Talk:Disembowelment

Which?

Which are the organs removed during disembowelment ? Only the intestines ? Jay 13:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Japan

I think the comments about Japanese disembowelment are inaccurate. (I'm fluent in Japanese and have lived in the country for 8 years, but don't consider myself a samurai expert:)) At any rate, discussion with other Japanophiles on another board has resulted in the following conclusions:

1. No evidence that "harakiri" is considered an insulting term. With reference to Japanese dictionaries. 2. Questionable whether the person committing seppuku was beheaded, or whether the kaishaku just cut the base of the neck.

I would also add that seppuku isn't really disembowelment per se: the innards are cut but not drawn out.

I suggest that the matter be further researched.

• In reply to the unsigned comment above:
  • Innards do not have to be "drawn out". Once the abdominal wall is cut, intestines fall out of a body by themselves. Intestines are attached to the stomach at one end, and the rectum and anus at the other. The only thing keeping the long, slippery middle part in place is the musculature of the abdomen. Think of an abdominal hernia; it's a rip in the abdominal wall, and it doesn't take much strain before a portion of the intestine extrudes through that rupture. In the case of seppuku, you're looking at major trauma, slicing the abdomen from one side to the other (and sometimes multiple cuts!). Once the belly is open, the intestines will spill out on their own. This part of seppuku is not depicted in artwork, because it's a rather gruesome bloody mess.
  • Decapitation: There are numerous records of samurai who had their heads cut off. There are records of their last words. I refer you to Stephen Turnbull's The Samurai, in which he describes the first recorded case of seppuku. Also, the author of the book Hagakure discusses what it means to be asked to act as the second. By late in the Edo Period, the stomach-cutting became a token gesture, the decapitation was the coupe-de-grace. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• in reply to the reply above - the statement about "innards" only being held in the body by the abdominal musculature is completely innacurate. There is actually a great deal of connective tissue (messentary, greater and lesser omentum) through which the small intestine is "attached" to the body. While the intestines may bulge out if the abdominal wall is cut, it is a myth that they will all come spilling out without much cutting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.102 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. I made a descriptive exaggeration. I still stand by my answer that seppuku is a form of disembowelment, because there are described cases where, following the cuts to the abdomen, the perpetrator (?) reaches in and draws out his own intestines. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

On Spanish Inquisition

I place some doubt on the accuracy of the reference to the Spanish Inquisition. Was this procedure used in torture or in execution. In the former case it doesn't seem credible as immense permanent harm (I mean irreversible and not just limbing) was done to the accused, which is not in line with "torture principles" (No doubt such things were done, but we are talking about general occurence.) As for the latter case, the usual method of execution was burning at the stake. How many have been executed that way?

I will wait a couple of days and otherwise will delete the reference. Str1977 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Times up, folks, I'll do what I said. Str1977 20:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This can't be true...

All cruel and bloody punishments in The Netherlands were abolished in 1795 . The notion that disembowelment was in our statute-book until 1936 must be untrue!

Robert Prummel The Netherlands

---

Moreover, the civil death penalty was abolished in 1870 and the military death penalty performed by firing squad. I removed the statement. --Jochietoch 11:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

I added the {{unsourced}} tag to this article, since it's lacking sources. In particular, this claim needs sourcing:

While in most documented procedures the animal being eviscerated is already dead, there are also many cases that the animal is still alive when the evisceration is carried out.

I have therefore tagged that passage appropriately. --Hiddekel 19:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Always Fatal?

Without treatment, obviously, but even that depends on how "disembowled" (for lack of a better word) the person is. While there have been several cases of children being disembowled through their rectum by pool drains, at least one is surviving with medical assistance pending a small intestine transplant. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/girl_injured_lawsuit;_ylt=AkypLqGwjUQeaBqTFKDNZ9is0NUE -- Davidl9999 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Case of Vandalism

82.25.9.120 added a nonsensical sentence at the end of section on Transanal evisceration: "And this proves that russell oakley winters is gutted gutted". I deleted it. Ixat (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Inuit mythology?

Back in high school in Denmark, in religion class in 1997 or 1998, we discussed Inuit beliefs, as they pertained to native Greenlanders, and I seem to remember a story of a transgressor that was forced to to draw out his own intestines through his rectum as (fatal) punishment. I have no notes, and don't know where to look, but if it rings a bell in others, perhaps it could be added to transanal disembowelment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.56.248.146 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

sounds like urban legend (for want of a better term) to me. think about it. exactly how would you go about extracting your intestines through your anus? in the abscence of pool drains, of course. the inuit were a neolithic culture.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Vietnam Account

The portion of the article that described the use of disembowelemnt by the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War was deleted. I am sure that the editor Darter was acting in good faith, but it seems unreasonable that the only referenced account in the text would be deleted without discussion and some consensus. The book cited was Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and Women Who Fought There, by Mark Baker. Some points to consider:

• The veterans interviewed by the author may or may not have exaggerated or even lied. It is not for us to judge.
• If an editor knows of references that dispute the accounts in Baker's book, that information and reference should be appended to the article's text, and then discussed.
• Just because a Wikipedia editor does not believe a narrative is no reason to arbitrarily discredit it.

Until there is discussion and consensus, I will revert the deletion and add more references, so that other editors can weigh in on the matter. Thank you. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Boneyard, it is not a reason to retain text because it is referenced and the rest of the article is not referenced. The paragraph on Vietnamese disembowelment practices makes extraordinary claims, and therefore needs solid sources. Instead, it is supported very thinly with unreliable sources. The main reference is a book by Mark Baker, not an author with any academic credibility I can find. His book is simply an collection of gory stories he collected when talking to US Vietnam vets. Mark Baker wrote a companion book called Cops which containing a parallel collection of hair raising stories which he collected from cops – "what they can't say on television, what they won't write in novels". Even if there was some truth in the stories, there is no suggestion that such events were anything but isolated criminal acts, and it is improper to brand a whole people this way. Accordingly, I have removed the paragraph. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are solid sources. There are FIVE sources, and one of them, as you must have read was a high-ranking member of the CIA. I found sources that were written during the war, while Baker wrote up his accounts a few years after the war. The account does not "brand a whole people", any more than England is "branded" as the country that hangs, draws, and quarters people. The paragraph on Vietnam suggests that the practice of disembowelment occurred in a limited number of areas, and was perpetrated by the Viet Cong, one faction of the Vietnamese people. Find specific sources that dispute the validity of Baker's informants' accounts AND the other sources, and there might be a reason to delete the paragraph. As I have said, just because you don't believe it, or just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it untrue. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are not five sources to the part I have removed. There is one source, Mark Baker, and that is not an acceptable source. If you want to reinstate the material relating to Mark Baker (for the third time) you should first get agreement at WP:RSN that it is an acceptable source. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

True. FOUR sources state that the Viet Cong used disembowelment against civilians. ONE source gave a specific description. You dispute the verifiability of the source, therefore it is on you to find what exactly is disputed and state your case. If you take the case to the WP:RSN, I'll respond. And yes, I'll revert the edit. I often revert vandalism. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of reacting so hastily, please read what I said. I have already stated my case why Mark Baker's Nam is not a reliable source. You are the one who wants to use it, so it is now up to you to make a case why it is a reliable source. If you have a good case you will convince me. But if you have no case, there is no point wasting the time of other people at WP:RSN. It is very commendable that you "revert vandalism", but what has that got to do with me? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you've come this far, perhaps you are acting in good faith. The first time the validity of the Baker book was questioned, I searched for more sources. I found the four, as stated, and included them. These four sources provide a reliable basis for the assertion that disembowelment was practiced by the Viet Cong. Now, as for the acceptance of the Baker book:

1. The book may seem "gory", but that is only a portion of the accounts he related. He tried to cover all aspects fo the war, and this included rea-echelon troops, a nurse, a Muslim soldier who was deferred as a conscientious objector, etc. I see it as "balanced", which includes the gory and the inhumane of BOTH sides. Some accounts relate atrocities perpetrated by our own troops. Other accounts talk about the moments of happiness and comrade bonding.
2. The book is the raw-data form of an ethnography. Baker did cultural anthropology without the anthropological analysis. Even without the analysis, it reflects the culture among the American military in (and during) the Vietnam War.
3. In the same vein, these accounts are a form of oral history. Without writers like Baker, some of those details of the Vietnam War (and other events in history) would be lost. It may be something we do not want to read, hear, or believe is capable of human behavior, but then we run the risk of denying atrocities just because we can't comprehend their scope. See Holocaust denial.
4. I believe in the "assumption of good faith" we practice in Wikipedia. I extend this philosophy to my friends and my fellow veterans. I like to think that I don't call someone a liar unless I have evidence that is contrary to the statement. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Still, you know very well that, however you whitewash it with jargon as a "raw-data form of an ethnography ... cultural anthropology without the anthropological analysis", you are simply quoting unsupported anecdotal reports which, given the inflammatory context, are not acceptable. You earlier implied I am a "vandal". Now you are making incomprehensible statements such as "I don't call someone a liar unless I have evidence that is contrary to the statement" and avowing the "good faith" you extend to your "fellow veterans". What are these fraught sentiments about? It suggests you have some conflict of interest. Are you are a Vietnam vet yourself? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I take exception to the term "whitewashing". My degree is in anthropology. I recognize it when I see it. And the account is NOT un-supported. There are four other sources that state that disembowelment was used by the Viet Cong. The Baker account is the only one that provides details regarding a specific example. And I don't think a "conflict of interest" on my part is an issue here, even though I am a veteran of the US Army and the Gulf War. My questions for you:

• Why do you consider this account "inflammatory"? Why not the Belgium/Netherlands? Why not the UK account? It is certainly a graphic and gory description.
• Leaving aside your issues with the source, what exactly do you find so implausible about this account? Boneyard90 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the Baker account that I (attempted to) delete, and the discussion should be confined to that. You have asserted your personal authority on the matter by stating, "I recognize it when I see it." But that belongs under the heading of original research, and is not a permitted argument on Wikipedia. Nor is an argument to say you "take exception" and just leave it there. What you need to do is state why Baker is a reliable source. Please read carefully reliable sources and verifiability. These are central Wikipedia guidelines which all Wikipedia editors must follow. The reason I think Baker is not reliable is that I can find no articles published by him in any peer reviewed journals, nor is he notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Nor can I find any evidence he was an anthropologist of any sort. In reply to your other questions

• In the context and given the source used, the account lacks balance and is inflammatory. You have included more on disembowelment in Vietnam than any other country in the world, which would be justified only if the practice was endemic in Vietnam and steeped in tradition. In fact, the practice was an aberration, a fraught and temporary response to an overwhelming invasion by a foreign power bent on killing as many Vietnamese as they could. That included family and friends. Surely as an anthropologist, you understand what aberrations that can induce.

• I never said I find the account "implausible". What I stated at the outset above was, "Even if there was some truth in the stories, there is no suggestion that such events were anything but isolated criminal acts, and it is improper to brand a whole people this way." The events you relate from Barker may well have happened. But as you said yourself in the article, "As this particular method has not been reported elsewhere, it may have been confined to one region and/or practiced by a small number of Viet Cong units." So you are acknowledging yourself that such incidents may not be typical. Because these are extraordinary incidents, each incident you quote needs to be confirmed by more than one reliable source, and that means reliable sources. The only source you supply uses unsupported verbal accounts from low echelon foreign soldiers who invaded Vietnam. That is not an acceptable level of reliability. This is quite apart from the other issue, which is that, in the interest of the balance of the article as a whole, reporting such relatively isolated incidents is not warranted.

You indicate you extend good heart to US Vietnam vets, and I trust you also extend good heart to Vietnamese and other people. Please now revert your reversion. And if not, then please read carefully what I actually said here before responding. Baker's Nam seems to be cited on a number of other Wikipedia articles, and perhaps it would be better to take this issue to WP:RSN. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have considered your answer. I think we may come to an agreeable conclusion here. First, I'd like to air my thoughts on some of the issues you raise. I do not believe my statement regarding the anthropological aspect of Baker's account constitutes "original research". How many anthropologists studied the Viet Cong? Some aspects of life are not covered by the authorities we want to hear from, and we have to take available "reliable" information. What constitutes "reliability" becomes the subject of this (and many) debates. For example, it has been asserted that tribal cannibalism (in places like New Guinea, etc) is a complete myth, simply because no anthropologist or other "reliable source" has ever documented and personally participated in a cannibalistic ritual. But there's also enough evidence to know that's spurious rationale.

I thought the length of the Vietnam paragraph was justified, as there are seperate articles on Japanese seppuku and British Hanged, drawn and quartered. For this article, those topics only need a brief introduction. I didn't write the portions on the other countries, so I can't speak for their quality.

Finally, I don't believe that "inflammatory" is a reason to remove referenced material. "Inflammatory" material catalyzes discussion and debate. It is also informative. Ever hear of the book, The Rape of Nanking? Graphic and based on first-person unsubstantiated accounts, hardly representative of Japanese culture or the Japanese people, and is so inflammatory that other books have been written to discredit it. I know Japanese people who find it unrealistic that their own people could commit those atrocities, and so they would rather believe that the atrocities were somehow justifiable, or would just rather not know about them. By your reasoning, that book is also unfit to be used as a source for the Nanking Massacre. "Inflammatory" is a poor reason for censorship.

I've read your answer through. And despite the issues with some of your rationale, here is my conclusion: While it has been established that disembowelment was practiced by a Vietnamese institution, it was never an institutionalized form of punishment. The method was never consistent and application was arbitrary. I will edit the paragraph later today or tomorrow. I will say that disembowelment happened in Vietnam, but the details regarding method will be ommitted. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, it will be great if you edit the text so we are both happy. Please give it your best, and then we can leave it there. However, and of course I should just let this go, but it rankles when you continue with quaint insinuations about how insulated you think I am. Were we to swap experiences you would be very silent. You also continue to slam positions I don't hold. I never said and don't remotely believe "inflammatory is a reason to remove referenced material." Nor do I believe inflammatory is "reason for censorship", not in the slightest. And going back earlier, I am not a holocaust denier in the slightest degree either. Please read again what I actually said and notice that nowhere did I say anything that remotely supports anything approaching these wild fantasies of yours. You made them all up by yourself. Inflammatory events are extraordinary events. What I did say was, "Because these are extraordinary incidents, each incident you quote needs to be confirmed by more than one reliable source, and that means reliable sources." You have had training in anthropology, and that surely includes paying attention to what is actually said. Please extend that courtesy to me. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I am very happy with what you have done. Thank you :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger that. And likewise, I am pleased we could come to an amicable consensus. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to German language article

The link to the German language article on the left leads to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exenteration which is the general medical term. The excact article, which is also a stub, is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausd%C3%A4rmen explaining the method of execution. I don't know what to do about this, so maybe someone could change it. 89.186.128.39 (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for the heads up! Boneyard90 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Belgium and The Netherlands

text: >> In the Netherlands and Belgium, vierendelen (literally "to divide in four") was the practice where the arms and legs were tied to horses and the abdomen was sliced open. This punishment was exclusively for regicide. <<

The kingdom of Belgium exists since 1830. None of its kings has been killed, nobody tried, so there never was any regicide. The first king of the Netherlands was appointed in 1806. Same remark. May I qualify this chapter as nonsense ?Riyadi (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it nonsense; as it may be one of those cases of laws on the books versus actual implementation of the law. It may also refer to the region of the Netherlands and Belgium, rather than the modern countries. However, if you wish to remove the section, I don't think anyone would contest it, as it has been lacking a citation since 2009. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

See here. A source from Brielle, c. 1400,[1] says that those who betrayed their town or their lord were to be dismembered (quartieren), but only after being beheaded (halsen), and subsequently the four parts of the body were to be displayed at the town's entrances ("Die haren heer of steden verraden salmen halsen ende na quarti(e)ren … ende die quartiren heften anden poirten dair meest uutganck(t)s ende inganck(t)s is, anderen tot enen exempel"[2]). In 1584 Balthasar Gérard, the murderer of William the Silent, was disemboweled and apparently also quartered alive by his executioners (without the use of horses). Iblardi (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit of info. I've added text about Gerard, with references from the article. I've also removed the un-referenced paragraph.Boneyard90 (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disembowelment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629124327/http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13626279/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13626279/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)