Talk:Lingchi

One of the linked people in "List of People put to Lingchi" is still alive today

Under "Quing Dynasty" there is a person listed called "Chen De" who died in 1803. The link to this person redirects to a master chess player still alive today.

I don't know how to edit this properly but maybe some of you do : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:4B42:BC80:E488:56D9:681E:FF0E (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Auguste Chapdelaine

The caption to the image in the lede simply says "An 1858 illustration from the French newspaper Le Monde illustré, of the lingchi execution ... of Auguste Chapdelaine" whereas the History section states "Harper's Weekly claimed the martyr Auguste Chapdelaine was also killed by lingchi but in China; in reality he was beaten to death." --142.163.194.149 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Death thousand papercuts" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Death thousand papercuts and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Death thousand papercuts until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Questionable hyperlink

There is an example, which is ofcourse not unique of wikipedia, of a questionable or tenuous hyperlink - ie 'western sensationalsied myths' (a rather long phrase to try to hyperlink to and which suggests a very specific article) linking to the 'Orientalism' article. It seems to me like someone tried to horseshoe in a kind of 'agenda' or try to tell people 'this is an example' or this 'is' 'orientialism' (it doesn't link to a subsection), which is not what hyperlinks are there to do. It is up to your own analysis how to properly understand it, but this is not to be communicated with a misused hyperlink on a wikipedia article trying to brashly 'tell' people something is something (besides the numinous and unclear implication concerning the practice as a whole- two sections contradict each other) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A310:E23F:400:EC8C:699E:6905:F06B (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The linked source text is "sensationalised Western myth" (important if you expect people to find, and comment on, it in context), which is piped to the Orientalism article, which I don't find misleading, in that the latter term refers to Westerners' romantic, and often deprecatory, view of Asian cultures. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

basis for categorization of sources into "published accounts"?

the sections "history" and "people put to death by lingchi" include several references to chinese-language published sources, but there is a separate section "published accounts" that appears to list exclusively western-language accounts published by foreigners. is there some reason that the histories, annals, etc. cited previously are not "published accounts"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.179.80 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradictions

It is a torture method described as being 15-20 minutes, before talking about how it may last up to 3 days. If it is common enough, these should be merged into one sentence, if not, it should be removed.
I can do stuff! (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Every citation in the first and History sections needs to be checked. The History has too many primary sources taken at face value (assuming they are quoted accurately). A spot-check and a spidey-sense check of two refs from me just now were both completely wrong. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I'll go through them now and CN everything that doesn't match the sources. I can do stuff! (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked all of what isn't paywalled or in languages that aren't English. I can do stuff! (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)