Talk:Lingchi/Archive 1

External links

Did _anyone_ who voted for deletion even read the references at the external links?

Well I have read some of the external links. They look rubbish to me. There are major problems with this article and I hardly know where to begin. But I will have a try. Lao Wai 09:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Got some interesting books here on the subject, most interesting is the picture of a sliced corpse from 1927 in Canton. Once I get my scanner working I will scan it in. I think from what I've read the issue arises from two things - firstly what westerners call China isnt what the Chinese necessarily do. The second is it appears the punishment varied widely depending on where they were. For example in Manchuria there was a cutting of the heart, this wasn't done to the victim in Canton who's torso is uncut. There are also other photographs I have which all match up perfectly with the 'racist' u.s marine statements. As a result we have a lot of differences which are only compounded by the subsequent western urban legends, a bit like hanging/gibbeting if you lump them into one or whipping/flaying you would end up with a situation of complete confusion.--Gothicform 19:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Alleged plagiarism

User:12.210.112.76 added the following text to the article:

"I need to bring up some EXTREME plagiarism issues here, which need to be noted somehow. I don't know wiki ettiquette, but this is urgent, so I am posting on the main page. This entry is the same as the one on http://www.answers.com/topic/death-by-a-thousand-cuts. I don't know who is plagiarizing who, but it is clear that someone is plagiarizing here. Although the first two parapraphs differ slightly, the rest is exactly the same. What should be done?"

I removed it and placed it here, where it belongs. dbtfz^talk 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For anyone wondering: Answers.com's entire Reference section is an out-of-date copy of Wikipedia. At the bottom of the above-mentioned page, there is a copyright notice saying:

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Death by a thousand cuts".

Such copying is explicitly permitted by Wikipedia, as long as something like the above notice is present in the copy. Rizome 23:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Marine accounts

Re:

As the online Marine history notes, "Apparently these photographs were commercially available, because there are exact duplicates in many scrapbooks with the name of a commercial studio stamped on the backs of the photographs." Clearly, then, these 'curiosities' may have been widely circulating images bearing little relation to frequent practice, nor, indeed, any similarity with the reported practice that had existed prior to the 1905 prohibition of Slicing.

The latter sentence has an interpretive, even apologetic, feel to it. And the "clearly...may..." construction is confusing. It's one thing to say "clearly" the images were widely circulated, and quite another to suggest they "may" have borne little relation to frequent practice (whatever that means). Note that the photo set depicts a mix of various cruel practices (not just purported linchi). A-giau 07:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article merge

I happened to notice a duplicate article, so I'ver marked it to be merged into this one. --ElizabethFong 21:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Since ling che is clearly just another spelling of lingchi, the Chinese name adopted in the other article, there can hardly be any rational objection to a merge, so I attempt one at once. Fastifex 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is an excellent reason not to merge - Lingchi exists. It was a punishment. The death by a thousand cuts is a figment of Western imagination. And now after a lot of work making that distinction clear this article is again full of nonsense. I suggest a wholesale reversion to make is clear this article is about a racist myth and when I get around to it I will fix lingchi. Lao Wai 13:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that on this talk page, there are two things which are not debated. One is that there was an officially sanctioned, deliberate policy of punishing people by painful slicing. The other is that this punishment was exaggerated by Western or other sources. Could the solution here be as simple as changing the title of the article to "Lingchi" and noting the connection to the fictitious or exaggerated "death of a thousand cuts?" The only thing people really seem to disagree on is the degree to which the practice has been exaggerated in the sources.

I'm no kind of expert on this, and I'm speaking as somebody who stumbled on this page accidentally and was interested. I agree with Lao Wai that the emphasis seems to be wrong. Starting with the exaggeration and then pointing out that there was an actual background for it makes it unnecessarily confusing to the totally ignorant (i.e. myself).Militiades 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move suggested

I suggest that this page be moved to Slow slicing, which the preferred term in academic literature on Chinese law and punishments. In so doing, we can avoid the debate on "death by a thousand cuts" and possibly delete many unnecessary references to exectuions that have noting to do with Lingchi.--Niohe 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Another alternative, more neutral, name of this article is lingering death, which is also supported by literature on the subject.--Niohe 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The only time I've heard this term used is "Death by a thousand cuts," on the Deadwood TV show - JNighthawk 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading, I would make the two pages seperate. Keep "Death by a thousand cuts" to describe what it's contemporary use is now, and move língchí info to "Língchí," and include a "Main Article" link on "Death by a thousand cuts." - JNighthawk 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the move tag since it didn't seem to be generating much interest. The move isn't blocked so feel free to continue discussing and move if there is consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm making the move now, hope noone objects.--Niohe 19:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Chinese version of this page has a competely different account than the english version. It is hard to say which is right however the english version seems to reserved the chinese to extreame. Im sure there were many variations upon the theme and the truth probably lies between the two accounts.

Explain the process

Can someone explain the process of this , its entirely unclear in this article Gnevin (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Execution by "Ching Changing"?

This method was recently described to me (by a Western European) as "Ching Chang" (as in "He was Ching Changed"). I got the impression that this term was commonly used in Western Europe circa World War II to describe the process. (I'm sure the term was intended to be descriptive, though possibly also derogatory, similar to the term to "Shanghai" someone into seafaring servitude.) Is anyone familiar with this term and usage? Can anyone cite a reference? Thanks - Johnlogic (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but Ching chong is a racial slur. BillyTFried (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Leng Tch'e (album).JPG

The image File:Leng Tch'e (album).JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No Evidence Anyone Ever Died Of It

What evidence can this user' s statement have against the massive evidence on the (pro-chinese) Turandot linchi website (from Lyon, France)? --Radh (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

chinese bias in this article?

i see someone chinese with a poor grasp of english has rewritten this to make it sound like there is a western conspiracy showing that not a single person died from this after 1905, even as a result of war crimes despite much evidence to show otherwise. we should revert this part of the article back

Actually there is no evidence that anyone ever died of it at all. And certainly once the actual form of execution this myth was based on was abolished in 1905 it is highly unlikely that anyone died of that. What evidence? Lao Wai 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's as impossible to prove that no one was killed by this method after 1905 as it is to prove that anyone actually was. It would be more accurate to say that no case has been reliably documented, and that it certainly wasn't done by any official body as a part of an officially sanctioned policy (since the practice had, as noted, been outlawed).Militiades 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on those who say that lingchi was used after 1905.--Niohe 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of the language in this article needs to be examined. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• It would be good to have some Chinese sources for this. I am no Sinologist, but there are detailed accounts of língchí that took place in Lhasa in 1728, when the Chinese re-established control after a phase of internecine Tibetan strife, and those responsible for the murder of the Tibetan nobleman Kanchenas were publicly executed. Their deaths by slicing are described in the Tibetan chronicle Mi-dbang-rtogs-brjod and by the Capuchins who were living in Lhasa at that time (see p. 149 of L.Petech, China and Tibet in the early XVIIIth century, 1972). Stammer 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerome There's a clear bias to this article. Given the number of allegations that are discussed on the page (alone, irrespective of evidence possibly available elsewhere) it seems utterly inappropriate to definitively state so many times that this practice never once occurred after 1905. Even if subsequent instances, (should they have happened) were merely criminal acts by groups of individuals, I still cannot reconcile such a definitive assertion that the practice utterly ceased in 1905. --62.173.76.218 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that there is a strong pro-Chinese bias to this article. One is almost left with the impression, firstly, that the practice was essentially "fast" and humane, and secondly, that it was largely a creation of Western propagandists designed to discredit China. No clear statement of the actual process is found throughout, so focused is the article on downplaying the clear abuses of human rights represented by the practice. Given that - on any interpretation - public execution by mutilation with a knife is a barbaric practise, the article needs revision to change the tone and to recognise this. 203.39.12.130 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Judge Fang

Yes, someone is trying to make Imperial China look good. There is one work of fiction listed here, however, that has a lot of sourced fact. George MacDonald Fraser's 'Flashman and the Dragon' has an extensive list of contemporary and historical accounts that can be used for this article, which needs more sourcing. There is no mention, for example of the 'wire shirt' often involved in this articles subject.

The attempt to whitewash Imperial China here can only be stopped by sourced, verifiable facts. No one tries to pretend Medieval European kingdoms never racked anybody. Why? Because the facts are known. Let us try to raise awareness of China to a similar level. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Read Jerome Bourgeon's book, look at the Turandot website, how much more historic facts about "lingchi" do you need? Bourgeon also biased towards China, but his facts look very much like facts to me. On the subject of "Chinese cruelity": There is a fascinating book on cannibalism during the 1960s Civil Wars, region to region, written by an ex-Red Guard--Radh (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Borel did not (although Bataille/Lo Duca say so in 1961)

Given Jérome Bourgon's first~class work on Bataille' s lingchi reception (See: Death by a Thousand Cuts, Harvard UP, 2008 and the Turandot site, I have not seen his french book), it is highly unlikely that the Tears of Eros story is true. Bataille probably saw the pictures first in 1934, in the 1933 3rd Volume of the 8-Vols. New Psychology of Georges Dumas (1930-1943).--Radh (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the section on western perceptions, the picture caption describes lingchi as taking place "around 1910" in Beijing, but the text specifies that it was never performed after 1905. While "around 1910" could include dates before 1905, it is unlikely to be perceived in that way. I'd edit it myself, but I don't know enough about the history of the subject material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.48.151 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

1910 is the date given by the Paris museum which holds the photography. It may be on the turandot web site, which gives better information. So, 1910 will be wrong, but to change the date would be unsourced original research.--Radh (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uses in fiction

This section is becoming overblown and irrelevant to the article. Since this is a Chinese punishment, I think that any fictional references should relate to China only. Based on the current version of the article, this is what I would propose with strike through text indicating deletion:

In his novel The Journeyer, author Gary Jennings demonstrates the distinction between Western myth and Chinese reality by referring to the "Death of a Thousand" as a torture procedure he explains thus: One thousand pieces of paper are placed in a container, and a paper is drawn out by the Fondler (the torturer) to determine where the cut will be made. Having determined that there are 333 body parts, each of these parts is represented three times (for a total of 999 – the 1,000th paper represents immediate death). For example, the pinky finger – when the first paper is drawn denoting the pinky finger, perhaps the digit will be removed to the first joint. The second time the pinky finger paper is drawn, another section to the next joint is amputated. The third time the pinky finger paper is drawn, the rest of the finger is amputated. Jennings also fictionalizes in the book that, in an extended form of the torture, the body parts and blood are fed to the condemned as his only nourishment.

In the novel Flashman and the Dragon by George MacDonald Fraser, reference is made to a prisoner being bound tightly in a thin wire mesh through which nubs of flesh protrude. These are then cut off by the torturer with a sharp razor. In order to kill the prisoner, the razor is run quickly over many nubs of flesh at once.

In Robert van Gulik's Judge Dee novels, The sagacious Judge Dee is sometimes required to oversee the execution of criminals sentenced to die this way. When he deems it merciful, he orders the executioner to make the final cut first.

In Malcolm Bosse's novel The Examination, Hong, the brother of Chen, is subjected to this torture, although he is not killed.

In the film Barbarella, Jane Fonda plays the title character who is sentenced to death by being placed in a container of budgerigars, where the multitude of cuts from the birds' claws and beaks are intended to kill her.

In Amy Tan's novel The Joy Luck Club, the first story told by Lena St. Clair, "The Voice from the Wall", features the death of a thousand cuts.

In Mercedes Lackey's book The Serpent's Shadow, an evil priestess of Kali uses the "Death of a Thousand Cuts" as a method of sacrifice. The intent is to increase the amount of magical power produced by prolonging the sacrifice's pain, suffering and eventual death.

In the 1966 film The Conqueror, this execution was called the "Slow Death." Three of the main characters threaten to see the punishment inflicted at different points in the story. The "Slow Death" as described in the Conqueror accords with the more sensationalistic depictions of Slow Slicing described above, but with the added refinement that the victim's severed parts are to be fed to animals before his very eyes.

In the 1966 film The Sand Pebbles, US Navy machinist's mate Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) witnesses a friend, engine room coolie Po-Han (Mako) being punished in this manner by an angry mob. He then proceeds to shoot him in the head to spare him further suffering*.

In the 1993 film, "FLED", the main character played by Steven Baldwin was tied up by drug dealers who wanted a computer disk from him. The drug dealers strung Steven Baldwin up and asked if he knew of the "Death of a Thousand Cuts". The drug dealer then proceeded to cut him in a few sensitive places such as the web of his hand before he was rescued by his friend.

In the 2007 film Rush Hour 3, the Death by 1000 Cuts is mentioned. Inspector Lee receives his first cut, but defeats his enemy before receiving further wounds.

In the BBC's Robin Hood (2006 TV series), the Sheriff of Nottingham considers the death of Robin Hood by the death of a thousand cuts.

In the anime Naruto, the character Itachi Uchiha has the ability to trick a person into believing they are receiving the punishment of slow slicing.

In the manga Deadman Wonderland, the undertaker Daida Hibana plans to subject Nagi Kengamine to Ling'Chi torture and describes the process.

Richard K Morgan uses a version of slow slicing in his book Broken Angels when a traitor is executed publicly and slowly in a process designed to prolong suffering through intense physical mutilation. The subject is forced to remain awake and alert through a long series of mutilations on his body before finally being put to death. All comments welcome Philg88 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

There seems to be a contradiction stating that the execution is meant to be done while the victim is alive but there's that source that said it's done after death. Someone please explain. --68.123.152.155 (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is inconsistent. I'm more than sure that 99.9% of it is just fiction or the contemporary attempt to present China as a barbabic country.

I'm not a doctor, but I know one thing - when you cut something, you bleed. And with the process shown on those aparently retouched (or even photoshopped) photographs, bleeding would be catastrophic. Large muscles in the chest, legs and arms are fed via the largest arteries in human body, inevitable cutting of which would lead to (at least) unconciousness within not minutes but seconds. Blood loss would lead to very low blood pressure, oxygen deprivation of the brain and death.

I suppose SOME of it is true - the person was executed by several (most likely, as many as conscious time allowed) cuts. But "evidences" about executions lasting hours or even days are nothing more than anecdotes. And, like I said, the photographs are nothing but fake. BadaBoom (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Arlington's Evidence

L.C. Arlington, an American mercenary who served with the Nanyang Fleet in the Sino-French War and was present at the Battle of Shipu in February 1885, provides some fascinating descriptions of executions by slow slicing in 1885. I'll try to dig them out, as I think we need to remind ourselves what a barbaric country China was (and is) when it comes to capital punishment.

--Djwilms (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed Image

I understand that this mode of execution was very graphic, which is probably what is so fascinating about it. When I first read about it, I could not help following the links until I found a collection of positively disturbing images detailling the process. However, as I still vividly remember how much these photographs haunted me (which takes quite a lot), I would strongly suggest that this article here be kept without illustrations. Wikipedia is too public and too popular for that. Feel free to preserve the links at the end of the page, so that those who wish to find the gruesome stuff may do so, but to see a man being cut to pieces is not an experience that Wikipedia should provide on an article page itself. Trigaranus (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Sorry if it bothers your own personal sensitivities, but WP:Censor#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. BillyTFried (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all that sensitive, and I do like the fact that WP is not cencored, but that pic just really seems a bit raw. I mean, come on: you can see through that chap's ribcage...! Would it be a feasible compromise if we took one that is a) not taken from a red-hued CD cover but directly from Bourgon's portfolio, and b) maybe a bit less advanced as far as the whole slicing is concerned? :-) Trigaranus (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have once again removed the photograph of the execution. I am aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but with links to photographs and paintings featured on the article, I do not feel that this image is necessary to the article. --82.34.243.21 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem, especially in light of accusations that this was a Chinese practice was colonialist propaganda. The photo would help alleviate some of that initial reaction. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Images Depicting Two Events Are Same

Did anybody notice that there are two images embedded in this article depicting two events - one from China another from Vietnam that are in fact displaying probably the same event - redrawn and horizontally flipped?

An 1858 illustration from the French newspaper, Le Monde Illustré, of the torture and execution of a French missionary Auguste Chapdelaine in China by slow slicing.

Execution of Joseph Marchand, Vietnam, 1835.

It is unlikely that the descriptions are really correct.

--Filein 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Morph from "of" to "by"

It would appear that many sources cited in the article refer to "death of a ..." versus "death by a ..." Who decided it should be "by"? Clearly, "by" focuses on causation or agency whereas "of" indicates essential, defining quality. The use of "by" parallels the passive voice/tense, while "of" is strengthened by similar usage in French, Latin, Spanish, etc. (i.e. "de") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.182.21 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the English language, we speak of "execution by firing squad", "death by lethal injection", "death by hanging", "death by asphyxiation", "death by exsanguination", even "death by chocolate". In all of these cases, replacing by with of yields a nonsensical phrase. However, "death of a thousand cuts" and "death by a thousand cuts" are both attested. If one were trying to choose one or the other as an article title, a desire for consistency would seem to favor the latter. Either way, it would be easy to create a redirect from one to the other. (Not that either of the two is necessarily the best choice of title for this article.) — Jaydiem (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title

This article was moved in 2006 under the rationale " Death by a thousand cuts is not a very common translation for lingchi." But... that's missing point. This article isn't about what is the most precise translation for lingchi; it is about the practice as a whole. The title should be the name for the practice in English (which is not always a precise translation of the foreign term.). And it's not even clear if "slow slicing" is the best translation of lingchi, anyway.

I'd propose that the most common English term is the original article title "Death by a thousand cuts," but that's also something of a misnomer according to multiple sources. So if we picked that, it'd be totally on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. Luckily, I think "death by slicing" is both accurate and well-known. The 2008 book "Death by a Thousand Cuts" notes that:

"Called by Western observers “death by a thousand cuts” or “death by slicing" ( http://books.google.com/books?id=7TfWj_N6QXYC&lr=lang_en&source=gbs_navlinks_s )

Google scholar backs this up, albeit weakly:

• lingchi "slow slicing" (3 relevant hits; ignore the top one, it's blatantly a mirror of the Wikipedia article's text)
• lingchi "death by slicing" (6 relevant hits)

Various other sources seem to back it up as well. The most popular terms in English are "death of/by a thousand cuts" and "death by slicing." Anyway, unless someone objects, I will move this article to Death by slicing soon, since it doesn't seem to require a WP:RM. But I can open one if there's a desire. Thoughts?
— SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, or it should go back to the original name of "death by a thousand cuts". I've never heard anyone call it "slow slicing", the original name is more common. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Having given the matter some thought, my opinion is that this article should be moved to "Lingchi", which is the only naturally unambiguous and concise title available. There should be no more objection to "Lingchi" on the basis of language than there is to the article title for "Seppuku". The rather odd-sounding English translations "Slow slicing" and "Death by slicing" can be left as the titles of redirects to "Lingchi". The problem with "Death by/of a thousand cuts" as a potential title is that I think it is used in English far more commonly to refer metaphorically to a gradual decline in many small steps—described in the current "Death by a thousand cuts" disambiguation page as "Creeping normality"—rather than to any historical Chinese execution practice. — Jaydiem (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaydiem, I think that's a much better solution. SnowFire, what do you think? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Lingchi" too. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, fellow editors; I'm glad you approve of my suggestion. I'll go ahead and move the page/change the title now. — Jaydiem (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why did China abolish it in 1905? After reading the article, I couldn't find any information on it. I want to know more details of the abolition. I know the killing method was evil and should be abolished but I want to know what has happened to cause the abolition of slow slicing.75.168.182.151 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading about how the French and British had just quit carrying out such torturous capital punishments, and that both countries asked the same of China's emperor. And then there was of course the rising tension, and this would've been a very popular move.Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links to turandot need updating

I have updated (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=6556453830) some external links to turandot.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr in <ref>-s to point at turandot.chineselegalculture.org. There are still some links to be updated, but they need more checking. Anybody willing to do that? --CiaPan (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --CiaPan (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lingchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070813154736/http://www.peacehall.com:80/cgi-bin/news/gb_display/print_version.cgi?art=/gb/pubvp/2006/03&link=200603030452.shtml to http://www.peacehall.com/cgi-bin/news/gb_display/print_version.cgi?art=/gb/pubvp/2006/03&link=200603030452.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716102545/http://data.tv.sohu.com/movie/data/24054/ to http://data.tv.sohu.com/movie/data/24054/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Both links look good. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Photographs

Qing Dynasty-era photographs of male and female criminals being slow-sliced are available at

• http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/slow-slicing-photos-female-criminal-late-qing-dynasty.html

which itself obtained them from an online Chinese BBS. One would assume that, being Qing-era, they would be Public Domain. If anyone thinks that the images are suitable for upload on Wikipedia (gruesome, yes, but then again there's WP:NOTCENSORED), feel free to do so. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but they are gruesome.--Radh (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But to an elderly couple, so might be the Vagina article. Repugnance is not a proper argument IMO. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to have vaginas staring at me from WP-pages, to be honest - there are porn sites for this kind of thing. No, the lingchi photos are in order and the ones on the Turandot site are every bit as gruesome. But why do the Turandot people (or Jerome Bourgeon's - english- book) not know of your pictures - or do they and I am just to dumb to find references?--Radh (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A photograph of female genitalia does not necessarily equate "porn," and the fact that you think so suggests that you've never opened a medical textbook. There is absolutely no reason why this page shouldn't be illustrated with an exemplary photograph documenting the historical procedure. HilariusBookbinder (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Being the one with a history of coyness about these pics (cf. above), I think it would be important to have this link on the page, but a bit over the top to have one of the pics from it stick at you when you look at the WP article. If it is really necessary to have a pic in the article, then let's use one where the poor lady isn't all chopped up yet, and refer anybody interested to the page where more pics are available. Trigaranus (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not on the page, but findable, yes. But: the photos look genuine, but where is the context, who, where, why etc. or are these also on the Turandot site and I just did not see them?--Radh (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lingchi. 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/20151227045456/http://www.0512yy.com/showart.asp?id=3324 to http://www.0512yy.com/showart.asp?id=3324
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peacehall.com/cgi-bin/news/gb_display/print_version.cgi?art=%2Fgb%2Fpubvp%2F2006%2F03&link=200603030452.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icwirral.icnetwork.co.uk/entertainment/newsandreviews/tm_objectid%3D15700731%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D50061%26headline%3Dcould-you-look-away-from-the-death-of-a-thousand-cuts--name_page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lingchi. 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://archive.is/20120805150939/http://www.jimo.gov.cn/jmwenhuaju/inc/list.asp?id=16991&webid=171 to http://www.jimo.gov.cn/jmwenhuaju/inc/list.asp?id=16991&webid=171

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Figure of Speech

In recent decades, radical reductions (or cuts) in funding for various public institutions (such as the NHS), carried out piecemeal over time and never by simply closing them down outright, has become known as death by a thousand cuts. Nuttyskin (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Fou Tchou Li's Execution

@Dhtwiki: Can you seriously not get more specific than "check talk page archives for previous discussions"? This image has apparently never been the subject of discussion. Since the only objection is that it is "graphic", I should like to remind you that wp:Wikipedia is not censored:

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link.

Given that the subject of the section is photographs of executions of this type, it is clearly encyclopaedically relevant and useful in this context. To not include the image when it is specifically referred to in the text would be tantamount to sacrilege. 81.97.179.9 (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The photo you added shows nothing more about the process than the ones we have already. All the explicit photographs are linked and as a set, with appropriate explanation, are more enlightening than a single blurry image. There is little explanation on your part as to why that particular image tells us anything about lingchi, other than that someone was able to photograph it. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess my issue would be that the images currently in the article only present the practice as filtered by a western lens. The caption of the image in the intro even clarifies that Chapdelaine didn't actually die in this way. The 1905 photo illustrates that it was a real practice, not merely due to western superstition or propaganda, and that it was practiced until relatively recently. Interesting that you've tried to argue against inclusion both by arguing that it's "graphic" and that it's "blurry". 81.97.179.9 (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"filtered by a western lens": your photograph was taken by a French soldier, IIRC. The lead image, if fantastical, does indicate somewhat the nature of this form of execution, that it was public, how the prisoner was apt to be bound, etc; but I would resist changing it for one particular photograph, where indistinct might be a more appropriate term than "blurry". My resistance is partly born of the fact that this is an indescribably ghastly practice, its ghastliness residing most of all in the presence of complacent, if not gleeful, executioner and spectators. I think we need to have something other than a photograph be the first thing that hits you when you enter this page. All the the good, relevant torture porn that I could find is linked from here. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Taken by a Frenchman or not, it is still a photo and so gives a realistic depiction, unlike a drawing or some other fanciful portrayal. I never suggested that we substitute it for the image in the lead, or that it even be included there. Surely if it is such a ghastly practice, then a graphic image is an appropriate illustration. We shouldn't sugarcoat the truth. When Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, neutral and uncensored, appeals to squeamishness are unlikely to be successful. 81.97.179.9 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

My non-response here shouldn't indicate agreement; and with no other editors giving their opinions, you don't have positive consensus to make your change (you may need to read WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN). Your focusing on my "sqeamishness" without addressing other concerns, as well as your mockery of my position as "for the children", in your most recent edit summary, indicates lack of WP:AGF, as well as your apparently not having read, or at least considered, WP:GRATUITOUS. All of that tells me your approach is glib if not immature. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what "other concerns"? You yourself effectively admit that your opposition to inclusion is emotional, not rational in origin: "My resistance is partly born of the fact that this is an indescribably ghastly practice". My non-response here shouldn't indicate agreement Your silence certainly implies you know you don't have a leg to stand on, you just won't admit it. When you apparently have nothing to say in defense of your position, yet still refuse to renounce it, and are apparently incapable of giving any actual rationale either here or in your edit summaries, what other conclusion can I draw? You're the one who apparently doesn't understand WP:GRATUITOUS. All I've argued is that "it's offensive" is not a rationale for removal; that doesn't mean I think "it's offensive" is a rationale for inclusion. So when I've actually made points in favour of inclusion that have nothing to do with it supposedly being offensive – points which you have failed to address might I add – invoking WP:GRATUITOUS is a pitiful strawman. When you are editing in defiance of WP:NOTCENSORED and neglecting to engage in the discussion or respond to my arguments, you are the one ignoring WP:BRD. When you're fighting tooth and nail to keep a relevant image out of the article despite seemingly having nothing in your arsenal besides "I don't like it", who exactly is being immature here? 81.97.179.9 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Look here: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Over the past several years multiple editors have attempted to re-add this image, and all been reverted by the same person: you. This is the first time the image has even been the topic of discussion. And yet you admonish me for making this edit despite supposedly not having consensus on my side? Where exactly is the "positive consensus" in your favour? Can you point me to an actual discussion, or are you just using "see talk" as a substitute for actual reasoned argument? 81.97.179.9 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'll revert my revert. I wasn't aware of how many times I'd reverted, that multiple editors had tried to place the picture, and that four of the five wanted the same picture. I didn't see much in the way of justification their edit summaries and I still stand by my contention that the photo adds little of encyclopedic value. However, no one else seems to object; and I won't continue to stand in the way of the picture's placement. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I accidentally included the same link twice. Corrected. 81.97.179.9 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit by Sundostund was to change the image to another one of the same scene, which you then simply removed rather than restoring the previous photo. You said the photo was "not showing due to being forbidden", which may have been true at the time, but its use on this page is explicitly allowed; its use is only disallowed on most pages to prevent malicious vandalism. It's true that those editors provided little justificatory explanation, but that's probably because the photo is obviously useful and relevant. You, conversely, have only been able to appeal to an imaginary consensus and protest that it's "gruesome" and "graphic". Only including fanciful western portrayals of this practice is biased and eurocentric. 81.97.179.9 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)