source please be given in full length? -- Zz 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claim 

message: A reference to the film Cannibal Holocaust might be in order, it contains a rather iconic impalement scene...--127.0.0.1 14:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I added a paragraph about the film today. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: As someone else stated, there are videos of impalings to be found on the net, which would suggest that this disgusting practice is still going on in various uncivilised parts of the world. Surely this article would benefit from some information in regards to this sorry state of affairs. Information on the areas where this kind of thing still occurs and its frequencyN^O^el (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims of this sort require particularly careful checking and should not be put into articles unless good sources can be cited (ie. sources that indisputably meet Wikipedia standards). I'm not saying that very bad things don't happen in the world but war does lead to the spreading of rumour and propaganda.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impaling today 

message: As this article is titled "Impalement" rather than "Impalement (torture and execution)" it should reflect the general meaning of that word. I noticed that someone had already put in wording mentioning impalement as a form of accidental injury, however the article still began by assuming that torture and execution were the main meanings.
I have switched the text around a bit to give the general meaning first. I also mentioned impalement in stage illusions. I left the stuff about torture and execution mostly untouched but I put it into properly headed sections to make things clearer. I'll leave further editing of that stuff to others as it's really not my cup of tea.
Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not about the general meaning, they are about specific meanings. The most common specific meaning (in this case "torture and execution") gets the main title, other articles about other meanings will have to settle for disambiguation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of "Impalement"

message: On 7 Jan 2011, in the section Impalement#Torture and Punishment, the line Gravity and the victim's own struggles would cause him to slide down the pole was changed to Gravity and the victim's own weight would cause her/him to slide down the pole". I reverted the edit for the following reasons:
*Adding "weight" is redundant. What else would gravity be working on? Actually, according to physics, I think the correct answer is "mass", but the mention of gravity takes this into account. I concur with the original wording that the victim's "struggles" would move the body down the impaling pole.
*I concur that a victim can be either male or female, but standard English grammar allows for the usage of the masculine pronoun in non-specific cases. Might seem biased, but it is expedient, cleaner, and easier to read. I believe there's a Wikipedia guideline if anybody is really interested. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity and weight 

message: Here is a video on YouTube of an impalement victim being treated in Libyan hospital after he was impaled on an iron rood. The video is extremely "graphic" and vulgar. Do not watch unless you are prepared to feel sick for the next week.
* 10 yrs old boy tortured by rebels......
Some details for those who prefer not to watch the film: The rood enters the boy through his anus. It does not exit the boy's mouth as in the standard impalement depictions, but has forced its way into the boy's arm, exiting just above the shoulder. 
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of modern impalement 

message: "...he was impaled, roasted over a fire, and died after three days..."
Are you serious? What is this bullshit line? Do you respect history or you just try to lower the Wikipedia standards? Do you have serious historical documents mentioning that after the impalement of Athanasios Diakos, the roasting of his flesh took place? And how did he manage to live for three more days, after being impaled and roasted? Don't you see the contradiction????
But judging from the citation of this line (i.e. a nationalistic newspaper), I understand the reason of the line's low historical level.
Please correct this line or I will complain to Wikipedia editors.
Cheers from Greece.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.136.107 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We are the Wikipedia editors. You're complaining to us. Also, you can be a Wikipedia editor. So, you're complaining to yourself. Do you have a source that is more accurate? If you are serious and respect history, you can fix it. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Athanasios Diakos 

message: Have removed refimprove on article heading, remaining unsourced material fairly limited, etc.
Arildnordby (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've placed a request at Death Wiki Project as well. if no one objects, I'll do it later on
Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should article be upgraded to C-status? 

message: Not that I want an acrimonious edit war, here..:-)
Arildnordby (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullet points are discouraged from text. See MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Single-sentence paragraphs are heavily discouraged, from Wikipedia and from writing & editing in general. If we have three sentences, each about a separate country, and combine them into a paragraph about the region. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think bullet points makes for easier reading! 

message: I must say, I am quite gratified at how the article has developed. However, I am wondering of the sheer number and size of the quoted narratives isn't making it all a bit unwieldy, especially those written in an antiquated style. One or two was fine for illustrative purposes, to highlight that there have in fact been eyewitness accounts, but too many and I'm thinking it has become disruptive. I agree thought that they are valuable for those who are interested in such detail. I propose that we summarize the quotes as succinctly as possible in the text, and move the quoted narratives into footnotes. Those who are interested in specific cases or regions can read more in-depth; while those who are interested in an overview of the subject can move more quickly from case to the next. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite a good point. Some should be relegated to foot note status, or be paraphrased, with link provided.
However, the summaries should be made in such a way that the distinctiveness of the various impalement techniques, or reason thereof, are apparent in the main article. The article would be even more boring if it merely summarized, say: "The Dutch impaled", "The Ottomans impaled", the "Singhalese impaled", and so on.
I fully agree that too much antique flavour can choke the reader, but entire lack of flavour is quite inedible as well.
Perhaps we should make a case-by-case evaluation?
Arildnordby (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. Are you familiar with the footnote template? There's a couple ways to do it, so that the Footnotes section can be distinct from the References. In a flagrant show of self-promotion, you can see the articles Lady Saigō or Coffin birth for examples of Footnotes with different in-line annotations and separate sections. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe it will be best to have separate foot note section for those we wish to contain full quotes? It will be too messy to push them in-between Reference section?
Arildnordby (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed. That format is much cleaner and easier to navigate. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we are to retain quotes, then it seems to me at least, best to call the section "Quotations", rather than "Foot notes", in that foot-notes typically are explanatory, or containing asides, rather than just being the quotation-in-full summarized in the main text? Rather insignificant point on my side, I know..Arildnordby (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, that's fair. I have no objection, and I'm sure most other editors won't. The template allows you to label your annotations anyway you want, so in addition to the numbered in-line references, the reader can see a superscripted "Quote A" or "Quote 1" or whatever, just as I've used "Note a" in the past. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not quite sure how to use the template. At a particular place, within the curly-brackets, am I to write, say ref|c|Quote c, or is it enough to write ref|Quote, leaving this to be automatically given its right numbering?
Arildnordby (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks of Quotes 

message: :-(
Arildnordby (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't get template.. 

message: Stavorinus' tale might be relegated to the note
Arildnordby (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you want to leave one in. I left off at "Quote f" in Arabia. I'll let you do the rest. I have to keep two tabs open, one to edit the text, and the other to edit the Quotes section. Do the Semi-colon headings work instead of the regular sub-section format? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Semicolons fine. I'm wondering if we should keep one of the North African quotes in the text, in order to highlight the spectacular throwing off the city walls down onto meat hooks? (I think Shaw's quote is better than Braithtwaite's..)
Arildnordby (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say something about keep the quotes that really focus on the topic, before I realized that throwing onto meat-hooks ounts, doesn't it? Sure, we can keep that in the text. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Dutch Batavia: Think Cook's assessment can be retained? 

message: I think it is fairly complete now, only REALLY sensational or exotic impalement cases should be added. there is, of course, still some rome for improvement in the wording and re-organization of the material, but I'll leave that to others.
Arildnordby (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll leave further tweaking to you! 

message: Just want to say it is much better to refer specifically to Thevenot in the "Methods" section, than to have merely a general, unreferenced statement of procedure there, as the section read before.
Arildnordby (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good change in "Methods"! 

message: I've read  "England" again. Do we really need to retain Warkworth's quote, either in text or quotations? After all, the paraphrase already present does a good enough job?
Arildnordby (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem removing it, either to quotations or entirely. I mean, it's pretty cool we can get it in his words, but reading through the clunky, unpredictable spelling is taxing, and the account doesn't add much that's not already in the paraphrase. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. After all, the reference directly leads to the quote, so that "authenticity nerds" can go there if they want to. I'll remove it.
Arildnordby (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about pulling out Warkworth entirely? 

message: I'm not very pleased with my own clunky " According to Stavorinus, a characteristic suffering peculiar to being impaled is an "unquenchable thirst", and guards were posted to prevent anyone to give an impaled a relief from the ravaging thirst" 
in the Stavorinus paraphrase in Dutch Batavia.
Do you have a better formulation?
Arildnordby (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Stavorinus, one notable result or by-product of impalement is an "unquenchable thirst"; guards were posted to prevent anyone from providing drink to the impaled subject." Boneyard90 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I steal that one, with or without your consent! :-)
Arildnordby (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tortuous phrase? 

message: After all, Byzemp was Euro+Levantine(asian), as was Ottomanemp, rather than "european" entities?
Arildnordby (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal intrigues, and has a point. Plus, they were very different culture. Byzantine was Christian influenced; Ottoman was influenced by Islam. I think, at this point, you've already made some changes. I may make some changes to the section headings, for ease of navigation, if you don't mind. Or, were you planning to make more changes soon? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't made any changes? Dragontiger made a valuable contribution on Byzantium.
Arildnordby (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate area sections for Byzantine and Ottoman Empires? 

message: At least when it comes to imperial policies on repression of rebels by means of impalement. For use of impalement for more mundane crimes, (like punishing apostasy or using false weights), these can be included in localized geographical sections.
Arildnordby (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantines and Ottomans important enough for separate section 

message: but I don't have the skill to get it out as a jpg. :-(
Can you?
books.google.no/books?id=nbLip5edYDQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:"Joseph+Pitton+de+Tournefort"&hl=no&sa=X&ei=TzgBUdf6M4OA4gSK24HoCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Arildnordby (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What page? And I really doubt it. I think Google Books is set up to prevent catching an image or downloading anything. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page between 98 and 99 (it does not have its own page number). On another article, a guy helped me to get it into jpg-format, from Google books. Perhaps I'll ask him to help me.
Arildnordby (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Sure looks relevant. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've placed a cry-for-help message for him. Although I'm beginning to have my fill of reshaping this article, I find that the present "Ottoman Empire"-section would benefit from an overhaul; in particular with
a) Integrating better civilian&military crime elements that warranted impalement
b) Flowing better together with sections nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, like Arabia, Balkans, Crete and North Africa except Morocco.
c) Expand the source basis for the crimes of Ali Pascha; roasting humans on a spit over fire is truly gruesome, and ought to be extremely well-based, rather than just having a single source. But, I'll leave that overhaul to some other time..
Arildnordby (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a great illustration in Tournefort of the Gaunch 

message: At de Thevenot (who we have used on Egypt), at pages 68-69, there is a very good description of the Gauche contraption (he was there 40 year's earlier than Tournefort), primarily in the Levant, rather than Crete. It also states that it is very little in use, regarded as too cruel.
Either one of the quotes might serve in the main text?
Arildnordby (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Describe the process, and reference both sources. You don't have to quote them both verbatim. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Or describe one, and say, this is corroborated by Tournefort who visited 40 years later. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly alternate Gauche-observation by de Thevenot? 

message: I have upgraded to Good Article, and made a notificatiob at the Assessment section on Death Portal.
Arildnordby (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have assessed the article B-class. Please read Wikipedia:Good articles. There is a nomination and assessment process by an independent reviewer. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'll nominate it, then! :-)
Arildnordby (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads like a penny dreadful at the moment! It's somewhat peripatetic as well. Good luck! Basket Feudalist  10:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

text: In the first draft, I was afraid of OR'ing, by synthesizing and summarizing on my own, and therefore made the mistake of a mere landwise and repetitive article. Using the "References"-section as a second-tier evidence-collection section should adequately defend against charges of Original Research, while allowing the merely half-interested to ignore that. I have nominated it for a Peer Review just now.Arildnordby (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of quality status 

message: I want to discuss a couple of non-trivial issues I noticed in the article.  The first is this text.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you've read a lot of material about impalement and did not see any examples of impalement after 1839.  While I don't doubt that's true, I don't think it's something we can add to Wikipedia because it is synthesis of materials, defined as such:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
If I was really hunting for this sort of thing, I could probably find more, but this particular statement stands out because you are stating because of a personal lack of evidence that there is no evidence.  You're concluding a negative statement, which, if you've debated religion ever, you know is impossible.
The second point I wanted to bring up, which I haven't edit yet is this text from the Ottoman Empire section:
Narrating the Hydra incident alongside an incident where some 40 Ionians were impaled by the Turks, the journalist at the Edinburgh Magazine presciently remarked, unable to hide his disgust: "..and if the Turks have hitherto been more barbarous than the Greeks, it is only because they have been more powerful"
Because this is an opinion, and potentially controversial, we really should be attributing this quote to the author, and in this case, none is given.  You quoted the source, but the source does not give an author.  We can't just give the opinion of some journalist in Wikipedia, that would give him WP:UNDUE weight.  It looks to me like this bit needs to go, and it breaks my heart because it was an interesting read.  Thoughts?PraetorianFury (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting perspectives! I'll think a bit about the first, though, but for the second: It is noteworthy that a contemporary commentator had this attitude (rather than believing outside commentators solely were philhellenes or philoturks); perhaps what is lacking here is an emphasis that we are speaking about contemporary attidutes to Greek War of Independence ouside the seat of war, rather than some objective judgment. The prescience of the journalist is proved by the blood orgy the Greeks engaged in 2 months later at Tripolitsa, and lack of his name is irrelevant in that case. However, the sentence need, perhaps, an explanatory introduction like: "Not all commentators on the rebellion ouside the seat of the war decided in favour of one of the opposing parties. One journalist at Edinburgh Magazine, for example, rather presciently remarked, unable to hide his disgust at the whole affair:"bla-bla".  This change emphasizes better than present text I pick an example of contemporary reactions to GWI, rather than insinuating to be some sort of objective judgment upon it.Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  While this should not be mentioned explictly, since I don't have any relevant sources (later editors might, though!), the so-called Tanzimat regime in Turkey from 1839-1876 WAS a period od liberalization, secularization and humanising of Ottoman Empire, Thus, retaining an observed time limit here is in order, I think.Arildnordby (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: OK, I have changed the wordings radically. I have MANY references in this article,  so I think it is legitimate to note that the latest included Ottoman case is from 1839. Furthermore, I have removed reference to the journalist, but retained the two August cases.Arildnordby (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better, thank you. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now ended the section with a quote from William St Clair's seminal work "That Greece might still be Free" instead.Arildnordby (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I should patent that editorial move.  You just performed a Praetorian.  You owe me a quarter. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the very least, you deserve a... :-) (I would have given you a biggrin smiley, but a smile is all I know how to add here at Wikipedia!)Arildnordby (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   Basket Feudalist  16:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of things 

message: This article is one of Wikipedia's longest pages which means it is unwieldy and hard to read. To benefit the reader, it should be reduced in size. For too-large articles I would normally suggest splitting it into sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY, but this one is simply too detailed, with too many quotes and too many individual cases. An encyclopedia article should be a summary of the topic, not a list of every case that can be found. As well, this article has a fair amount of WP:Synthesis due to the absence of comprehensive writings covering the breadth of the topic. Here is an example, taken from the Americas section:  Nothing in any one of the references supports this summary, though it is certainly an accurate assessment of all the references. 
To make this article shorter, I propose the following:
*Remove extensive quotes from the text and from the references. 
*Remove any reference that does not discuss impalement as its own topic, that is, any book that mentions impalement only in passing.
*Greatly reduce the individual cases that are presented.
*Greatly reduce the Bibliography.
See Wikipedia:Article size for pointers about reduction in size. I commend Arildnordby for his determination to make this article as complete as possible, but I fear he has crossed from summary of published sources into authorship of an original work. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for great ideas! I'll do my best to comprise the article.Arildnordby (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work so far! You have reduced the article by 30% at least. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the size of the article 

message: I am looking at this version of the article which is 124 kb instead of the whopping 300+ from a couple of days ago. Great work by Arildnordby to reduce the article!
*The focus of the article has been narrowed to focus primarily on executions by impalement. I think this is useful.
*The first section says impalement is "a very severe punishment" but wouldn't it be more accurate to say it was a one of the harsher forms of capital punishment? Was the impalee ever expected to survive?
::I'll add "capital" (there is an anecdote, though, of a Turk who was helped off the stake during the night, and lived a crooked life everafter, but I see your point..)Arildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My aim was to make "impalement in law codes" the central concern, with Indian subcontinent as a paradigmatic example. I'll think about that, and the other occurences of the passive form, though.Arildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically done now.Arildnordby (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Goes for the early "myth explosion" around a notorious figure.Arildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Myth developments more appropriate in dissertations than in encyclopedical articles.Arildnordby (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: OKArildnordby (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: It won't get any bigger. I promise. Only bibliography of references already present will now be inserted (estimate max. 1-2 kB). It is important to realize that there isn't a single "big issue", or "central topic", "characteristic method"; therefore, the material has been re-structured along three main variables, 1) Divergent methods (how the execution was performed), 2) Topical issues (why they were executed) and 3) Regional distribution (where they were executed)Arildnordby (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After this restructuring, I plan to trim the article down by some 20-30 kb, getting it down to about 180 kbArildnordby (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

text: As an example, I will remove all mythical/artistical representations of Impalement; that is sufficiently distinct to be another article.Arildnordby (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way you split the topic into three main variables. Keep up the good work. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for keeping a critical eye on the article. I hope to make that 3-structure more apparent to the casual eye, so that the reader might zoom easily into those parts catching interest.Arildnordby (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about article after reduction 

message: While a previous version was more comprehensive and nuanced, it was, presumably, too detailed to be regarded as properly encyclopaedic. A link has been retained to this earlier version, a strategy I hope, does not break Wikipedia norms, and that really will be of benefit for that particular subset of readers who really want a full description of the topic, with all its gruesome nuances.
Editors are most welcome to comment on my present version, and come with suggestions how it can be improved further (more cuts, perhaps??). In particular, I hope  might take a look, who came with earlier, good concerns relative to article size.Arildnordby (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A concern I have is that when adding in my simplistic manner a link to the prior version, then that is open for edits (and an editor might make a good faith edit of that version, thereby blanking out all the new revisions). Does there exist a sort of strict viewing of a previous revision, that does not include the Edit option (so that those who DO wish to change an older version must go into the page history tool instead)??Arildnordby (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for a guideline on whether a link to an old version of an article has ever been allowed to live in the current article, and I have not found such a thing. I know that old versions are not allowed to live in perpetuity as a sub-article or as a talk page archive—see Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses number 3. That guideline is not specific to the question of a link to an article's historic version, the link placed within the article, but it is a parallel concern because to solve the problem of a user clicking on the historic version and editing it, the historic version should have its own page. Unfortunately, that takes us back to "Disallowed uses" of subpages. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a simple information on date of previous revision might be allowed, rather than a link? Anyhow, it is not terribly important to me, I can live with effective inaccessibility of previous version..Arildnordby (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major size reduction effected 

message: As far as I understand in the Spanish Empire, and particularily during its conquests of the Americas, impalement was a common torture and execution mode. A famous case is that of Caupolicán. Dentren | Talk 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No inclusion of impalement in the Spanish Empire?

message: Szombathelyi was executed by a firing squad. Hungarian chauvinist writer Tibor Cseres wrote in his book "Vengeance in Bacska" that Szombathelyi was impaled, but there is no conclusive proof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.209.122 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cseres doesn't even say that. He cites contemporary newspapers which says that Szombathelyi was shot, and mentions that there are unverifiable rumors that say he was impaled. His book can be found online in the Hungarian Electronic Library. Aquila89 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be removed.  Basically the same point is stated in Ferenc Szombathelyi. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferenc Szombathelyi (Europe, 20th century) 

message: *
was changed to
*
is a reprint edition not significant?96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted here.  It seems that more information should be filled, which I've done.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "reprint" editions 

message: None denies that there were Greek atrocities during the war of independence , but they cannot be compared with the atrocities of the conquerors. The ancient Greeks or the Byzantine empire , didn't use such ways of punishments, which are extremely brutal. The emphasis on the Greek atrocities which are mentioned in the article is trying to sugar the pill.Jestmoon(talk) 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek atrocities during the war of indepence. 

message: The section introduces the name "Vlad Ţepeş" without explicitly saying that is the same person (this reader was at first confused, thinking it was possibly a different Vlad, who may have attacked Vlad the Impaler).
I think the paragraph might better start with 'Vlad III ("Dracula", "Țepeș")', perhaps?
Or the name could be introduced with it's correct translation.
Also, the two renderings of "Țepeș" and "Ţepeş" are different, using different unicode characters for both "Ț" and "ș" positions.
I am guessing one of them is wrong, and someone who understands might like to correct it.
At least I would expect consistency.
Hugh.glaser (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Vlad the Impaler 

message: I think this is a good source about this horrific practice in the Arab and Muslim world :
https://www.kabbos.com/en/32/articles/impalement-in-the-history-worst-way-to-die  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.118.22 (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impalement in the Arab and Muslim world 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Chithravadham and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Chithravadham until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chithravadham" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An edit today change three occurrences of BCE to BC. There remain 3 more cases of BCE but before reverting the change or finishing the job, I wanted to understand if this is a stable BC page? Per MOS:ERA all dates should be formatted and retained as per the stable preference. Even before today's edit, the majority of dates were BC so unless anyone knows different and objects, I will convert the last three to BC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No answers here so I checked page history. A couple of BCEs crept in as early as 2014, but the page is a stable BC article (check out 2013 versions and earlier) so I will revert all BCEs to BC as per MOS:ERA Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format BC/BCE 

message: This edit:  adds an unreliable sources template with the edsum "template moved" and a date on the template of July 2020. However no such template was placed in July 2020. If there is an issue with the sourcing, could someone please discuss the issue on the talk page. Without some clue as to what the problem is, the template is not going to help. In the assumption it was added back in error, I am now going to remove it. If there is an issue, please do replace the template and describe the issue here, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources Template