Talk:Human Sacrifice - Present-day Occurrence

From TinWiki.org

This is a discussion page Please finish your message with your signature by typing ~~~~ or by using the signature button in the editing toolbar. Discussion pages are used for discussing the writing and editing of articles. To add a message, click the plus (+) sign tab. To reply, write directly under the post you are replying to, and preferably indent your reply by entering a colon (:) at the beginning of the line. A discussion page is for discussing the article it accompanies, not for discussing the topic described by the article. tinWiki is not a forum, but an encyclopedia. Talk page Policies Tutorial Help

man, I'm thinking now I should have titled it differently like Human Sacrifice (Present-day), to distinguish it from like the Aztecs and every other ancient god example, which would go under something like Human Sacrifice (Historical)...but I don't know how to alter the title once it's set...9eyedeel 13:50, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Just ask one of the sysops (William One Sac, Fox, or Optimist) to change it for you on their discussion page. Or one of them will just come along and see your note here and either change it or give their opinion.

I wonder though, if there might even be a connection. I came to read the article expecting Mayan (ancient) sacrifice and discovered instead present-day sacrifice in a part of Mexico with a large Mayan (present-day) population. Is there any appeal made to ethnic pride/ tradition/ power in the Santa Muerte cult? And is it more or less prevalent among the Mayan population?

What I think I'm saying is, I see why you want to change the title, but leaving it might be a good idea. Perhaps down the line sometime a section on the history of human sacrifice could be added. --americandingbat 17:19, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

I'm happy to change the title. :-) I have a comment, but first I just want to just 'digress' about how titles are changed. What really happens, is that the article is moved to another page, ..which has the title one wants. The orginal page gets turned into an automatic redirect page. The same happens with the discussion that belongs to the article. And another very nice thing is that the version history list follows along to the new page or location. Something that I was surprized to see a few times, is that users that I don't think are sysops have moved pages. Since I don't have another user account, and this one has sysop status, I'm not able to see how it is for users who don't have sysop status, but since some other people have done the move thing, I wouldn't be surprized if you, too, have the 'tab' (towards the top of the page) called "move". If so, then feel free to move the page yourself. Otherwise, let me know what you want the title changed to, and I will be happy to do the move.

Now, my comment, which is really why I came to the discussion page here right now, is that I think this article does indeed have a different focus than what the title could suggest. But I don't mean like what you say, that it's more focused on present day than on historical human sacrifice -- whereas the latter is what people might expect. What I'm thinking is more that it looks very much focused on descriptions relating to countries or geographical regions. My thought about this is that the article might be considered divided up into two articles. Because, what I think is that an article called 'Human sacrifice' (assuming it would stay at this title) should describe very generally the topic, from an 'imagined question' that is like 'What is human sacrifice?' In that article, the question of how such terrible things happen in each region, should be just one section -- not 98% (or such) of the whole article. That's how I think about it, anyway. So I'm thinking it could be good to make a brief 'summary section' on the topic of regions and countries, and at the very beginning of that section have an indented link that says Main article: Human sacrifice (by country) (or something like that), and which, obviously, linked to the content that had the more appropriate title for its content.

How's this all sound to you? Anyway, again, let me know about the moving. :-) And keep up the good work. --Optimist 18:20, 6 September 2008 (CDT)

I do take your point about a general article, for sure...and also I ain't in charge of anything, obviously...and an overarching article should have the proportions you suggest, and not (table of contents/two sentences/twenty feet of appendix). I am (typically) going a little over the top...at this point I have a little excitement to find good cases from every dang place,in service of some point, from New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Nauru, and I am well on the way, backlogged... somehow or other the sheer accumulation makes some point that appeals to me in a way that a logical outline cannot (plus to me the good part is the sad, sadly funny little details, like northern Bong County in Liberia) - But, you are right. So, what I'm thinking...I have also been gathering material for Human Sacrifice (Historical/Prehistoric), and I was thinking that should go geographically, too ...archaeology being places, geography-like...what we could do is separate the parts, have Human Sacrifice ( Present-Day)= proper overview...then the part I'm doing now is called something else, like Human Sacrifice (Present-Day)/ Cases Listed By Nation...or whatever. I do feel that grouping a whole bunch of similar things together has some value, and would appeal to some ATS-subset like myself (for one thing, it's pro-conspiratorial,i.e. it could make a reader say "How come I haven't heard about ALL of THIS?")plus it's all true...but if you guys feel collectively that it's an incorrect/inappropriate/unsuitable assemblage, just let me know, and I'll sweetly stop and work on some other of my too-many-ADD interests...I like this tinwiki, it's been forever since I had a reason to write, I appreciate the opportunity to do this stuff,but anyways

So...I see Human Sacrifice (Oldtime) overview as one page, then another different page is something like Human Sacrifice (Oldtime)/ Detailed by Region - so like you have prehistoric skulls from India in the same spot as the Thugs, England you have historical Druids in the same spot as those prehistoric peat-bog bodies they're now realizing were ritually killed

Then Human Sacrifice (Present-Day) overview, then another page Human Sacrifice(Present-Day)/ Cases Listed By Nation...that way you get the benefit of both, the concise cogent introductory sociological overview, and the other page has the bubbling-up obsessive pleasure of real-life excessive detail Anyway, that's my current kinda concept9eyedeel 22:14, 6 September 2008 (CDT)

9eyedeel,

This is a good topic for tinWiki, in my view. It says a lot about topics that have, as you also say, to do with conspiracies, and how they can and do happen. I think the topic is very revealing about how many things function in society, as far as power and politics are concerned, and that they also shed light on these topics in ways one perhaps often won't see or think about. It's useful and interesting information, and it's also highly relevant in this encyclopedia. That is my view.

So I would very much like it if you continue to contribute information about this, and to contribute information on a number of 'angles' and aspects of the topic. My comment and thoughts that I had, immediately when seeing the article, in no way are that this material isn't appropriate in every way for tinWiki -- I think the information is indeed most appropriate. The only type of thinking I was doing, is to do with what structure could be good for organizing the information.

In your reply now, you have, of course, posted thoughts on just that, how the information could be organized.

So, as I see it, the only thing that we're actually talking about here, is the topic of structure and sub pages, such things. Just wanted to clear up that I absolutely don't feel you shouldn't write (that is, of course, publish in tinWiki...) this stuff -- I think, like I say, that this content is very, very good to have in tinWiki. So I do hope you'll keep writing about this, in the way you are interested in writing about it.

I think we should never be afraid to create new pages if a topic seems to require it -- it doesn't cost us anything and there's lots of space. :-) Often, I think, it can help an article or the information about a topic if the sections and articles, headers and titles, and so on, are given some extra thought. That's also what I'm commenting about, then. Now, the suggestions you gave sounded quite logical and good, but I'm not sure I was completely able to follow all what you said. I was actually thinking after I read it that some sort of 'map' or tree structure type of graphical representation could be helpful. I'll try and write a simple list and see if it works for explaining how I think after having read your thoughts on the structure of articles now:

- Main article: Human sacrifice (written from the imagined question 'what is human sacrifice?')

-- Special page (linked to from relevant section in main article): in history (by region)

-- Special page (linked to from relevant section in main article): in present day (by region)

Is that about what you had in mind? I apologize if I mistook completely what you said -- I've got a little bit of a fever here.. Anyway, I think the main article must be approximately like how I describe it, that it describes what human sacrifice is as if to answer the question 'what is human sacrifice?'. Then, from that general page can parts of the topic be expanded upon in their own pages since there is lots to say about those topics, and tinWiki luckily has you to present information about those sub topics, but that putting all the information in the main article might be impractical in a way.

How does this sound? I have no particular view as far as how the special pages should be organized, so I just listed quickly how I understood what you said (again, I'm a little bit 'groggy' in the head right now and so may have misunderstood..). If you want the special pages to be different than what my listing suggests, then I totally support you. My interest is only to have a kind of logical organization, and that the main topic of human sacrifice is summed up in a main article, and that the various sub topics that there is more to say about than what would fit inside a naturally 'proportioned' or such main article, get their own pages with a link from the shorter sections on those topics in the main article. To see what I mean about links from sections in the main article, take a look in the New World Order article where many of the sections have links to articles about their particular topic. The thought is something like, if all those other articles had been simply placed inside the sections in the general NWO article, that perhaps wouldn't be good for the balance or proportioned-ness of the article regarding what is its topic and title.

Let me know what you're thinking about this, perhaps also add a list that shows the structure of articles as you want it, perhaps in a type of 'tree' structure of some kind. And definitely keep up the good work. --Optimist 10:28, 7 September 2008 (CDT)

I agree completely with everything you have said. Just from me being a little lazy/inclined to do the easy first, I might take a little bit to do the (and "What is human sacrifice?" is the correct organizing hook, good shot) main article, just cause I got the other stuff already lined up to just type in, but give me a couple weeks ( I work, and people come over, you know how it is) and I'll turn to it But I think your proposed structure is cogent, excellent, what I meant better than what I said Let me just keep banging away for a bit at what I been doing, but when done I see it just as you say, with the main page, then a link direct from that to (modern cases listed nation-by-nation) then the main page also links to (oldtime examples , more regional than national) so say Australia would have explorers/travelers/conquerors accounts = historical from Australia, plus any relevant archaeology showing human sacrifice = pre-historical in Australia, clumped in the same unit

If you like this structure we could use it again on Witch-hunting/Witch-killings, if that seems logical...cause I'm running across/bookmarking all these (again amazingly prevalent and seems-to-me underpublicized) modern-day witch-killings news stories while I'm looking up the human sacrifices...and witch-killing seems like another one that people are inclined to (modern-day) minimize and deny, one that thus kinda calls for the lengthy national roll-call grouping them together like I'm trying to do on modern-day human sacrifice...but hey I'm getting ahead of myself again (see my ADD ...ten thousand projects...), but I thought I'd mention it anyways. OK, cool, this will be fun9eyedeel 06:58, 8 September 2008 (CDT)

This is going to be a mindblowing page, if it isn't already. I will see if I can help out with this page. Brave and insightful work nineyedeel! smallpeeps 08:31, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

Sincere thanks for the kind words, smallpeeps! I'm finding this material fairly consistently interesting, it's nice to hear you are interested too. All I'm doing, at this stage, (probably obviously) is searching media (newspaper/TV/radio/wire/NGO) websites (small local can be best) using keywords...ritual killing...human sacrifice...ritual murder...satanic cult...juju...muti...voodoo...Santa Muerte...umbanda...cannibal...vampire...witchcraft...exorcism...et cetera and then sorting through the results, separating ordinary cannibalism from spiritual cannibalism, etc. (that's the only hard bit). I am trying to go to raw media conduits and trying somewhat to avoid citing other "compendium-of-atrocity" websites, as a hoped-for slightly-more-original-work goal... There's a whole lot of other steps and side-branches (academic studies, photos of perpetrators, related pages on Witch-Killing (PresentDay), Fatal Exorcism PD, Vampire Killing PD, Cannibalism PD, Animal Sacrifice PD, Initiation Deaths PD...(because all of these come up when I search like above on these various obscure media outlets...I'm about 200 behind, in just the on-topic ones...I just sort these other off-topic subheads aside "FOR LATER"))... Like all actual subjects, this one goes on forever...Thanks again, smallpeeps9eyedeel 18:34, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

Fatal error

Just lately I've been getting this fatal error, too many kilobytes message when I add something Should I take this as a sign from God that the article is complete and something bad is about to happen? On the one hand I wouldn't mind that, because I like the quality of a random/arbitrary/unplanned "you're done" vs. a careful overthought selection...and the sudden stop is better aesthetically than breaking it up into (part two),(part three) for no internal reason (except endlessness), and it would go on at length still if no stop was put to it...(and the piece does call itself "a brief survey" which allows for a light arbitrary sampling style)

And but on the other hand, this fatal error message just kicks me out, but when I come back to the page, the change I was working on gets included (so far)...so is this fatal error too many kilobytes message a glitch, a paper tiger, nothing to worry about, something I can work around...cause already I do have bookmarked probably as much material as is in the existing article, yet to be worked in/added, new, different, other diverse material...there is some desire to use some of it...(of course those citations could just be put into other less general articles (like "Vampire Killers", "Present-Day Cannibals", "Albino Witchcraft Murders", "Witch-hunting and Killing", "LUS" yadda yadda yadda)) So I'm thinking/asking, is this fatal error/too many kilobyte message important, if it's real I'll take it as a sign and stop (I am going to try to work in a couple more images I've found, just in a minute, though, but other than that I'm going to halt, until you kind leaders give guidance, at your leisure) okay thanks.9eyedeel 02:54, 27 October 2008 (CDT)

I just had a question occur to me, and I'm getting a little ahead of myself cause it's about something I don't know how to do yet, but I figure I'll ask now while I'm thinking about it...Ok just today I thought, hey, these perps are present day, I can probably find good TV news video on YouTube of them, and the first one I tried, sure enough, Juana Barraza Semperio, there's official El Universal TV footage (and the video does show her to have an interesting off charisma) so my first concept was to put it appended at the end with the external links...and but then I thought, it could be used in the middle (like how myspace blogs support the embedded youtube player interspersed with the text) to break up the big text sheafs but I don't know how to do that (I am still so computer semi-illiterate) but I figure I can figure out how to do that, but, maybe I should ask, is that the best practice, the consensus overall appearance goal, to have big chunky youtube rectangles smack in the middle, or is it better to have small regular illustrations/photos breaking up the text and append video off of a click-on link at the end, like the one I got showing currently...I am eager to do whatever is cool, either way, and I figured maybe to ask for guidance before doing work that would turn out to be the bad way...anyway just thinking, hmm...9eyedeel 22:09, 6 October 2008 (CDT)

9eyedeel,

As I understand you, you're picturing embedding YouTube videos into the article page. Although I've seen some other wikis have this possiblity, and maybe even MediaWiki wikis, as far as I know it's not possible to embed videos that way in this particular version of MediaWiki that we're currently using. I believe this version is 1.57, which is not one of the newest versions.

So, although I don't know what the policy would be on video content inside articles, right now I think, at least, that a picture is all that's possible. As for external links, I do believe it's fairly common practice to add an external link inside the article text, for example at the beginning or at the end of a section, if that's natural in the context, there. So, external links may not necessarily have to be listed only in the external links section towards the bottom of the article. Not sure this was a very good answer, but right now I think this is the best I, at least, can think of. :-) Optimist 01:35, 7 October 2008 (CDT)

No, it's a perfect answer, cause, then I don't have to worry about it and can proceed doing what I already know how to with a clear conscience within the existing constraints...it was one of those proverbial THE BEST IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD situations, now I can relax on that thought...Thanks for responding.9eyedeel 03:54, 7 October 2008 (CDT)