Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Centrepull (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 12 September 2010 (→Jones 2007-2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:08, 12 September 2010 by Centrepull (talk | contribs) (→Jones 2007-2008)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articlesHanged, drawn and quartered has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 3, 2010. (Reviewed version).
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.
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: 31 days 
WikiProject iconDeath GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8


This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Guy Fawkes

It is worth mentioning that Guy Fawkes was not actually hung, drawn and quartered, he was hung, but jumped from the scaffold and died of the hanging before the drawing and quartering could be properly carried out... thus technically he was just hung and the picture of the wax sculpture of his hanging is sort of redundant. Amphetachronism 04:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems this article does not jive with the one on Henry Garnet, which suggests that the king ordered his sentence to be a typical execution instead of hanged, drawn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.248.55 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New version

I'm working on a new version of this article here. Its a long way from being finished and I'm waiting for more sources to arrive, but any comments would be welcome. Parrot of Doom 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost ready with this. There's still a bit of work but if nobody minds, I'll copy it across later this evening. Parrot of Doom 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Well nobody replied so I'm presuming nobody objects. The old version is here. I've nominated this new version for GAN. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

William Maurice

I'm having trouble corroborating the claim that Maurice was the first to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Also, while this book is certainly quite old, page 134 mentions that Dafydd ap Gruffydd was the first. Can anyone help? Parrot of Doom 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jones 2007-2008

"According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason," - that sounds like a decidedly inappropriate source to me. —Joseph Roe, 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Parrot of Doom 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". —Joseph Roe, 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 WP:RS. 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. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself. —Joseph Roe, 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. Parrot of Doom 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. Parrot of Doom 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 (WP:V). 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). —Joseph Roe, 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 here 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 (WP:V)" - well, I completely disagree. Authors regularly make mistakes, and part of our responsibility when using those sources is to spot them. Parrot of Doom 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering these comments by users on this issue:

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.

I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself.

An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying

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? Centrepull (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

COGDEN review

Reviewer: COGDEN 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Criteria:

  1. "Well-written"
    • The prose is clear, readable, and grammatical.
    • The lede is standard and well written, and the article layoyut is standard.
  2. "Factually accurate and verifiable"
    • Provides references to all sources.
    • Provides in-line citations in all appropriate locations.
    • Does not appear to contain original research.
  3. "Broad in its coverage"
    • Addresses all the main aspects of the topic that I can think of.
    • Stays focused on the subject matter without unnecessary detail.
  4. "Neutral"
    • Is written in a dispassionate tone, with know perceived bias.
  5. "Stable"
    • Is not the subject of an edit war or ongoing content dispute.
  6. "Illustrated, if possible, by images"
    • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and are free content. The Guy Fawkes image is not a copyright issue, because it is a mechanical reproduction of an old image.
    • Images are relevant and appropriately captioned.


General note: This article is very well done, and I think it easily deserves "good" status. I have a couple of optional suggestions, however, on the way toward "featured" status. Take them or leave them, for what they are worth:

  • It might be good to have some sort of comparison between this English practice and other similar practices such as execution by quartering in France during the same time period, which involved poking with a red-hot poker, pouring molten lead into the wounds, and then pulling the person apart with four horses, often while they were still conscious, and then finally burning them at the stake. It was a quite different process, but I think it could be mentioned as a comparison in the last section.
  • I think it would be good to expand a little bit on the penal theory behind such draconian punishments (e.g., the tortured body served to show the truth of the crime, as well as the unlimited nature of the Sovereign's power, etc.) I know some of that is already in the article, but there is a lot to be said, and that has been said, about the subject. You might be able to cite Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish for that, or some similar philosophical or jurisprudential works.

COGDEN 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the pointers. I did look at the French system but haven't found any source that finds a relationship between England and France in this respect, and therefore thought that do include it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm waiting for another source to arrive at my local library, I'll see what that contains. Parrot of Doom 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with the article text

Problems with the text:

  • "Many notable figures incurred their sovereign's ire," -- It implies that people were executed on a wim, not after due process, that is a POV that is not supported with a source.
  • "They were then disembowelled, and sometimes emasculated." -- no source given as to always and sometimes.
    • Not all sources mention that subjects were emasculated and I haven't assumed they always were. I'll change to "normally". Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Better to say "disembowelled, and emasculated" and footnote that the sources are not clear on whether emasculation always took place, because unless there is a source that explicitly says that sometime/often or whatever, one can not draw the inference that it was not done, as the author may just not have bothered to mention it as most readers would have been familiar with what happens when a creature is disembowelled. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Before they were hanged, prisoners sometimes gave a public speech, expressing their remorse and asking for forgiveness." Sometimes implies not often, that needs a source, as it seems to me that the witness accounts from the middle C17th always report on their speaking out if they so wished, so in needs a source that it was only sometimes. Also the wording implies that the were only allowed to speak if they showed remorse. Yet there are plenty recorded where the officials tried to prevent people from speaking either by drowning out their their speech by ordering the guards to make a cacophony of sound or by continually interrupting them.
  • "According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason ..." is not a reliable source and all her speculation should be removed especially the quote. It is not that I disagree with most of it, although I think it it overplays the symbolic over the practical (for example being drawn through the medival streets of London was a very nasty business -- hence the indulgence of using a hurdle. Also once a punishment is established its continued use may be because of presidents (we do it this way because that is how its done) rather than because the act still has the initial symbolic meaning it had at first.
    • I don't agree, for the reasons in the discussion above, and your point of view on precedents is, I'm afraid, just that. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes! and I am not putting my POV into the article. You have two people who now consider a undergrad essay not to be a reliable source. Please remove the citation and the material backed up by it -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
        • No I won't remove it, I'm happy that its a reliable source, and if this is a numbers game (not that consensus is), its 2 v 2. I also find it odd that you defend a version of the article that was frankly a mess, and mostly uncited. You'll excuse me if I don't mourn its passing, but if you feel that important items are missing then you're more than welcome to add them - provided of course they're not followed by tags.
  • "English Catholic" is POV it should be "English Roman Catholic" (according to Anglicans Charles I was a martyr and the Anglican church is part of the catholic church).
    • I have plenty of sources which use English Catholic when discussing religion in England. If they see fit to use it, so do I. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of sources that state that the IRA were terrorists. We tend not to use it because it is has non neutral connotations. --PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I wondered if there was some Irish background to this. I'm not getting involved in that argument. Numerous reliable sources call them English Catholics, so will I.
  • "The 1351 treason act applied to all British subjects," There was not such thing as a British subject until the Act of Union, and it was not until the second Act of Union that the Irish became British subjects. The colonies were not other countries they were colonies. Even after the Act of Union the jurisdictions of England, Ireland and Scotland were not unified.
    • My intention was to cover all people living in the British Isles. What noun would you suggest instead? Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The 1351 treason act applied to all British subjects" -- it only applied to English and Welsh subjects not Scottish or Irish subjects (the Scots being in a totally separate nation until the personal union of James I (note my bais not using VI!)). Also the colonies I have no idea but at a guess it would depend on which jurisdiction the founding charter was granted. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some general comments and questions. The removal an insertion of text in the most recent rewrite seems to me to be rather random:

  • Why the removal of mention of the English Civil War declared lex talionis and Connor Maguire?
  • Why the removal of Thomas Venner and his merry men? It is not clear to me why the names regicides have been removed, but the details of the execution of just one of them is much larger than the original paragraph (IMHO the pepys diary quote is superior to the one that replaced it as it mentions the demeanour of the man rather than the mechanics of his exection).
  • Why so much on John Southworth?
  • The original text included "In Lower Canada (now Quebec), David McLane was hanged, drawn and quartered on 21 July 1797 for treason;..." why was it removed and a brief mention of the 13 colonies put in its place?
  • Why use the ODNB for which one needs a subscription (or a British Library card) when most of the same information is available in the DNB? eg:
    • T.F.H. (1886), "Brandreth, Jeremiah", in Stephen (ed.), ], vol. 6, pp. 224, 225 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
    instead of

Last but not least where has all the information on other counties quartering gone? -- PBS (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I removed nothing from the article text; I completely re-wrote the article (a disaster zone tbh) from scratch. I've attempted to construct some kind of historical narrative by the use of examples of the sentence through history, but its obviously not going to be perfect on the first pass. Many of the examples you list were either cited to unreliable sources, or not cited at all.
You did remove information from the article. That you replaced it with other text does not mean that you did not remove information. Which part of the civil war paragraph was not cited or did not have citations covering the information in the links. Did you look for any secondary sources for Thomas Venner and the Fifth Monarchists, as from your answer you do not consider the primary sources given reliable? Would an essay by an undergraduate suffice?-- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So a bunch of people could have been executed but weren't. I have no idea how that is relevant in a section about people who were executed. And no I didn't go looking for bits on Thomas Venner, I'm not here to do the bidding of others.
  • Also, I don't see what relevance similar techniques in other countries have to this method of execution, unless of course sources exist which link them explicitly? Those punishments should otherwise be listed on their own pages. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The stuff on other countries should be moved out into a separate article. Quartering is not suitable as the name has more than one meaning but something like execution by dismemberment would do. I suggest that we pick a name, put the information into it because a move to a more suitable name can be made. If not then I grantee that the section "other countries" will grow to contain the same information again.
"Overseas" should be renamed "Colonies" or "English colonies" (Ireland is overseas from an English perspective and England "over " as the Irish say). BTW I am not sure what the 13 colonies have to do with anything, it is an arbitrary number who happened to rebel, for example why exclude Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec? -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to British colonization of the Americas. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Pepys's account

I see that with the rewrite, the account from Pepys's diary has been deleted. I thought that was worth including, as it was an eyewitness account. Is there a good reason for deleting it? Bluewave (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly, I just couldn't find a place to insert enough of it to do it justice. I thought that the image and a caption might suffice, but its of rather low quality. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories: