Talk:Human sacrifice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Portal:Religion
 Religion Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. 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.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
To-do list for Human sacrifice: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Expand the lead section to 3 paragraphs or so
  • Provide citations throughout the text
Priority 2


Under "Modern Human Sacrifice," there is a mention of a ritual murder that supposedly took place in 1999; however, the external reference link is dead, and the website to which it was supposed to link is. . .well, I'll let you judge its reliability: http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/293/43/ Shakantala 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Has it occured to anyone that Christian heresy trials were a vestige of human sacrifice cults in earlier religions? There must be some studies on this. I'll look into it. This page strikes me as having an occidental biased pov.


these paragraphs have an ass-load of linked words, it harms readability. if someone really doesn't know what "mediaeval" is they can type it in themself, is my opinion.

Contents

[edit] Crete

True, I don't remember the Cretan reference. Also, why is it thought the people found in the foundation of buildings are necessarily sacrificial victims? Even today people sometimes end up in the foundation of buildings because of accidents and the impossibility of getting them out.


Cretans tried to stop the destruction of their island this way. With human sacrifices to the volcano or something? Destruction of Crete? Was this an Atlantis movie? Can we remove this? Wetman 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i remember an article in National Geographic, it was an excavation of what it seems it was a human sacrifice. An earthquake killed the priest, and his remains are beside the victim. The quake was estimated about the time of Thera eruption. I read it about 10 years ago, i will try to find the reference and see if it,s a propiated here.

Nanahuatzin 00:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The references to Cretan human sacrifice in both myth and recent archaeological publications have actually never been substantiated or accepted by the archaeological community at large. The two instances of 'human sacrifice' on Crete are 1)burnt children's bones found in the basement of a Late Minoan IB house at Knossos and 2)a burnt skeleton at the 'shrine' at Anemospilia, slightingly above the site of Archanes, which is the example to which you are refering Nanahuatzin. Although the excavater of the house at Knossos, Peter Warren, advanced the idea of cannibalism based on the presence of cut marks on the bones, forensic scientists and archaeologists generally agree that these marks are simple prove the presence of defleshing of the bones which is common in many burial practices. As for Y. Sakellarakis and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, the excavators of Archanes and Anemospilia, they have never published a forensic scientist's report confirming their claim that the strange coloration of the bones of the alleged victim are a direct result of his being sacrificed. All other evidence that they site is circumstantial or incorrect. For a comprehensive overview of both sites I recommend the book 'Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece' by Dennis D. Hughes. ClaireAliki 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It always amazes me how touchy people get at the possibility that the Minoans weren't the flower-loving utopian civilization people want them to be. "All other evidence is circmstantial or incorrect"? what nonsense. The arguments against the evidence of human sacrifice always seems to go along the lines of "the minoans (as the peaceful, creative, civilized people they were) wouldn't do that, so obviously it is untrue". It's all a left over of the romantic turn of the century fantasies of Arthur Evans. I mean, for god's sake, the children found in the 'basement' were tellingly found with the bones of sheep or goats, who had similar marks on the bones, etc. The young man in the tripartite shrine was found on a table, trussed up like the bull on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus! With a long knife blade mingled with his bones...and the table/altar was next to a column with a trough at its base.... near the feet of presumably what had been an image of a goddess or something. And out in the front room, there had been someone carrying a jar of blood. Animal blood, to be sure, but come on, explaining these details away requires venturing into absurdity. What I recommend is reading up on the historiography of Crete, in order to understand the century of baggage attached to "Minoan" Crete.

Novium 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biblical sacrifice

A comment on the article: "Many places in the Hebrew Bible state that human sacrifice was a great abomination; these practices were associated with the worship of foreign gods, and were forbidden. See , however, Judges 11:39, in which the Israelite leader Jephthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow."

Danny, this is an interesting example. However, we need to distinguish between the laws of the Bible (this is what a person should do) and the stories in the Bible (this is what this person did.) In this case, the Bible is not reccomending this course of action; I think it is showing that Jephthah made a tragic error. According to Etz Hayyim: A Torah Commentary, the point of this episode is to teach that this was really quite wrong: "This is a final example of how a formal legalism can lead to violent ends" (p.909) The same conclusion is reached in the classic "Pentateuch and Haftarahs" by Rabbi Dr. Joseph H. Hertz. (Herzt quotes a verse from Dante condemning the stupidity of blindly making and following vows.

Classical Jewish commentators, such as David Kimchi, the Ralbag and Abarbanel hold that his vow should never have led to sacrifice. According to Hertz, the rabbis severely blame Jephthah for nothaving his invalid vow annulled. RK 03:02, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the verses, there is no judgement being made. It is simply stating the story very matter of factly. Yes, biblical commentators have condemned it. Some claimn that he never actually sacrificed her. All of that is irrelevant. They are imposing later religious values on a piece of text. That is not interpretting the verses, that is apologizing for them. As such, you are providing a medieval or enlightenment view of a erse, and ignoring what it indicates as a reflection of the beliefs of the people it describes. I'm not a big fan of rabbinic apologetics. Danny 03:08, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Danny, the Bible says that the Egyptians enslaved and killed Israelites. Does that mean that God wants us to do this as well? The Bible says that Cain slew Abel; does this mean that God is commanding fratricide? Of course not; We can't read the Bible like this. As you well know, the Bible presents stories of bad people as well as good people. This is not medieval rabbinic apologetics. So why are you insisting that we must read this story as a commandment to peform human sacrifice? I just can't see this anywhere in the text - and I don't know anyone else who reads it that way. Do any modern Bible historians hold that this story is a command for sacrifice? RK
As for the fanciful claims that his daughter was never sacrificed, yes, I agree that these are fanciful apologetics, and I am not a fan of them either. However, my main point stand: This story does not command Jews to perform human sacrifice, in any way. It merely offers a tragic story of a man who made a rash vow and stupidly fulfilled it, just like the story of Cain and Abel offers us a tragic story of sibling rivalry, punishment, and semi-redemption. RK 03:29, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Nowhere have I said that the Bible commands us to perform human sacrifice. I simply pointed out that the attitudes toward the practice are ambiguous, by pointing to a story which does not make an obvious value judgment about it (I could argue that the Akeidah does not make an obvious value judgment either, but if you can't see it in Jephthah there is no point). The point is especially important because it gives an insight into how the Bible should be tackled. It is not a homogeneous text, despite what the later commentators that you quote above are trying to prove. Furthermore, your comparison of Jephthah to the Egyptians (or Cain for that matter) is just plain misinformed. יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו. Comparing the attitude toward an Israelite leader to the attitude toward an Israelite enemy is silly. Step back from 2000 years of interpretation and just read the verses. Danny 10:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Bible does pretty clearly condemn the Egyptians for their treatment of slaves, and clearly condemns Cain for killing Abel. The curious thing about this passage is that it neither praises nor condemns it, which seems to indicate that at the time of the story, human sacrifice was not especially condemned. While the story does convey the message of "Don't make promises that you are not prepared to keep" (which was probably why the story was sufficiently noteworthy to record in the first place), Jephthah was clearly willing to perform human sacrifice. The tragedy in the story (from Jephthah's perpective) was that he had to sacrifice his daughter, not that he had to perform human sacrifice. The story probably would not have been noteworthy had a servant been the object of sacrifice.--RLent 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I have no idea what you aree talking about, and you have gotten your own thoughts confused. (A) You started off by saying that the Bible approved of human sacrifice, and you argued with me that we must read the verse this way. Now you have totally reversed yourself and have adopted my position, yet you still seem to arguing. I am glad that you now reject your earlier view. RK

Danny, you write "The point is especially important because it gives an insight into how the Bible should be tackled. It is not a homogeneous text, despite what the later commentators that you quote above are trying to prove." Again, I have no idea of what you are talking about. The references I gave made no such point, and I certainly made no such point. None at all. Rather, the point was very simple: They viewed this man's actions as immoral. This has nothing to do with how the Bible was edited, and I can't imagine why you are going off on this tangent. RK

Danny, you write "Furthermore, your comparison of Jephthah to the Egyptians (or Cain for that matter) is just plain misinformed. " No, man, this is a fact. Contrary to your claims, many modern day Bible scholars, as well as traditional rabbis, have made precisely the same point. This has nothing to do with 2,000 year old commentaries. Just because the Bible mentions that something happened does not mean that the Bible views the event as moral or good. You are twisting my words to mean something they don't, and then you are attacking a position I simply do not have. Calm down. RK

Should druid/druidic/etc. be capitalized or lower-case? Ground 21:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The thuggee did not practice human sacrifice

Can somebody please provide a reference from a reputable source for the statement that thuggee practices human sacrifice. As far as I know they murdered people to rob them. They did not kill people as a sacrifice to Kali. Andries 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thuggees justified their killings as sacrifices to kali although most of the time it was also profitable! I don't have a convenient reference to add. 217.7.209.108 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Sacrifice in Hinduism

I dont know why material from hinduism is not added in this article. It is available in plenty at :

http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21A1.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20I.htm#r01

See my text in the talk page

Talk:Purushamedha

This describes exact procedure for human sacrifice in hinduism. I would like that someone may please add material to this article from it, else I may do it in my capacity.

--L.Gautam 10:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] folklore, antropology

I suggest to take also into account "The Highest Altar" by Patrick Tierny (Viking Penguin 1989). Tierny cites several Hebrew scholars on (pre-biblical?) human sacrifice (p.394 etc). The work turns to the bible as a research document, not as a set of irrelevant 'commands'. The book of Tierny also describes, convincingly, present day human sacrifice in Peru, both among villagers threaten by a flood and among drug trafficers before a big transaction. All by all it seems difficult to device a folkloric geography of human sacrifice based on written sources. One paragraph can colour centuries of a whole population, while the absence of proof is never a proof of absence... Maybe sacrifice has its origin in forefather cults of early farmers, while the value offered depends on the favour hoped for. Chicken are cheap, girls are expensive (Jephtah), boys even more (Abraham). If a modern state accepts to 'sacrifice' young men to keep borders intact, a primitive village might also accept to sacrifice a child to avoid a big loss of resources. This approach would make any research document relevant to specific socio-economic conditions, not to ethnic groups.

[edit] POV/Religious partisanism

I don't have the time to rewrite it just now, but the section about human sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible is clearly biased towards Christianity/Judaism and does not reflect the conclusions of modern secular scholarship.

If this site is not to be known as "The LORD's very own Christian Wikipedia", this should change.

[edit] the section headed "Modern human sacrifice" is ugly

and seems to be a catch-all heap for anything that vaguely resembles human sacrifice (by which I mean "the killing of a human being in offering to supernatural powers"), plus one reliably substantiated (in part) report of the genuine article. And a tacked-on bit about some human sacrifices that occurred over two millenia ago.

Human sacrifice, in the context of religious ritual, still occurs in some traditional religions, for example in muti killings in eastern Africa.

If the article on medicine murder is correct (I don't know offhand), then this isn't actually sacrifice as such, is it.

Some people in India are adherents of a religion called Tantrism. . .

This appears to be the genuine article, but the second quotation needs a reference.

A group of the rich and powerful people gather for an annual mock human sacrifice of an effigy at the Bohemian Club in California.

Silly me, I thought this article was about human sacrifice, not fraternities doing silly things in the woods. Or burning in effigy, for that matter.

In Western cultures no human sacrifice occurs beyond murders committed by serial killers or the largely unsubstantiated Satanic ritual abuse.

Okay. The next sentence has a broken citation to David Icke's website and needs scrutiny. The following one seems to concern a black metal musician looking for Viking credit, but maybe he really believed it, so okay.

Modern occultists consider such sacrifices unnecessary, or use them only in the symbolic form where the volunteer "sacrifice" is not actually killed.

Another sentence about not practicing actual human sacrifice. I don't know, maybe misconceptions need correcting.

Some people have tried to extend the use of sacrifice-related terminology. . . .

This is relevant.

Modern Muslim terrorist suicide bombers as well as Japanese kamikaze pilots can also be claimed to be examples of human (self-)sacrifice.

Sure they can, by someone who wouldn't recognize a blood libel if he were slapped in the face with one. I took this one out.

The most prominent example in recent times was undertaken by the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc.

self-immolation in protest isn't exactly human sacrifice. I took this out too.

Historically prominent human sacrifices include:
  • Lindow Man in the United Kingdom
  • Tollund Man in Denmark (from the article: At first, Tollund Man was believed to be a rich man who had been ritually sacrificed, but recent analysis suggests that he may simply have been a criminal who was hanged and buried in the peat bog.)

and to crown it, two human sacrifices that are not modern in the slightest, both being over 2,000 years old. (And no mention of why they are historically prominent—because they're preserved so well—just the assertion that they are, indeed, prominent. (And the first is already mentioned in the proper place above. People often don't read the article before they edit it.) I took this text out; the second example, with a shorter parenthetical doubt, might be replaced in the proper section. —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Roman Sacrifice ::

I think it may need some work. Just off the top of my head, early gladitorial games were rarely to the death, IIRC. Additionally, there seems to be a lack of distinction between execution and human sacrifice. The Romans obviously had no problem executing people left and right, but I seem to remember that they had a horror of human sacrifice. The vestal virgin example given in the article, for example, was the punishment for breaking their vows of chastity. Which was supposed to spell doom for Rome, and thus was as treasonous as you could get... so is it really human sacrifice? Novium 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian sacrifice

Christians sacrificed "witches" to God to save the populace. Why isn't this listed in the article? Jyrinnis 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a sacrifice. Goldfritha 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, yes it was. They believed God would be pleased and unplague their lands or whatever they wanted if they killed off a few "evil" members of the community. Jyrinnis 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. They believed that these people had deliberately caused magical harm and were properly punished by death.
Furthermore, executing people for witchcraft was common about people who did sacrifice to the gods to remove harm. The largest witch hunts, in terms of victims, on record occured in the (pagan) Roman Republic. The distinction is quite clear, even to those who practiced both. Goldfritha 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jyrinnis, it was a form of sacrifice. They were evil in the Christian eyes, but according to written or oral beliefs brought upon by the Christian myth. Any neo-pagan would agree with me that they were a form of ritual sacrifice, a pharmakos ritual which according to the scholar Hughes is classified as a human sacrifice, thus burning witches = pharmakos rite pharmakos = ritual human sacrifice, burning witches = human sacrifice. And on the other hand, Pagan victims all over the world were at least 10 times more than the Christian ones. I wrote a university paper on christian martyrs in the late roman empire, I can tell you that not more than 2000 Christians have been killer over 200 years and this is too high according to certain scholars. If we talk about the neo-platonist martyrs of Alexandria (killed by the Christian mob), murder of pagan priests, witch hunts, forced conversion and murder of new world people we reach a statistic which is huge in number of victims. Thus yes I would add a paragraph concerning christian sacrifice. Keltica

Your references use the term too loosely. The meaning of human sacrifice is rather more precise than that. Goldfritha 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm very precise. I'm concentrating on ritual murder of pagans being justified by "God", it always represents at least a pharmakos which is a form of human sacrifice. I wouldn't mention it entirely in this article, I would place a link to a different article on this topic. Keltica

I think this is a stupid point. Witches were accused of killing people, destroying crops, etc. Murder for example clearing falls under legal jurisdiction. Just because our modernist world doesn't believe that a witch could not commit murder in a supernatural way, does not not mean that they still were not under legal jurisdiction of the time. To read it any other way is to be anachronistic. Also, if people are going to claim all the "staggering statistics" of people murdered by Christians, we might as well add the Christians murdered under Pagan Roman. By the definition provided we might as well include all the genocides of the last century committed by (pseudo)science and godless ideologies, as those killed under the Great Leap Forward were more numerous than those claimed to be killed under any religious war. I vote to keep this article pared down to REAL human sacrifices.

Just read the official reasons for MURDERING witches and the survivors of the ancient pagan creeds of heathens from the new world, you will clearly see that it is a form of human sacrifice, legal jurisdiction is an excuse to cover it and often isn't always employed, take the case of Joan of Arc.

I think it is offensive to all pagans of the ancient times and modern times to label these murders as legal murders of people who infringe the law, I feel that we are protecting the church too much. I admit it, I'm not a Christian and I have strong personal reasons for this but it doesn't mean I'm trying to be objective. Anyways I can tell you that Christian martyrs are a lot less thsan pagan martyrs across the centuries, also because in many pagan societies Christians were tolerated in some way or another. The Christian society (late antiquity, mediaeval and renaissance) was far less tolerant. I agree with you it doesn't have a place on this page, but it deserves an article. I shall write it soon. This encyclopaedia should be open-minded, we shouldn't be protecting the Church or Christianity itself, this creed has spilt a lot of blood in history and still hides evil. Keltica

I've read the official reasons. They do not contain what you claim. Furthermore, the evidence that the people executed for witcraft were not "survivors of the ancient pagan creeds" is rather stronger than you seem to be aware.Goldfritha 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If I said that I didn't mean it, paganism has evolved in time. It was a form of religious intolerance which brought upon the ritual murder of "different" beings. You cannot deny that to the eyes of the populace these were scapegoat rituals. Keltica

"If I said that" -- your pronoun lacks a referent. What are you denying meaning? And given that your words are directly above mine, why should there be any question about what you said?
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the witchcraft trials sprung from "religious intolerance" because there is no evidence either that the people executed were practicing a different religion, or that a specific religion was the inspiration for the trials -- seeing as people have been executed for witchcraft all over the world, under every stripe of religion, and the biggest witch trials on record occured in the (pagan) Roman Republic.
And in the eyes of the populace, they were certainly not scapegoat rituals. Goldfritha 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All you said is open to discussion. And I feel you're biased. On the other hand your point regarding sacrifices under the Roman Republic is false. There were far more victims for witch trials. I assure you, it is true. Keltica (and btw, If I said that, I didn't mean it is correct)

I assure you, I have the information on the Roman Republic from a reliable, published source. And you give a few indication of bias yourself.Goldfritha 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite it then. Because I can guarantee that my professor in University demonstrated that everything that is said about martyrdom and sacrifice in the Roman Republic is a Christian invention. I don't want to quarrel, but it's absurd to leave out the bloodthirsty crimes of the Christians in later ages. I'm going to write the article and you're welcome to add to it. But an encyclopaedia should be a bearer of truth and unbiased and it cannot be written by Christians alone. Keltica

While I'm looking it up -- you do realize that the Roman Republic was gone before Christianity was around? Goldfritha 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant human sacrifice in the Roman Republic and Martyrdom during the Empire. Keltica

[edit] Why

This may sound like a weird question, but why do primitive cultures sacrifice humans or animals. I know the point is to please or appease a god or spirit, but is there any way to know what these people thought the supernatural beings wanted the sacrifices for? For example, when the biblical god told Abraham to sacrifice his son and then a ram, what would Yehwey have done with either of these after they had been sacrificed? Would he have (somehow) consumed their soul, for example? Would he have just been pleased that Abraham didn't have a ram to eat or a son, deriving pleasure from his lose? Do we just not have the answers to these questions. JesseHogan 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One possible answer is that people thought that Gods lived above them and they tried throwing stuff up to them and it came back down, but, when they burnt something and the smoke rose up in the air and it smelled good, the people might have thought that the Gods liked burnt offerings. Another possible idea is that people might have thought that since stronger people tend to take what they want, and since the Gods must have been stronger than anyone, then the way to appease the Gods is to give them the best and most valuable items they had. Ever have a dog or cat bring you an animal they just killed? I think it's the same idea. As far as Abraham was concerned; it was a test of his devotion to God. Before that, Abraham acted as though God and he were partners; this showed that God was fully in charge, and God tested Abraham to see how he would react. Some have said that Abraham failed the test because he should have argued on behalf on his son, (as he argued for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah), but, at that period in time, human sacrifice was too common a practice for Abraham to say no. 204.80.61.10 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Thanks for responding. Its interesting that history is replete with animal and human sacrafice but we can only speculate on its logic. Maybe this disparity will get some attention in the article. JesseHogan 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I could have looked at the article on sacrifice. It has a list of explainations. JesseHogan 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For an explanation of the role of "burnt offerings" in Greek religion read "The Birds" by Aristophanes. --151.48.97.122 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tantrism

Can someone please make a distinction between Tantric philosophy and folk superstition in general? Tantrism is the tribal pre-Vedic folk religion of the Indian subcontinent and didn't evolve from Hinduism. It's the other way around. But saying Tantric beliefs lead to human sacrifice is as ridiculous as saying the Dalai Lama bathes in infants' blood or that any self-identified Christian murderer is purely motivated by a random bit in the Bible (or to compare on an equal scale of ignorance, motivated by whatever fire and brimstone his local priest has preached to him). Such sweeping generalisations are not NPOV.--Snowgrouse 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tajin

Tajin was o Toltec city not Mayan. In article frescoes from Tajin are proof of human sacrifice in Mayan culture. Silthor 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Poors secrifice their children for Prosperity.

Indian Poors secrifice their children for Prosperity.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=79072

Parents sacrificing sons to be prosperous

Press Trust of India Posted online: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 1643 hours IST

Baripada (Orissa), January 3: Lured by promises of prosperity, a couple has allegedly sacrificed their two sons in Orissa's northern district of Mayurbahanj Padmalochan Gan and his wife Tuni had been advised by a 'tantric' to sacrifice their sons Harish (9) and Dipu (7) and hold a puja to set themselves on the path to prosperity, police said on Wednesday. The couple sacrificed their sons at their home at Tilapada village, about 55 km from here, after observing some rituals in the presence of the tantrik, identified as Jagannath Tudu, police said. Though the incident had occurred about a week ago it came to light only this morning, when the foul smell emanating from the decomposed bodies alerted the local people. They found the bodies of the two boys and informed the police, which have arrested the couple. The tantrik is absconding. The couple also has a two-month-old daughter, who had been spared, police said.

vkvora 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications in a section

Now that I and other editors have been working hard for a week to rewrite Human sacrifice in Aztec culture I made several modifications in this article.

Firstly, I re-titled “Mesoamerican sacrifice” to “Pre-Columbian sacrifice” since the Inca region is not in Mesoamerica.

I also eliminated some of the material that is now replicated in the two articles and the phrases that downplayed the wide consensus among scholars of the historicity of the sacrifices (for example, the evidence of child sacrifice in the Inca civilization). On the other hand, since the Maya image is self-sacrifice, not ritual murder, I removed it.

I also divided the section in sub-sections for readability.

—Cesar Tort 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, I know you have been working hard on this and other articles (e.g. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture) and you have been doing a great job. So, I hope you will take the following comment in a spirit of constructive criticism of the article and not of your work per se.
The "Pre-Columbian" section of this article is of distinctly lower quality than the rest of the article. The reason for this is that is composed a lot of short subsections with only one or two sentences per section. The rest of this article tends towards longer paragraphs.
I know that you have a lot of knowledge and interest in this area (certainly more than I do). So, I hope you will work to expand the "Pre-Columbian" section to bring it up to the quality of the rest of the article.
--Richard 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: that section still needs a lot of work. Meanwhile I have made many copyedits and modifications.

For instance, I have eliminated self-references as per WP recommendations and a short obscure phrase in the Viking section. Also, I re-arranged sections chronologically. This was tricky. As an example of my rationale I placed the Incas at the end since it was the culture that was conquered in the late XVI century, thereby the last great culture to end the regular practice of human sacrifices. Similarly, I relocated the recent Sati sacrifice in the “Contemporary” section; and the Maya should precede the Aztecs for chronological reasons as well.

Also, I moved the Tlaloc section above the Xipe-Totec: Tlaloc was a more important god for Aztecs. I also changed some names of the headings.

—Cesar Tort 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese characters

An editor has inserted characters that look ??? in most computers. Since this article is not specific about the Chinese, the characters that in most computers appear as ??? ought to be removed. —Cesar Tort 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Chinese characters in parentheses after Ximen Bao, they display fine on my screen. --Richard 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But would those characters display fine in most computers? You are a wikipedian and perhaps have uploaded some programs; most people who read it have not. —Cesar Tort 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now checked in other PCs and the characters do not appear. As I said: this is not a technical article on Chinese matters and the odd characters ought to be removed. —Cesar Tort 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHuman_sacrifice_5003.html"