Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:27, 7 January 2011 editParrot of Doom (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,489 edits →Maeve Jones: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:06, 15 February 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,373,194 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 2. (BOT)
(665 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|action1result=listed		\|action1result=listed
	\|action1oldid=381540725		\|action1oldid=381540725

	\|currentstatus=GA
			\|action2=FAC
			\|action2date=04:14, 14 March 2011
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hanged, drawn and quartered/archive1
			\|action2result=promoted
			\|action2oldid=418722764

	\|topic=Law		\|topic=Law
			\|currentstatus=FA
			\|maindate=July 7, 2013
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Death~~\|class=~~GA}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=no\|class=FA\|1=
			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=mid}}
	{{archive box\|auto=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=low}}
	<!--
			{{WikiProject England\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject History\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject European history\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Middle Ages\|importance=low}}
			}}
			{{archive box\|auto=long}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	\|archiveprefix=Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive		\|archiveprefix=Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive
	\|format= %%i		\|format= %%i
	\|age=~~744~~		\|age=2190
			\|minkeepthreads=5
	\|index=yes
	\|maxarchsize=~~20000~~		\|maxarchsize=100000
	\|numberstart=1		\|numberstart=1
	\|archivebox=yes
	\|box-advert=yes
	}}		}}
			<!--
			Some comments on ClueBot III parameters
			* age=2190 hours which is 24*365/4 (three months)
			* minkeepthreads=3 no matter how old, always leave 3 sections with the most recent postings.
	-->		-->

			==Meaning of "drawn"==
	== Hung v Hanged ==

	"Hanged" is used to denote death caused by hanging, but where hanging, drawing and quartering is concerned, this is not the case. As such, should not "hung" be used in this article (as is commonly used in elsewhere)?] (]) 13:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

	:Hanged is how it is described in most contemporary reports. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

	The act of 'drawing' is to open the abdominal cavity and to to remove the internal organs, not, as described in the text, to draw by horse and cart. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Jones 2007-2008 ==

	"According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason," - that sounds like a decidedly inappropriate source to me. —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Why? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	::Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::Undergraduate essays might not be the ideal source, but it very much depends on the quality of the individual essay. The foreword of ''Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History'' Volume XXII (in which the essay is published) says "After over two decades of publication, Historical Discourses has become a veritable institution at McGill University. It showcases the best history essays written by McGill students, provides students with an experience in publishing and helps support our vibrant, intellectual student community." So these are good essays that have been assessed by lecturers, and as such I think Maeve Jones passes ]. With 59 footnotes in what appear to be a 4,000-word essay, ostensibly it certainly seem to be of decent quality, although as I'm not familiar with the subject I would defer to the judgement of McGill University, quite a prestigious institution, and the compilers of the journal. ] (]) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself. —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::::A little bit presumptuous of you to suggest that because she's a student, she isn't an expert. For all we know she might be 75 years old with 50 years experience studying history. If you read the essay its actually extremely well written, and very well sourced. I've found nothing that doesn't tally with most of the other sources used. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::::And just to drive the point home; on this topic I've found quite a few errors in sources that wouldn't usually receive comments, and removed them accordingly. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

	::::::Well, no, actually I don't think it's presumptuous at all. An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying: if she had been studying history professionally for fifty years, then she would have a degree, obviously. Age doesn't come into it. If you are trying to imply that she could be an accomplished amateur historian in addition to a student, sure, that's possible, but there's absolutely no reason to suggest it, and that doesn't change the nature of the source. I am not saying that the essay is bad or incorrect, not at all, just that as a source it is not quite up to standard. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to judge the quality of the information in a source but the quality of the source itself (]). And that issue hinges on whether you consider an undergraduate journal to be a reliable source. Nev1 has argued that because it is published under the aegis of a university it is. I disagree, because it seems to me that the purpose of the publication is primarily pedagogical: to encourage their students, not to publish scholarly work; and assessment by lecturers and the (student) editorial board of the journal does not qualify it as peer-reviewed.
	::::::As I mentioned though, the essay has a good bibliography of secondary literature that are definitely "reliable sources" according to Misplaced Pages policies, so the issue might easily be side-stepped. I don't want to step on any toes and I've never edited this article so I probably won't comment any further: I've said all I have to say. At the very least, the regular editors of this article should consider the ''phrase'' "According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason" because even if you keep the reference, an idea is being attributed to a history student sounds very odd (and it's not quite accurate). —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::That may be the case with your definition of the word expert, but its quite narrow and not one I'm entirely inclined to agree with. What matters to me is the quality of the writing and sources, and I can't find fault with either. I'd already mentioned trying to track down those sources ] but that isn't particularly because I doubt her work, its something I generally try and do anyway.
	::::::::As for "It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to judge the quality of the information in a source but the quality of the source itself (])" - well, I completely disagree. Authors regularly make mistakes, and part of our responsibility when using those sources is to spot them. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)<br />

	Considering these comments by users on this issue:
	<blockquote>
	A little bit presumptuous of you to suggest that because she's a student, she isn't an expert. For all we know she might be 75 years old with 50 years experience studying history.</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
	I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself.
	</blockquote><blockquote>
	An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying
	</blockquote>
	I think this issue needs further discussion. I can't find any clarification elsewhere, so I'm considering referring it to for their opinion. Any further comments? ] (]) 12:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

	::I love how people are getting so hung up on the fact that it's written by a student. Has anyone but me bothered to read the document in full?
	::I read a book in a bookshop the other week on historic London, the part I was interested in (]) contained several "facts" that were patently wrong - and yet, were I to include that book here, it wouldn't ever be questioned. This will be a moot point soon enough anyway, once I have the extra sources I'm waiting for. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

	{{Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/GA1}}
	:] says that a research paper can be accepted if it's been "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" - I don't know if that's the case here. Given that Jones's article explicitly draws on other sources, though, it may be easiest simply to use those sources instead. (I'm not entirely sure what we gain by having a boxed quote from an undergraduate in the "sentence" section.) --] (]) 12:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

	::I've restored this section as it was quite obviously archived while still under discussion. The debate above is still relevant.] (]) 23:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


	== Maeve Jones ==
	:See ] and ]
	The Maeve Jones quote should go. She is not an expert on the issue. -- ] (]) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

	:Have you brought anything new to the discussion? A reliable source that refutes her assertions? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

	::Not the way it works, can you point to anyone apart from yourself who supports the inclusion of this source? -- ] (]) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

	:::"Not the way it works" - how does it work then? I tell you what, instead of nit-picking, why not try improving the article yourself. Or is that too much to ask? You can start by finding superior sources, I tried, my library was unable to get hold of them. Give it a go. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

	::::For how it works see ] and ], and possibly ]. An undergraduate essay is not a reliable source. It may be usable for backing up a point in a paragraph if no other source is available when the same point in the undergraduate essay is backed up by a reliable source (]), but the text from such an essay should not be quoted as it is in the current article. -- ] (]) 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

	:::::Ah right, I'm looking for this consensus you're suggesting exists. I don't see it, but to be honest whenever people resort to quoting WP:OWN, I tend to turn off.

			"drawn" does not refer to being a cart pulled by a horse. It is to have your entrails drawn from your abdomen. That's is why it comes between being hanged and quartered. No, I'm not giving a reference because I'm not wasting my time referencing something so well-known and so obvious.
	:::::This is nothing but intellectual snobbery. Find something that refutes what she's written, then I'll pay you more attention. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

			:No, you're not wasting your time referencing it because you just made it up. {{tq\| laid on a hurdle and so '''drawn''' to the place of execution, and there to be '''hanged''', cut down alive, your members to be cut off and cast in the fire, your bowels burnt before you, your head smitten off, and your body '''quartered''' and divided at the King's will, and God have mercy on your soul}} (my emphasis). ‑ ] 10:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::::It is not intellectual snobbery it is to do with what is considered a reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. None of the editors of Wikiepdia are experts, so we are not qualified to judge if her views are notable or not. If she is not notable then her view may not be refuted or supported by other sources, which is why we do not use unreliable sources as we can not know if their views are mainstream or not (see ]). If her views are mainstream then it should be easy to find more reliable sources that support her, in which case those sources can be cited and quoted, otherwise if her views are not then they should not be quoted. Either way there is no reason to quote an undergraduate in a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 19:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

			::Then again you have Shakespeare's usage - Much Ado About Nothing, Act 3 Scene 2 - there is a certain amount of badinage about a character being hanged for not being truly in love, the character (Benedick) then claims to have the toothache, to which the response is "Draw it", then "Hang it"; then Claudio says '''"You must hang it first, and draw it afterwards"'''. It seems to me that Shakespeare is directly using a reference to a widely known linguistic trope, which if it does not come from the capital punishment for treason, whence does it come? Here 'draw' is used definitively for the removal of a bodily part, albeit a tooth. I think Mortimer is not definitively correct. ] (]) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't understand how if you're not an expert you feel able say she also is not, and frankly I find your suggestion that no editors on Misplaced Pages are experts to be rather insulting. This author has been published by what seems to me to be a reputable source, her essay seems to be cited from a list of reliable source material. Why don't you try and get copies of those sources, as I've tried? Or is that too much hard work? As I said, intellectual snobbery. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

			:::Just found this. The problem is that the word "drawn" has two meanings (at least). The specific penalty consisted of '''hanging''' (not contested) and '''quartering''' (not contested) but the word "drawn" has come means "the removal of the entrails from the living body". Very clearly being drawn on a hurdle, which conceded is part of the judicial sentence, without any simultaneous suffering would not be seen as a penalty, although hanging, emasculating and disemboweling clearly would be so seen. {{ping\|Iridescent}} No he did not make it up; that is what the phrase means. ----]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::: I agree with Parrot on the essay, assuming that the writer in question has used reputable sources. Having said that, I don't agree with the above charge that PBS is an intellectual snob: while I don't always agree with Philip's views on various issues, I have found him in the past to be open minded and reasonable. ] (]) 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

			::::The use of the word 'draw/drawn' to mean eviscerate is well attested, for example here:
	I've removed the entire Jone's thesis. Its inclusion, in a topic subject to enormous academic research is ridiculous. ] (]) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

			::::" Tried on 12 and 13 September, Babington, Tichborne, Ballard and nine others were found guilty of high treason and were condemned to death. The first seven, including Ballard first, Babington second, and Tichborne fifth, were executed on 20 September 1586 by hanging, drawing and quartering. In Tichborne 's case, a contemporary manuscript account of the execution comments that though "he hanged longe, he was yet alive when they ripped him."14 In fact he made a memorable speech, and so impressed the crowd with his eloquence, piety, youth and good looks that they were much roused to pity; the Queen, perhaps worried at this development, mercifully ordered that those to be executed the following day should be '''hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered'''." ''The Works of Chidiock Tichborne (text)''Author(s): RICHARD S. M. HIRSCH and Chidiock Tichborne, English Literary Renaissance, Vol. 16, No. 2 (SPRING 1986), pp. 303-318 Published by: The University of Chicago Press, p. 305
	:If this topic is "subject to enormous academic research" then surely you'll be able to quote some of that research, particularly sections which refute what Jones has to say? Until then I think its entirely appropriate for it to remain, and I have reverted your deletion of that section. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

	::No ~~one~~ ~~"refutes"~~ ~~Jones~~ - ~~because~~ no ~~one~~ ~~cares.~~ ~~It's~~ an ~~original~~ ~~thesis~~, it ~~has~~ no ~~place~~ ~~here~~.] (]) 23:45, 4 ~~January~~ ~~2011~~ (UTC)		::::The meaning of 'draw/drawn' for being dragged behind a horse is not exclusive, it does not exclude the word also meaning eviscerate in relation to this method of execution. ] (]) 11:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
			:::The same phrase "'''hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered'''" is also used in Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook, Michael Kronenwetter, ABC-CLIO, 2001, p. 204.

			==Move==
	:::So your answer is "no, I can't refute any of it", which it follows must precede "I cannot prove she is not an expert, and is not therefore a reliable source". I suggest you read the publication, instead of judging its author. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
			Move to "Hanging, drawing, and quartering".
			] (]) 17:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
			:Why? ] (]) 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

			== Incorrect link? ==
	The onus is entirely and unquestionably upon you. It is you that must support inclusion and it is you that must show the presented source meets the Misplaced Pages standards found within ]. Note that the relevant Misplaced Pages standard explicitly states that "'''''Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence... The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. '''''" No evidence has been presented to support any such influence, nor has the claim even been made. The material must be removed until support, and consensus, for inclusion are found. Your one-person ] campaign to rewrite the accepted scholarship of the period here in this article is not acceptable according to this encyclopedia's standards.] (]) 01:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

			https://en.m.wikipedia.org/William_de_Marisco
	:I'm really sick and tired of people presenting Misplaced Pages guidelines as though they're some kind of indisputable biblical text that must be obeyed no matter what. I've read Jones's essay, it seems well-researched and reliable enough to me. It's bizarre that on Misplaced Pages, the writings of a newspaper columnist on a subject with which he or she may be unfamiliar are often assumed to be perfectly reliable, and yet, the writings of a student who is very clearly versed in the subject matter, and who presents a list of sources which Misplaced Pages would certainly consider reliable, are not necessarily so.

			This link leads to a page about Lundy, which is a large island north of the county of Devon, in the UK.
	:That's why I've repeatedly asked people to actually read the material, instead of seeing the horrific word "student" and immediately assuming that students are incapable of possessing any sort of expertise on the matter. That you're unwilling to actually try and demonstrate that she is in any way incorrect is proof enough that there's some seriously lazy thinking going on.

			Is this a mistake?
	:Take it to whatever hallowed Misplaced Pages content dispute page you like, but I'm thoroughly sick and tired of people assuming the worst motives of those who try and improve articles. I will not allow you to simply remove content based on nothing but intellectual snobbery, and if that means someone has to block me, so be it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
			:No - there is no article about Marisco, but the page exists as a redirect to a section in the Lundy article. ] (]) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

			== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	::Your threat to insert the contentious material until blocked over any and all objection highlights one thing clearly - '''Your complete contempt for, and hostility towards, our guiding principles to source reliably and support inclusion by consensus'''. The material has been removed as per all the points raised by numerous editors here for months. You do not own this, or any article here. On that you may look up ]. .] (]) 02:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2023-05-30T11:23:48.621064 \| Charles I execution, and execution of regicides.jpg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

			== The Last Person to be Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered ==
	:::There are several things being highlighted here, WP:OWN is not one of them. Quote guidelines all you like, you may find ] of interest. As I've said before, this is intellectual snobbery, nothing more. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 02:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

			The section titled "Later History" mentions the six conspirators of the Despard plot and further down mentions Jerimiah Brandreth. It say the Despard conspirators were sentenced to be "hanged, drawn, and quartered, but then goes on to describe them as merely being hanged and then posthumously beheaded. No mention of either drawing or quartering. The same for Jerimiah Brandreth. It merely describes him being hanged and then posthumously beheaded.
	::::You've said nothing - and have not presented any support for the inclusion. ''Reverse-''intellectual snobbery is not a supportable basis. ] (]) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

			The same section also goes on a length about three women; Isabella Condon in 1779, Phoebe Harris in 1786, and Catherine Murphy in 1789; who were burned at the stake, not hanged. And once more, no mention of drawing or quartering. So who was the last person to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
	:::::Whatever you say. I've made my case, and I stand by it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::::How do you know that the views expressed by Jones are not novel and a minority view and as such are not being given undue weight in this article? -- ] (]) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::Its a good question. How do we know the same of any author, on any other obscure subject? How do I know that on ], Derek Barlow didn't write a lot of nonsense? Or on ], Judith Moore didn't do the same? I don't take it for granted that just because an author has been published, everything written will be absolutely correct. I read what's been written and judge it on its own merits, and I've seen little to indicate that Jones's work is unreliable. That's why I've repeatedly asked people who object to its inclusion here to come up with some evidence that she's wrong. Why is nobody doing that? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::That's not the way it works. We do not "prove" she's wrong in order to remove her. We do not even attempt original research. What we do, according to all the most basic tenets of Misplaced Pages policy, is use reliable sources, verifiable through academic citations or notable peer reviewed publications. This is ridiculous, a single editor blocks the bridge and champions a novel thought uttered once by an undergraduate. It's an ignorant position to even put forth. The idea is not notable, it's unknown. The author is an unknown undergraduate. It fails every basic Misplaced Pages guideline and your intransigence is breathtakingly bold. .] (]) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

			And no, "drawn" does not mean "drawn to the place of execution." If it did, it would be ''"drawn,'' hanged and quartered. (Medieval and Early Modern England might have been backwards in a figurative sense, but I'm pretty sure they understood the order of events in time.) It is rendered in numerous sentences handed down as "have your bowels torn out." ] (]) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::I see little point in debating the matter further with you. I will continue to revert your removal of this material until the matter is escalated for discussion elsewhere and a proper consensus formed, or until one of us is blocked. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 11:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:06, 15 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanged, drawn and quartered article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Hanged, drawn and quartered is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 2, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
March 14, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 91.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Meaning of "drawn"

"drawn" does not refer to being a cart pulled by a horse. It is to have your entrails drawn from your abdomen. That's is why it comes between being hanged and quartered. No, I'm not giving a reference because I'm not wasting my time referencing something so well-known and so obvious.

No, you're not wasting your time referencing it because you just made it up. laid on a hurdle and so drawn to the place of execution, and there to be hanged, cut down alive, your members to be cut off and cast in the fire, your bowels burnt before you, your head smitten off, and your body quartered and divided at the King's will, and God have mercy on your soul (my emphasis). ‑ Iridescent 2 10:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Then again you have Shakespeare's usage - Much Ado About Nothing, Act 3 Scene 2 - there is a certain amount of badinage about a character being hanged for not being truly in love, the character (Benedick) then claims to have the toothache, to which the response is "Draw it", then "Hang it"; then Claudio says "You must hang it first, and draw it afterwards". It seems to me that Shakespeare is directly using a reference to a widely known linguistic trope, which if it does not come from the capital punishment for treason, whence does it come? Here 'draw' is used definitively for the removal of a bodily part, albeit a tooth. I think Mortimer is not definitively correct. Urselius (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just found this. The problem is that the word "drawn" has two meanings (at least). The specific penalty consisted of hanging (not contested) and quartering (not contested) but the word "drawn" has come means "the removal of the entrails from the living body". Very clearly being drawn on a hurdle, which conceded is part of the judicial sentence, without any simultaneous suffering would not be seen as a penalty, although hanging, emasculating and disemboweling clearly would be so seen. @Iridescent: No he did not make it up; that is what the phrase means. ----Anthony Bradbury 22:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The use of the word 'draw/drawn' to mean eviscerate is well attested, for example here:

" Tried on 12 and 13 September, Babington, Tichborne, Ballard and nine others were found guilty of high treason and were condemned to death. The first seven, including Ballard first, Babington second, and Tichborne fifth, were executed on 20 September 1586 by hanging, drawing and quartering. In Tichborne 's case, a contemporary manuscript account of the execution comments that though "he hanged longe, he was yet alive when they ripped him."14 In fact he made a memorable speech, and so impressed the crowd with his eloquence, piety, youth and good looks that they were much roused to pity; the Queen, perhaps worried at this development, mercifully ordered that those to be executed the following day should be hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered." The Works of Chidiock Tichborne (text)Author(s): RICHARD S. M. HIRSCH and Chidiock Tichborne, English Literary Renaissance, Vol. 16, No. 2 (SPRING 1986), pp. 303-318 Published by: The University of Chicago Press, p. 305

The meaning of 'draw/drawn' for being dragged behind a horse is not exclusive, it does not exclude the word also meaning eviscerate in relation to this method of execution. Urselius (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The same phrase "hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered" is also used in Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook, Michael Kronenwetter, ABC-CLIO, 2001, p. 204.

Move

Move to "Hanging, drawing, and quartering". Johnsmith212254 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect link?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/William_de_Marisco

This link leads to a page about Lundy, which is a large island north of the county of Devon, in the UK.

Is this a mistake?

No - there is no article about Marisco, but the page exists as a redirect to a section in the Lundy article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Charles I execution, and execution of regicides.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The Last Person to be Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered

The section titled "Later History" mentions the six conspirators of the Despard plot and further down mentions Jerimiah Brandreth. It say the Despard conspirators were sentenced to be "hanged, drawn, and quartered, but then goes on to describe them as merely being hanged and then posthumously beheaded. No mention of either drawing or quartering. The same for Jerimiah Brandreth. It merely describes him being hanged and then posthumously beheaded.

The same section also goes on a length about three women; Isabella Condon in 1779, Phoebe Harris in 1786, and Catherine Murphy in 1789; who were burned at the stake, not hanged. And once more, no mention of drawing or quartering. So who was the last person to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

And no, "drawn" does not mean "drawn to the place of execution." If it did, it would be "drawn, hanged and quartered. (Medieval and Early Modern England might have been backwards in a figurative sense, but I'm pretty sure they understood the order of events in time.) It is rendered in numerous sentences handed down as "have your bowels torn out." Beetfarm Louie (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories: