Talk:Death recorded

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Naomi Wolf recentism

While realizing that this event is what spurred the interest in this legal term, and the creation of the article, it is an example of WP:RECENTISM and not particularly encyclopedic content for the long term. Consider this my opening comment supporting my WP:BOLD deletion of her name and book from this article's text, particularly given that the topic is addressed at the biography page about the author. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is utterly unnecessary over-reach and goes against WP:PRESERVE. The article just yesterday did not even mention Wolf, nor did it need to; someone added her name, which is something I would not have done. To now delete all sources and associated material instead of reverting the person who added Wolf's name is over-reach. Next time, please look at the history of the article and refrain from deleting well-sourced material. Restoring. XavierItzm (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the history shows, I did not delete "all sources and associated material", merely the ones that focused on Wolf rather than the timeless facts of the subject. In any event, I welcome discussion by you and others per WP:BRD. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence or two is not unreasonable, but devoting fully half the article to this seems silly. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion in 21st century

This is very bizarre phrasing. Was this edit made in the 25th century?

Actually, it is standard to refer to the current century as the 21st century. But you are welcome to improve the phrasing, of course. XavierItzm (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the opening paragraph

The opening paragraph's first sentence now runs:

According to Dr. Richard Ward of the Digital Panopticon and, at the time, the University of Sheffield, in British courts until 1861 many crimes were punishable by death, but by the 19th century most such sentences for less serious crimes.

There are several problems.

1.At what time? No mention is made of any year in which Dr. RW made his pronouncement.

2.The punishment for crimes is set by law, not in courts. Even if the law permits judges latitude in sentencing, it is still the law that sets punishments.

3. "By the 19th century most such sentences for less serious crimes" makes no grammatical sense.

4. Since 1861 is in the 19th century, it makes no sense to assert that a state of affairs that had obtained until 1861 had, by the 19th century, begun to change. Wordwright (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a had a go at simplifying it, so it makes sense. merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@merlinVtwelve. Just saw your version—jolly good job! Wordwright (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy

Although the Helena Kennedy quote is entertaining in its wrongness, it may mislead the reader into thinking Kennedy has a point, which she doesn't. It also omits her personal interest in the matter, as stated in her article: 'I am involved with this debate: in 2018 I was asked by Wolf to read the manuscript of her book, and to apply a legal practitioner’s eye to the narrative and argument.' In other words Kennedy herself, who is not an expert on legal history, is partly to blame for Wolf's misreading of the Old Bailey records. And she still does not understand the meaning of 'Death recorded': she claims it was not the opposite of a death sentence, when in fact it was, she claims it was a Sword of Damocles hanging over the condemned man, when in fact it was never pronounced in court, and she suggests that the death penalty was sometimes imposed in such cases, when in fact as far as we know, and as the cited sources show, it was not. Khamba Tendal (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Kennedy content should be trimmed/minimised, and her role as a consultant editor of Wolf's book made clear. At the moment it has a fair bit of weight in a short article. merlinVtwelve (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]