Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Incidents of Necrophilia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Incidents of necrophilia

[edit]
(
)

Created by OccultZone (talk), Self nominated at 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Herodotus' reliability on Egypt has been questioned as has whether he ever went there. Regardless of the quality of the reporting, what he noted in The Histories were the precautions adopted because of a fear of necrophilia engendered by the rumour of an incident. That might have been called "evident necrophilia" by the source but I would suggest it is quite flimsy. Bellemora (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Cannot be a rumor, flimsy? Yes, but probably because of the given period, situation, etc. OccultZone (Talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
My point is the subclause is on shaky ground. We don't know the date that Herodotus was in Egypt (it's probably slightly earlier than 450) and there are even suggestions that he was never in Egypt because of the inventive nature of some of his reports on Egyptian culture. He didn't note "evident necrophilia" while visiting, he noted that the Egyptians took precautions against the risk of necrophilia because of a report of an embalmer committing an act of necrophilia. Herodotus himself never claimed to have witnessed or heard of necrophilia in Egypt and did not research the veracity of the report concerning the embalmer. I would take a more circumspect approach to the whole of the history section; reports of atrocities by one's enemies are useful as propaganda and victors tend not to report any vile acts they committed before their victory.Bellemora (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that King Herod reportedly killed his wife and had a sexual relationship with her dead body for seven years?
@Bellemora:, hook is changed. OccultZone (Talk) 19:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The sources you using for this are both referring back to Ernest Jones' 1931 "On the Nightmare" which starts with Herodotus' account of Periander having had sex with his wife's corpse (which you do not mention - a pity as it features a naked ghost complaining about her lack of clothes before some innuendo about putting loaves into ovens - Histories book 5. para 92) and then moves on to Herod "sleeping with" his wife's corpse - which he doesn't give a source for - and then to the "similar tales" about Valdemar IV and Charlemagne. Josephus, the main source for Herod the Great's life, doesn't mention sexual relations with Mariamne's corpse, just that Herod went a bit mad because of his ardent desire for her and continued to act like she was still alive. The Charlemagne story is cited to Conway's 1879 "Demonology and Devil-Lore" (vol2 p.396) and there it can be seen that it is another example of non-sexual necrophilia (with black magic as the cause this time). Bellemora (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"?
If you don't have access to the Google Books ref, try replacing "books.google.co.uk" with the appropriate version for your region (such as "books.google.com"), or get the relevant info with a search of the book. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Note to potential reviewers: the serial killer in the hook, Henry Lee Lucas, died in 2001, so there's no BLP issue. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In DYK terms it appears that everything has been met. But should this article not be at "List of notable necrophilia incidents"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Strikeout last concern above, the poster explained it on my talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Maury Markowitz, which of the proposed hooks are you approving, and which are you not? When there are multiple hooks, any tick should specify the approved hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm approving ALT2. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Several of these incidents are not referenced. Yoshio Kodaira, for instance, and the statement that "The [Ada Sabe] case is remembered as one of the most famous Japanese murder cases of all time" (the second one also doesn't actually explicitly include something that would be considered necrophilia; we should not have to read the main article to find out why someone is on the list). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I have sourced other one, and removed Abe Sada. Everyone else got sources. OccultZone (Talk) 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "He was sentenced to life imprisonment of 15 years on February 15, 1992." doesn't have a reference yet. A couple of the entries could be polished a bit further too; how is "15 years" a life sentence, for instance? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I had a thorough check. One line needed a ref, other than you pointed. Yes I have clarified the above and added a reliable source. Main page(of the person) needed to be changed as well. OccultZone (Talk) 01:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I copyedited the first three entries (here). Each one had a glaring grammatical error. "Over 100s of corpses"? Really? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems better now. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 02:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • My point was that the remainder of the article is likely to have just as many issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see though(maybe because I created), but if there's any, they should be notified now. If no one address, means there are no more issues. OccultZone (Talk) 10:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The "History" and "In conflicts" sections are still a bit dodgy too. For example "According to eyewitnesses, Gilles de Rais is considered to have sexually violated the dead bodies of his victims" sounds like the eyewitnesses may have had poor eyesight. This also appears to be cited to an index page of the book where there no mention of Gilles de Rais. Belle (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bellemora: Your information is clearly inaccurate. "Gilles de Rais, who was to become the model for the legendary Bluebeard, was himself a fifteenth-century multiple child- murderer, sadist, alchemist, necrophile and Satanist." per[1] Multiple reliable source state him murdering more than 800 children and related necrophiliac act.[2] I have placed these 2 sources there. OccultZone (Talk) 10:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "information" you are referring to there, but my previous statement clearly isn't inaccurate. The snippet you've just quoted there isn't what was cited in the article (or even from the same book). The phrasing is screwy in the example I gave: "According to eyewitnesses...considered to have sexually violated...", "Gilles de Rais sexually violated the dead bodies of his victims" would be fine if there are multiple reliable sources for this assertion. Also the claims about Herod and Charlemagne that I pointed out were from skewed reading of the sources remain unchanged. Belle (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bellemora: Yes I had changed that already. Now about Herod and Charlemagne. You can have a quick read from these links.[3],[4],[5] because there's a doubt(like you have stated) it can be noted. So I have changed that, check. OccultZone (Talk) 11:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That's better. The section on Charlemagne is a bit weaselly though. Belle (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bellemora: It wasn't as accurate as other paragraphs like we discussed. Removed it. OccultZone (Talk) 11:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough (for 25 March) and long enough. ALT2 checks out with online citation #29. No need for QPQ from this editor. Issues: (1) "Chinese" link goes to a disambig page. (2) One of the ext. links in ref. #32 is dead. IMO the problems highlighted in the discussion above are sufficiently resolved. When issues (1) and (2) in this para are resolved, the nom will be good to go. --Storye book (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
(2) works fine for me, (1) is not a DYK issue and would have taken you less time to fix it than note the problem here. If you agree, please pass this, its been here for over a month. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Storye book: Disambig? Yes pretty much, fixed them. An archive link was provided as replacement. But I have replaced that with a working link. So it is  Done OccultZone (Talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ OccultZone: Thank you; the disambig is fixed and citation #32 is working now. Much appreciated. @ Maury: My apologies for the inconvenience, but I am trying to shift the review-backlog here as you will appreciate, and I'm doing it by the book to prevent delays. Reviewers who edit what they are reviewing can trigger a request for yet another review and more delays, and we don't want that to happen here. Since DYK provides a toolbox for me to check for disambig links, I must take it as a DYK issue, whether you and I agree with the need for it or not. Who cares, so long as we properly and quickly get the thing through the nom process. --Storye book (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I hate to reopen such an old item, but this was pulled from the main page by Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) as "inappropriate" very shortly after it was posted. As such, it only seems fair that it be given another shot. Perhaps Floquenbeam can suggest a more appropriate hook. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Never been here before, so pardon if I'm not commenting correctly, but I cannot believe that this misogynistic statement made it all the way to the DYK. Disgusting and hateful. Anything making light of the murder and rape of women as that statement did should not be acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: It has nothing to do with improving DYK, Wikipedia is not censored. It can be anything as long as it is sourced and not violating the writing guidelines, it includes copyright violation, fringe theories, BLP violation, and some more points. Proposal for a new hook is what we know, if you have any in mind, you can propose anytime. OccultZone (Talk) 03:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
So you would be fine with putting nigger jokes on the front page of Wikipedia (or anything deeply offensive to a large segment of our readers)? Kaldari (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between censorship and keeping things appropriate. No one is suggesting that the article itself doesn't belong here. The issue is with it showing up on the front page and making light of the rape and murder of women. Wikipedia is trying to get more female editors and this kind of DYK goes against that aim. This DYK should definitely not be given another shot. If it isn't possible to come up with DYKs that don't run counter to WMF guidelines, then maybe it's time for DYK to be laid to rest. --Ca2james (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ca2james: How long you have been on wikipedia? You think there are any guidelines that support your pro-feminist opinion? Consider raising the issues on the DYK's noticeboard, not here. But I can assure you that I will definitely voice against such proposal and expect a snow rejection. Like @ThaddeusB: has said, just try to commenting on the subject.OccultZone (Talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Kaldari - Niggers in the White House was run in DYK back in September... Connormah (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That's still not actually making fun of Blacks. And OccultZone, WP:COMMONSENSE. The inclusion of that hook was patently stupid, inflammatory, and deserves a {{whale}}. There's a huge difference between including such a quote in an article about the matter where it can be properly put into context and putting it on the front page, out of context, with the sole intention to grab attention. Next time you feel so inclined to include a quote about rape, murder, child molestation, genocide, or some other atrocity, step back and consider if it's offensive or can be taken that way. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Best I can say is that you don't represent any guidelines of wikipedia, so your opinion can be easily discarded. OccultZone (Talk) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone Read WP:NOTCENSORED. I'll even help you: "words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner" EvergreenFir (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Also: The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness. and The hook should be neutral. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: that has been told much before, anything new that is related with the hook yet to be proposed? OccultZone (Talk) 03:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone - No, just addressing the WP:IDHT. I'll stop making my WP:POINT now as this should really be on your user talk (but since it involves multiple users, guess it belonged here). EvergreenFir (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't repeated any of my opinion, apologies if you thought that I have. Yes it belongs to the talk page, but talk of this DYK. OccultZone (Talk) 03:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: I'm a strong supporter of the principle that Wikipedia is not censored, but it doesn't mean that we should purposely offend people. I realize that the article is about necrophilia (and I don't expect any relevant hook to be "family-friendly"), but this particular detail appears to have been selected (by Mandarax) more for its shock value than for its educational value. —David Levy 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@David Levy: Probably that's why we are here again for proposing a new hook. OccultZone (Talk) 03:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: I was responding to your citation of WP:NOTCENSORED as justification for including "anything as long as long as it is sourced and not violating the writing guidelines". The principle means that we don't suppress content on the basis that it's "objectionable", but it doesn't justify favoring content because it's "objectionable".
For example, Fuck (film) recently appeared as TFA. Some editors wanted to keep it off the main page solely because its title is considered offensive (an invalid rationale). In stark contrast, a 2010 DYK hook about Glee: The Music, Volume 4 was written to mention the song "Fuck You!", which wasn't even one of the album's eighteen tracks (because a different version – not containing the word "fuck" – was used). That was an obvious instance of someone deliberately working in a profanity purely for the sake of including a profanity. Mandarax's hook, while intrinsically related to the subject of necrophilia, appears to have stemmed from comparable motivation. (To be clear, however, I assume that he acted in good faith, with a sincere belief that the hook was appropriate.) —David Levy 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@David Levy: A hook was proposed, later the hook was rejected, and new hook has been requested. That's it. Yes you are correct about the writing style, or else the content would have been removed from the article, but it hasn't been. OccultZone (Talk) 04:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: Yes, I understand. I'm addressing this point primarily to alleviate any misunderstanding that may have contributed to the pulled hook's creation (in the hope that proposed replacements, as well as other future hooks, will avoid the problem). —David Levy 04:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, the hook has been rejected (but the article has not). Let's focus on finding a new hook please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I had written 'some more points', such pages won't even get a place of wikipedia if they are racist. OccultZone (Talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the articles. I'm talking about the hooks. Would you be OK with a nigger joke being quoted in a DYK (assuming it came from a legitimate article)? Personally, I don't think we should be featuring any humor on the Main Page that is blatantly sexist, racist, or homophobic. Not because we need to censor that content from Wikipedia, but because it's inappropriate to present it without a large amount of context. Without context, it becomes offensive and hurtful (not to mention bad PR). Kaldari (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read ALT2 or I would have objected to it, sorry. OccultZone, would you be terribly upset if this nomination was closed? I think it will be difficult to find a hook that isn't offensive or at least distasteful, and from the flurry of activity it is clear that the article has already received more attention from its brief appearance on the main page than most articles get over an 8-hour (6-hour, whatever) run. Belle (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bellemora: On the ANI, someone suggested that a hook can be made out of information related to Moche civilization. I expanded it today. I am thinking about that.. Mandarax, Yoninah are great hook creators, we shall wait. OccultZone (Talk) 08:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That sort of iconography does not necessarily represent historical practices. I'm not sure what your motives are for trying to get this on the main page again, but I don't see another appearance as being particularly beneficial to the encyclopaedia. That's my opinion only and I'll bow/butt out now. Belle (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is poorly-written, and I've already had to remove one section because of a possible issue with sourcing. There is no way this should be used for a DYK until it has been dealt with properly - and the last thing we should be doing is rushing into another dubious hook. There must be better articles than this available, surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes you removed a name due to issue with the source. No hurries, so I guess I agree that issues should be dealt in a confidential manner. OccultZone (Talk) 08:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In view of the content of the above discussion I am now withdrawing my review above, and have struck it out. I reviewed the article in a neutral way because WP is a place for all objectively-written articles, whatever their subject. However when I wrote the review I had not realised that ALT2 would not be seen as ironic by some cultures. I had understood the hook to be saying that the murderer was monstrous because what he said showed his attitude to be insane and evil. However I see now that people might misunderstand the hook to mean that it is intended as a reasonable justification of a crime or intended to be funny. For me, such an interpretation is impossible. Irony in this case is not meant to be funny; it is an expression of condemnation.--Storye book (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am now convinced that this nom should be closed. If it has caused offence on this page, it would surely do so on the front page, and we cannot expect Wikipedia to allow that.--Storye book (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Storye book: : Hold on. OccultZone (Talk) 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pardon me if I am breaking some rule I am unaware of by writing this comment here, I have never been involved in this "DYK" process before, but I would like to register opposition to having another "hook" from that crap article on the main page. It is the sort of article that makes me ashamed to be part of WP and wish the whole site would just go away.Smeat75 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smeat75: But who asked? Your comment has to do nothing with the betterment of the article or DYK. If you haven't been involved in DYK, read the guidelines first. I am not even kidding but to me, your comment has least rational out here. OccultZone (Talk) 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Incidents_of_Necrophilia&oldid=808342046"