Talk:Stoning

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stoning article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Archives

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Tireux de roches.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban back in power

Now that the Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan, do we need to update the section on Afghanistan? I don't know enough about it to answer my question. 71.220.162.188 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Practical info? Physiology? Logistics?

This article is really quite long, yet there's almost no practical information about what on earth stoning actually is. Anyone coming here will leave with no better conception of what this practice looked like. How big were the rocks? How many people participated on average? How many rocks were thrown? How long did it take to die? How long did it take to lose consciousness? Are there any theories for how the practice evolved? Why it was so popular in the ANE when so many other methods of execution were available? Surely there are sources concerning these questions and many many more. Instead of arguing about demographics, culture, race, and politics... can we put some effort into actually explaining what stoning is, how it happened, and why? Aminomancer (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates

There is no proof that homosexuality carries death by stoning in the UAE. Before 2020, stoning was the default method of execution for adultery, and several people were sentenced to death by stoning (for adultery). According to UAE law, the actual punishment for homosexuality is up to 14 years prison (up to 10 years prison in Dubai). The UAE, including Dubai and Abu Dhabi, never mentioned the death penalty for homosexuality. 91.72.194.58 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map also needs updating. Stoning is no longer legal in the UAE. 91.72.194.58 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

UAE does not mention death sentence by stoning for being gay. Please change it to say “Before 2020, stoning was described as the default method of execution for adultery, and several people were sentenced to death by stoning.” Remove all the citations involving lgbtq+ because they are misleading and potentially false. ElephantMario (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we fix this Mess?

The Introduction and History sections of this page are quite disorganized.

I believe some ideological battle around stoning in Islam has left the page scarred and disfigured. I am not sure that having a separate article about stoning in Islam makes sense.

The page's introduction is a random string of characters without any proper citations.

The History section essentially focuses on sources directly from the Old Testament or from sources around the time of the New Testament and then skips right ahead to cover modern Islam. There is also some text covering modern Islam in the Introduction, which bleeds into the section about "Contemporary legal status and use." I feel like the History section is missing some actual history about the topic.

The text cited from "The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society," and I believe the pewresearch.org source is actually primarily quoting the first source.

There is actually so much more wrong with this article that I cannot really explain it all here. I might just start refactoring it. DislekzticBoi (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In answer, a lot of frustration, typing, reading and time usually works. Welcome to Wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am going to just start working on it one thing at the time. And the Lead Section can probably only be fixed once the rest is somewhat in order. DislekzticBoi (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update UAE to match the page “Capital punishment in the United Arab Emirates,” since the sources relating to homosexuality are unrelated and do not mention stoning. It should say, “Since 2020, stoning is no longer a legal method for carrying out executions following an amendment to the Federal Penal Code. Before 2020, stoning was the default method of execution for adultery, and several people were sentenced to death by stoning. These sources relating to LGBTQ should be removed, since they are false and misleading, since they do not mention stoning nor is there any evidence of individuals being sentenced to death. 94.207.98.38 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I Got 4 Things here:

I found an article by the American Philological Association called "Notes on Stoning among the Greeks and Romans." I will probably add some text to the History section from that source.

A lot of the text about ancient Israel uses the "Jewish Virtual Library" as a source, which is a repository for Biblical texts and not focused on history. Should this be in the History section, or perhaps moved and merged into the Religious Scripture and Law section?

In contrast, the text about Islam is basically only about contemporary history. Should we really mix ancient history with contemporary history like this?

The part about China feels like a random fact that is not actually about the history of stoning itself but rather an example of one instance within history. It could be moved into the "Other Countries" section in "Contemporary Legal Status and Use." DislekzticBoi (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights section

I believe there are various category errors made here. In my opinion, "Women's rights" and "LGBT rights" should not be categorized under "Human rights." In this case, I would say that what is meant by "Human rights" are the rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Additionally, I believe LGBT rights deserve to be expanded upon, as laws about stonings are often related to same-sex relations.

Furthermore, the "Right to private life" is not defined in the UDHR. In fact, the source cited does not even mention such a right. My research indicates that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which only applies to England, Scotland, and Wales, addresses this right. DislekzticBoi (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Views Among Muslims

The section essentially only describes the data from page 54 of the source. However, I do not understand where the numbers for "in all Muslims" come from. I could not find them in the source.

I would propose replacing all the text with something like this:

Support for Stoning as Punishment for Adultery
Country	Among Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land, % who favor stoning as a punishment for adultery
Russia	26
Kosovo	25
Albania	25
Bosnia-Herz.	21
Tajikistan	51
Kyrgyzstan	39
Kazakhstan	31
Turkey	29
Malaysia	60
Thailand¹²	51
Indonesia	48
Pakistan	89
Afghanistan	85
Bangladesh	55
Palestinian terr.	84
Egypt	81
Jordan	67
Iraq	58
Lebanon	46
Tunisia	44
Based on Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land. ¹Based on Muslims who favor making sharia the law in Muslim areas. ²Interviews conducted with Muslims in five southern provinces only. Results for Azerbaijan not shown due to small sample size.

DislekzticBoi (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the text in the UAE section to say, “Since 2020, stoning is no longer a legal method for carrying out executions following an amendment to the Federal Penal Code. Before 2020, stoning was the default method for execution for adultery, and several people were sentenced to death by stoning.” Please also remove all sources relating to LGBTQ+ in the UAE because they are false, misleading, and have been cited by Ususer445, who is a sock of Jacobkennedy. Thank you. Greasegreek (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source which supports my claim is the National News source by Yousef Marteen, which is very reliable. Greasegreek (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a link. The only article by that author currently linked from the article is from 2010, which obviously can't support a claim about 2020. PianoDan (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I know is that the sources relating to LGBTQ+ are false and misleading; they do not mention stoning at all, nor does it have to do with Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code. These sources need to be removed and the text should be reverted to the last revision by Guessitsavis. Greasegreek (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in “Contemporary” section

“Countries that .. in there” should be “in their” 31.111.63.125 (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Meters (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]