This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just something to stimulate discussion, it is a well-known fact/urban legend (prolly fact) that firefighters stand a much higher chance of becoming arsonists than the general population, because adrenaline is addictive -- hence, they set fires then rush to go put them out once someone calls 911. This needs documentation, but is interesting and thus, I'm putting it here until someone can confirm in some verifiable way. Tuf-Kat — Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 18 February 2003 (UTC)
Maybe a section on the Psychology of arson should be added. (unless that is covered by pyromania) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.243.216 ( talk) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Is The fire of the century, caused by arson trying to refer to Old_Fire? -- Espoo 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Going back through the edit history, I noticed that the original, broad definition of arson posted was "setting a fire with the intent to cause damage." Then this language about "with the intent to kill people or animals inside." If someone sets a fire with the intent to kill people, and it kills them, that's a homicide. If they fail to kill the people, that's attempted homicide. Granted, arson is still involved, but the definition is not so narrow as to requrie an intent to kill. I know of no statute that requires the intent to kill an animal as an element. I understand PETA and ELF/ALF have arson related animal rights activisim, but there are no statutes of which I am aware that employ animals or require an intent to harm an animal in any element of the crime of arson. Arson is setting a fire with the intent to cause damage, plain and simple. I've removed the superfulous language, but I guess we can discuss what if any ought to be back in. I think the arson definition language is more accurate without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCFD876 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
193.203.200.2 wrote about the frequency of man made fires in Galicia. It seems very specific to me. Without verification to the paragraphs significance, ill just correct puncuation for now. Urukagina 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the point of the subsection "arson in fiction" is? Marc K 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Etymology behind the word "arson"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanGrill ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is quite clearly only about arson in Europe. Anyone up for editing it to include a more general worldview? 128.113.98.26 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What are the elements of the crime of arson? I think that would be pretty relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.179.185.82 ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the common law elements of arson in the U.S. In doing so, I reorganized the article to separate English and Scots law from U.S. law. I moved the sentence concerning felony-murder in the U.S. to the U.S. Law section. -- G77 ( talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I added several references to legal works in the U.S. law section. I also added external links to a web MD article dealing with the motives behind arson. Finally, I noticed that many of the introductory remarks dealt with the motives behind arson. So, I thought it better to create a separate section for the motives behind arson. -- G77 ( talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
After I added many citations to almost every section, I found that the disclaimer about need for citation was no longer necessary. Therefore, I moved it to the only section still in need of cites: English and Scots law. My expertise is only in U.S. law. Any barristers out there who could lend a few cites?-- G77 ( talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently, someone put in some language about different degrees of arson. I had to revert those changes back to the original for two reasons. First, the writing was of a poor quality and was unsigned by any Wikipedia user. Second, the language about the different degrees of arson had no real citation and seemed out of place.
I'm not opposed to talk about different degrees of arson, but, it would have to take place in the U.S. law section. Furthermore, it must make clear that the degrees of arson vary from state to state. Finally, this article is a part of the common law portal. That is why its language focuses on the common law and not each jurisdiction's individual statutory scheme. It is impossible to give each state's outline of the differing degrees of arson. We might consider simply stating that the sentencing schemes vary by state and that certain acts of arson are only misdemeanors.-- G77 ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the arson in Namdaemun should be added to this article. Namdaemun is Korea's number 1 treasure. I feel sad for me and the rest of the Koreans. Weatherlover819 ( talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to copy the basic organization of the burglary article. After a bit of discussion, another user interested in editing the common law articles and I decided the best organization for these types of articles is:
-- G77 ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A user undid my edit which corrected a sentence by changing it from passive voice to active voice.
English passive voice is a common stylistic problem and Wikipedia users generally agree that we should avoid using it. For example:
"John threw the ball" is better than "The ball was thrown."
In this case, the sentence read: "As with any crime, arson charges are punished..." This structure is not as good as the correction I made: "States typically prosecute arson in degrees of seriousness."
The correction changes the sentence from passive voice to active. Therefore, I suggest that it should remain in its improved state.
With the change, I also corrected a few other problems. First, the corrected sentence adds the word "typically." This is an important addition because the criminal laws of every state change from time to time, and it is impossible, or at least extremely inefficient, to constantly check on the arson laws of every state. Instead, we should state the general theme. Furthermore, the word "typically" does not imply that "not all states punish arson in degrees of seriousness." The word "typical" means "combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group." [2] The essential characteristic of the group (states in the U.S.) is that they punish arson in degrees of seriousness. Therefore, the change I made does not imply that not all states punish in degrees; it simply implies that at least the majority, if not all of them, do punish in degrees.
Finally, the improved sentence removes the language "As with any crime..." This is important because not all crimes are punished in degrees of seriousness. The user who offered this comment gave no citation indicating that every crime is always punished in degrees of seriousness. Therefore, I suggest that, in the very least, this language should be removed.
The change I made to the sentence increased the accuracy of the statement without altering its essential content. It also made a stylistic improvement. Therefore, the improved sentence should remain.
In good faith, I will wait for a response to this argument for a few days before making (or actually remaking) the improved sentence. -- G77 ( talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Breaking and entering" was a UK term for burglary prior to the Theft Act 1968, when a distinction was drawn between offences committed at night (="burglary") and during daylight hours (="housebreaking"), and persists in several common-law jurisdictions. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In medieval continental Europe arsonists were burned at the stake (a.k.a. autodafe), which was very much fitting for their crime. 91.83.16.172 ( talk) 22:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems there is no consensus for having too much detail on these in this article when they are more than adequately discussed in their own, and sourced. I'd suggest going into too much detail here is a breach of WP:UNDUE; in fact, they might just as well be in the "See also" section. -- Rodhull andemu 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The Radio Four series All in the Mind discussed motivation for arson on July 12 2011. Criminological psychology is not my strong point, but if any knows anything about this topic, it could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Arson. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arson. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It didn't seem like there was a ton of information on why people do this or what they are considered (the impulse control disorder and pyromania), the only place I could find the information was in the introduction. Should it be brought down to a new section or could it be talked about more in-depth. Tina leighann ( talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melbaby52822 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Swaneybunch7.
— Assignment last updated by Lincol7 ( talk) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I am immensely interested in psychology and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add a psychology paragraph to the topic of arson because I think it would be important for readers to learn about why arsonists might commit the crime or what attributions start that chain of bad events in a person. In all, why do arsonists do what they do and what got them to start. Was it their childhood or was it a trigger in their life? Melbaby52822 ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just something to stimulate discussion, it is a well-known fact/urban legend (prolly fact) that firefighters stand a much higher chance of becoming arsonists than the general population, because adrenaline is addictive -- hence, they set fires then rush to go put them out once someone calls 911. This needs documentation, but is interesting and thus, I'm putting it here until someone can confirm in some verifiable way. Tuf-Kat — Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 18 February 2003 (UTC)
Maybe a section on the Psychology of arson should be added. (unless that is covered by pyromania) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.243.216 ( talk) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Is The fire of the century, caused by arson trying to refer to Old_Fire? -- Espoo 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Going back through the edit history, I noticed that the original, broad definition of arson posted was "setting a fire with the intent to cause damage." Then this language about "with the intent to kill people or animals inside." If someone sets a fire with the intent to kill people, and it kills them, that's a homicide. If they fail to kill the people, that's attempted homicide. Granted, arson is still involved, but the definition is not so narrow as to requrie an intent to kill. I know of no statute that requires the intent to kill an animal as an element. I understand PETA and ELF/ALF have arson related animal rights activisim, but there are no statutes of which I am aware that employ animals or require an intent to harm an animal in any element of the crime of arson. Arson is setting a fire with the intent to cause damage, plain and simple. I've removed the superfulous language, but I guess we can discuss what if any ought to be back in. I think the arson definition language is more accurate without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCFD876 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
193.203.200.2 wrote about the frequency of man made fires in Galicia. It seems very specific to me. Without verification to the paragraphs significance, ill just correct puncuation for now. Urukagina 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the point of the subsection "arson in fiction" is? Marc K 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Etymology behind the word "arson"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanGrill ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is quite clearly only about arson in Europe. Anyone up for editing it to include a more general worldview? 128.113.98.26 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What are the elements of the crime of arson? I think that would be pretty relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.179.185.82 ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the common law elements of arson in the U.S. In doing so, I reorganized the article to separate English and Scots law from U.S. law. I moved the sentence concerning felony-murder in the U.S. to the U.S. Law section. -- G77 ( talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I added several references to legal works in the U.S. law section. I also added external links to a web MD article dealing with the motives behind arson. Finally, I noticed that many of the introductory remarks dealt with the motives behind arson. So, I thought it better to create a separate section for the motives behind arson. -- G77 ( talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
After I added many citations to almost every section, I found that the disclaimer about need for citation was no longer necessary. Therefore, I moved it to the only section still in need of cites: English and Scots law. My expertise is only in U.S. law. Any barristers out there who could lend a few cites?-- G77 ( talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently, someone put in some language about different degrees of arson. I had to revert those changes back to the original for two reasons. First, the writing was of a poor quality and was unsigned by any Wikipedia user. Second, the language about the different degrees of arson had no real citation and seemed out of place.
I'm not opposed to talk about different degrees of arson, but, it would have to take place in the U.S. law section. Furthermore, it must make clear that the degrees of arson vary from state to state. Finally, this article is a part of the common law portal. That is why its language focuses on the common law and not each jurisdiction's individual statutory scheme. It is impossible to give each state's outline of the differing degrees of arson. We might consider simply stating that the sentencing schemes vary by state and that certain acts of arson are only misdemeanors.-- G77 ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the arson in Namdaemun should be added to this article. Namdaemun is Korea's number 1 treasure. I feel sad for me and the rest of the Koreans. Weatherlover819 ( talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to copy the basic organization of the burglary article. After a bit of discussion, another user interested in editing the common law articles and I decided the best organization for these types of articles is:
-- G77 ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A user undid my edit which corrected a sentence by changing it from passive voice to active voice.
English passive voice is a common stylistic problem and Wikipedia users generally agree that we should avoid using it. For example:
"John threw the ball" is better than "The ball was thrown."
In this case, the sentence read: "As with any crime, arson charges are punished..." This structure is not as good as the correction I made: "States typically prosecute arson in degrees of seriousness."
The correction changes the sentence from passive voice to active. Therefore, I suggest that it should remain in its improved state.
With the change, I also corrected a few other problems. First, the corrected sentence adds the word "typically." This is an important addition because the criminal laws of every state change from time to time, and it is impossible, or at least extremely inefficient, to constantly check on the arson laws of every state. Instead, we should state the general theme. Furthermore, the word "typically" does not imply that "not all states punish arson in degrees of seriousness." The word "typical" means "combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group." [2] The essential characteristic of the group (states in the U.S.) is that they punish arson in degrees of seriousness. Therefore, the change I made does not imply that not all states punish in degrees; it simply implies that at least the majority, if not all of them, do punish in degrees.
Finally, the improved sentence removes the language "As with any crime..." This is important because not all crimes are punished in degrees of seriousness. The user who offered this comment gave no citation indicating that every crime is always punished in degrees of seriousness. Therefore, I suggest that, in the very least, this language should be removed.
The change I made to the sentence increased the accuracy of the statement without altering its essential content. It also made a stylistic improvement. Therefore, the improved sentence should remain.
In good faith, I will wait for a response to this argument for a few days before making (or actually remaking) the improved sentence. -- G77 ( talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Breaking and entering" was a UK term for burglary prior to the Theft Act 1968, when a distinction was drawn between offences committed at night (="burglary") and during daylight hours (="housebreaking"), and persists in several common-law jurisdictions. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In medieval continental Europe arsonists were burned at the stake (a.k.a. autodafe), which was very much fitting for their crime. 91.83.16.172 ( talk) 22:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems there is no consensus for having too much detail on these in this article when they are more than adequately discussed in their own, and sourced. I'd suggest going into too much detail here is a breach of WP:UNDUE; in fact, they might just as well be in the "See also" section. -- Rodhull andemu 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The Radio Four series All in the Mind discussed motivation for arson on July 12 2011. Criminological psychology is not my strong point, but if any knows anything about this topic, it could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Arson. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arson. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It didn't seem like there was a ton of information on why people do this or what they are considered (the impulse control disorder and pyromania), the only place I could find the information was in the introduction. Should it be brought down to a new section or could it be talked about more in-depth. Tina leighann ( talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melbaby52822 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Swaneybunch7.
— Assignment last updated by Lincol7 ( talk) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I am immensely interested in psychology and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add a psychology paragraph to the topic of arson because I think it would be important for readers to learn about why arsonists might commit the crime or what attributions start that chain of bad events in a person. In all, why do arsonists do what they do and what got them to start. Was it their childhood or was it a trigger in their life? Melbaby52822 ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)