Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 7

message: The debate page needs to be completely re-written.  Currently, it is a philosophical discussion and certainly POV based on its headings.  A debate page if re-introduced should be limited to the issues that are brought up from teh anti-death penalty pages such as the DPIC and Amnesty international.  The format need to be "arguments against" and "arguments in support".  I have no problem with restarting teh debate section... There are adequate responses to the issues raised by these groups.  Its a well known fact that the statistics used by the anti-death penalty groups are full of lies and the people who promogate these ideas tend to be liars. ER MD 11:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source for this "well-known" fact? --James S. 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate page

message: There is still something wrong with the phrasing of this section:
France, Italy, Spain etc. have abolished the death penalty de jure within their jurisdiction. I dont know about signations of protocol 13, But having no international obligations doesnt mean they have abolished d.p. only de facto. It is different with Albania, Latvia etc. (There are some things merged which do not belong together, as far as i understand.) Could someone please be of any help? --Susu the Puschel 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Organisations 

message: YellowPigNow and ER MD, please review WP:CIVIL.  Do not call fellow editors "dumbasses", even if you think they are.  Do not revert unrelated edits as retribution for changes you don't like in some other article.  Such behavior is disruptive, and can lead to blocks.  James S., please review WP:NOR.  It is impermissable for you to insert your own syntheses or conclusions into articles, as you have done here.  If you persist in this behavior, you will most likely be blocked from editing. Nandesuka 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, Nandesuka, please show where I did anything like that?  I should not be lumped in with ER MD.  I have not reverted unrelated edits as retribution for changes I didn't like in some other article either, so that also does not apply to me.  YellowPigNowNow 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a break from this page. But if you can't tell Shaoken, people have been reverting James's edits for the last month. First it was "wrongful killing rate" which he invented and is actually the definition for the legal clause in the penal code. "wrongful execution rate" is the correct term--it only took about a month for James to figure that out--probably after about 50 reverts. Everything which I have stated earlier has been proven to be true and supported by other editors.  If I sounded like an ass, that is because I was dealing with an extreme POV pusher with lots of knowledge, but minimal intelligence.  Just read his talk page to see his agenda. Look at James's edits for 1)depleted uranium-- moves health concerns to the second paragraph when its obvious that depleted uranium main usage or concern is not a health one and he dedicates 5 pages to some theortical air combustion. 2) uranium trioxide--which i had no idea what it was until I read his talk page then found out that somebody was pissed at him for inserting the aforementioned theortical chemistry which is not supported by the literature (hence James is in an arbitration for that, and it is obvious that the person he is battling is the expert) and somehow it has health concerns as its second topic in that issue--like the main purpose of the compound is to poison people. 3)gulf war syndrome--probably the only place where his urainium trioxide "theory" should exist since in it not a supported concept (I'll beleive anyone else before I believe James) Note how the second paragraph is related to this uranium trioxide air combustion theory. Do you see a trend? 4)Shock and awe--equates the U.S. with terrorism and nobody know the difference because of the casualty rate. Even if you agree its a POV statement.  Not surprising his theory on uranium and gulf war syndrome appears there as well.  Are you shocked? Finally when it comes to 5) Capital punishment, guess what gets changed?  Yep, the second paragraph to "wrongful killing rate" and the first sentence to "state-sanctioned killing."  At that time, James also removed a bunch on information he did not like in the article..another violation of NPOV. Not to much his assertion that there have been ten wrongful executions in the US per year since the re-institution of the death penalty when there hasn't been ONE proven case.  This is the stupidity that multiple editors have been fighting on this page for some time.  For you to jump in with your opinion only proves that you are ignorant about what has been going on, especially since you are posting her for the second time. Just watch and see the retarded things James will try to do to push his POV. As for lives in my hands, you don't want a panzy. I'm good at what I do because I am bold. The last person you want taking care of you in the ED (emergency department) is a weak hand-holder. I've done some horrible things to patients in order to keep them alive... things that would make other sick to their stomach. I've cracked a chest in a patient who was seconds for death and clamped a lung segment.  He felt me cut his chest open from front to back while he was barely awake and had a heart rate of 180 with a systolic of 30mm Hg and was fish-breathing.  There was zero time for anesthetics. I inflicted an unbelievable amount pain, but I saved that guy's life. Luckily, he barely remembered it.  If you came in at night with an upper GI bleed you want me because I will get the consultants in.  Its obvious that you only understand health care with naiveity... especially when in comes to the ER. So the conclusion is that James persists to place POV, undue weight, and innappropriate references in the article. Ever so often, I will remove the "work" or POV that James has inserted. I encourage others to do the same.ER MD 07:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deep Breaths

message: At least two out of 19 edits were in a different article.  Assume good faith.  Assume good faith.  Assume good faith. --James S. 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crzyfrd 

message: I believe that protection should not be removed until we can actually write something that is not grossly biased. First of all, I believe we should modify the opening sentence in this article: "Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is governmental execution as punishment for a crime often called a capital offense or a capital crime".
I will explain why we should re-write this sentence:
- the assertion that an execution is government is erroneous as the government (which is vested with the executive power) cannot order an execution: only the judiciary can.
To keep this article unbiased, I also believe we should add some more statistics about executions and polls on people's attitude towards the death penalty, preferably conducted by several media organisation. We should also add two sections (which existed before but were removed): one explaining the viewpoint of abolitionists and one explaining the viewpoint of retention. These ideas seem interesting. I do not mind any feedback.
Until we are capable of preserving the impartiality of this article, the protection should stand and should be extended to all Wikipedians, not just unregistered and new members.
GreatKing 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it is allowed in general is governmental (executive or legislative), application in a specific case is judicial, and even then there is normally provision for pardon or commutation on some grounds, which may be granted as a purely executive matter.  In the most general sense it is government sanctioned. David Underdown 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  The phrase "government execution" does not imply that it is the executive branch.  Certainly the judiciary is part of the government.  I do agree that "government execution" is an awkward phrase.  Perhaps it should be replaced with "Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of an individual by the State as punishment for a crime often called a capital offense or a capital crime". JCO312 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of protection 

message: I edited this section to include the fact that the Roper decision made the execution of 16 and 17 year olds unconstitutional; the execution of people 15 or younger had already been held unconstitutional in 1988.  I still think this section needs more work, particularly the beginning which seems to suggest that the United States still permits the execution of minors.  Does anyone have information about what countries currently permit the execution of minors, as opposed to which countries have done so since 1990? JCO312 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juvenile capital punishment 

message: Removed Robespierre. Although he was against the Death Penalty to begin with, he later changed his stance and became a supporter of it. He even sent Danton to the Guillotine. --Shaoken 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit