Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 4

This is getting silly
A discussion is held about the Jones source, a consensus is reached, and we agree to remove it. So, I remove it, and re-write that section. Now apparently, according to an implacable anon IP, because the Kastenbaum source engages in some speculation on the nature of the post-mortem disfigurement, we're not allowed to use any of his work. I'm not aware of any policy that states we're not allowed to comment on or summarise the speculation of authors, only that we're not allowed to speculate ourselves.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, some time ago I told the IP above I would have nothing more to do with him/her, and I have no intention of changing my view. So can somebody (preferably uninvolved parties) please explain to me, what exactly is wrong with summarising Kastenbaum's work here? Parrot of Doom 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the Kastenbaum source is fine. There's necessarily going to be speculation about this practice; the question is only whether it's informed speculation by a reliable source. I'd have allowed the student paper too, because it was published by a magazine run by her university, and it seemed very good (not trying to re-open that discussion, just saying). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree also that the Kastenbaum source is okay. Further, the position Jones takes makes complete sense and merely awaits historians drawing it into the mainstream. Once basic common sense was a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, though maybe just in the distant past; not a principal that seems of interest to your IP. Even today, I don't think content editors who edit Wikipedia are required to leave all intelligence at the door, just most of it :/ --Epipelagic (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that once again this is proving contentious, and that the anon IP is removing Jones's essay from the Further reading section on the basis that it is not a reliable source. It isn't being used as a source so I'm not certain what the problem is. Parrot of Doom 21:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Expressing their remorse and asking for forgiveness

 * See Some problems with the article text

Currently the article says:
 * "Before they were hanged, prisoners normally gave a public speech, expressing their remorse and asking for forgiveness"

Yet many did not express their remorse and ask for forgiveness, instead they used the public speech to justify their stance. It was not uncommon for the officials of the execution to interrupt the speech or to order the guards to make enough noise to drown out the speaker. So what is the source for the sentence? -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC it isn't sourced as its something that I thought was fairly uncontroversial, but I'm happy for it to be changed to reflect the fact that some people were more stoic when faced with the rope. Parrot of Doom 16:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you know it was some and not most? It seems to me that trying to put a quantity on it would need a statistical survey (has one been done?). Also attitudes may have changed over time and the reason for the execution is also likely to play a part. For example it would not be surprising if a religious martyr were less likely to express remorse than someone like Mark Smeaton. The article on Sir William Brereton another adulterer of Anne Boleyn suggests that what he said on the scaffold determined if his estates were confiscated, this might be a useful line of enquiry. -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By using "some" I didn't mean to imply either few or most. I haven't yet been able to find an estimate for the total number of people HD&Q, although one probably exists somewhere.  Perhaps the wording could be changed to remove the content of the speech, and just to mention that speeches were sometimes made? Parrot of Doom 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some more information on speeches given by the condemned, I'll add it today. Parrot of Doom 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Should "drawn, quartered, and hung" be considered a similar practice?
It seems the current article states this punishment (hanged to choke, intestines drawn out or pulled along the ground on a hurdle, dismembered into quarters) is particularly English. Simon Hirsch Cuttler's The Law of Treason and Treason Trials in Later Medieval France (p. 117) writes: "It is clear that quartering was another characteristic penalty in the punishment of treason. In prosecuting Louis de Courcelles in the early 1450s the king's proctor demanded that he be drawn, decapitated, quartered 'as is customary' and hanged." There is further talk in the book (as much as I can see from the preview of Google Book) of such punishment in 14th century France. Disregarding the order of which the individual punishments were carried out, it would seem the punishment (as a whole) of such nature is not unique to the English kingdom and the British colonies. Perhaps the order of the punishment should be noted if "hanged, drawn and quartered" is asserted as English? Jappalang (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've not seen any mention of a relationship in this matter between England and France and my inclination would be not to mix the two, however, I've read only a small amount of the literature available so far. Parrot of Doom 09:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List of those executed
I want to shift the latter half of the article to a new article, something like List of people hanged, drawn and quartered, while merging the more important instances into what's left. While it may prove interesting, I don't believe its all that encyclopaedic right now and not that far removed from a bulleted list of those executed. Does anyone have any objections to this? Parrot of Doom 20:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think it difficult to come up with an exhaustive list of all the people ever HDQed so I'm not sure of the value of such a list if it's really just an arbitrary selection of those punished in this way. Bluewave (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it was a punishment reserved for high treason, it stands to reason that the records would be decent. A lot of royal records don't survive, but their survival is much better than other sources; for example from Patent Rolls the royal expenditure on castle building in the medieval period in England is often recorded (sometimes patchily) but there is no equivalent for non-royal castles. Maybe they won't be complete, but more likely to be intact than other forms of punishment handed out by manorial courts. A well-developed list, even if not containing every instance, would certainly be useful and I think a stand-alone list derived from this article would work well. Nev1 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources like the Patent Rolls are primary sources. Wouldn't the sort of research that you're proposing constitute "Original Research"? My statement about the list being pretty arbitrary assumed that we restrict ourselves to reliable secondary sources. Bluewave (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest using primary sources, I just meant that the information does exist so theoretically comprehensiveness shouldn't be an issue. Even a partial list would be useful. Nev1 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The primary reason for doing this is that once the background and punishment have been discussed, the article then rambles on for some length about people who've been executed this way. I'd rather not have it like that.  What I'd prefer to see is a description of how the punishment came into effect, what it all meant (illustrated by notable examples), its latter history and outlawing.  I think that'd work much better than what we have now.


 * As for records, I'm pretty sure that almost every person who was HD&Q will have been recorded, I just haven't been able to find a number yet. Even if official records are lost, first-hand accounts will certainly exist for most.  The exception might be for things like the Bloody Assizes. Parrot of Doom 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jones - Recommended reading?
The WP:RSN was crystal clear regarding Jone's unsuitability for Wikipedia. This article is not for promoting obscure student essays, girlfriends, family or whomever. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The heading is "Further reading", not "Recommended reading", and the decision at RSN is irrelevant because the essay is no longer being used as a source. Edit-warring didn't do you any favours last time, I suggest you bear that in mind. Parrot of Doom 15:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You've offered nothing to support the inclusion. The students essay has no place here.72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Further reading doesn't have to satisfy WP:RS; several editors have noted that the essay is interesting and original, so it may be of interest to other readers. Nev1 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are a foundational pillar of Wikipedia. All that we do, everything we write, must be reliably sourced. When contentious we cite a ref. The undergraduate student essay has been rejected. We do not use subterfuge to mislead our readers - and we especially do not game the system to insert rejected and unreliable references. The purpose of "Further Reading" is - " historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation" The undergraduate student essay is none of these. It has no relevance.99.135.168.164 (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * lmfao. Parrot of Doom 13:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Laugh My Fucking Ass Off"? That's a remarkably uncivil and Trolling response to my germane, civil and unmistakably Good Faith contribution to this article. It demonstrates a lack of character on your part, a sense of some bizarre sort of entitlement regarding your apparent de facto exercise of WP:OWN. It's disappointing, and such behavior, and the attitudes from which they manifest, does nothing to advance the project's mission. Please take time to consider your priorities here, you may wish to adjust.  99.135.168.164 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh look, the civility argument raises its ugly head. Funny how you then start to make suggestions about my character.  Fuckoff. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title question...
Shouldn't the title be Hanging, drawing and quartering which is the correct noun form, per WP:NOUN? – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should. The hanging article is called, well, hanging, after all. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind much but doesn't "hanging, drawing and quartering" just sound a bit odd? Parrot of Doom 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN Kastenbaum Re: Medieval Europe
A discussion has been opened regarding a contentious and disputed ref.

This is the ref in question:* Specifically cited in the article Hanged, drawn and quartered as Kastenbaum 2004, pp. 193–194. Here then is a quote from page 193 and 194 of the reference: "No documents have surfaced to tell us precisely why these indulgences in overkill were considered necessary. We are free to speculate. The following are four possibilities, perhaps you can come up with others." The author is a Professor of Communications at Arizona State making four self-admittedly and crystal clear speculative guesses regarding a medieval practice as applied to Hugh Despenser the Younger. This is not a Reliable Source on the event.
 * It is outside the area of expertise of the author. (The event, the practice and the participants have no shortage of historians engaged in deep scholarly work here)
 * It is entirely speculative, nothing more than four guesses, with the writer even encouraging the reader to join in the guessing. Nothing is less Reliable than a self-confessed guess - especially in an area where none is necessary owing to the overwhelming centuries of historian's attention to the period.
 * And to repeat the authors own intent and warning: "No documents have surfaced to tell us precisely why these indulgences in overkill were considered necessary. We are free to speculate. The following are four possibilities, perhaps you can come up with others."

"Questionable sources are those.... which rely heavily on ... personal opinions." And that's just it. It's not Reliable, its not an educated reasoned postulation derived at from expertise. It's a two-page self-flagged guess that has no place at Wikiepdia as a sourced and referenced basis for choosing one of the guesses and cloaking it in weasel-worded language to make it seem to be something it is not. This particular guess (the one out of the four that enters the article) is not a Reliable Source. Note that this:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Undergraduate_Student_Essay. (1)], although not directly related, was also recently brought to the WP:RSN from the article.

99.135.168.164 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate source...
From Seymour Phillips Edward II (2010) Yale University Press, New Haven and London. ISBN 978-0-300-15657-7. Pages 513, speaking about the trial and condemnation of the elder Despenser:

"For his treason he was to be drwan; for robbery to be hanged; and for his acts against the Church to be beheaded; since he had dishonoured the rank of earl his head was to be taken to Winchester for display; and for having dishonoured the or of chivalry by hanging knights wearing coats quartered with their arms, he should be hanged in the same way and his arms destroyed for ever."

page 517, discussing the trial of the younger Despenser:

"All the good people of the realm, great and small, rich and poor, regarded Despenser ars a traitor and a robber; for which he was sentenced to be hanged. As a traitor he was to be drawn and quartered and the quarters distributed around the kingdom; as an outlaw he was to be beheaded; and for procuring discord between the king and the queen and other people of the kingdom he was sentenced to be disemboweld and his entrails burned; finally he was declared to be a traitor, tyrant and renegade."

This at least provides a source for the bits minus the speculation. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That works for me Ealdgyth, and thanks for going to the trouble of finding those quotes. I presume le Despenser wasn't sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered? Parrot of Doom 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Which le despenser? There's the elder one (who died in Oct 1326) and the younger (who died in Nov 1326). Per ODNB Younger was "Condemned to death as a traitor, on 24 November 1326 he was drawn on a hurdle to the gallows, and then hanged from a height of 50 feet. Still alive, he was cut down and eviscerated before finally being beheaded. His head was displayed on London Bridge; his quarters were sent to Bristol, Dover, York, and Newcastle." The elder (per Elder) was "He was denounced, and sentenced to death, for offences that included usurpation of royal power, depriving the church of its rights, and complicity in the illegal execution of Thomas of Lancaster. He was condemned to be drawn for treason, hanged for robbery, and decapitated for his crimes against the church, his head to be taken to Winchester, ‘where you were earl against law and reason’ (Stubbs, 1.317)." (The Stubbs is W. Stubbs, ed., Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 76 (1882–3)). They both were hanged, drawn and quartered. For extra fun, it appears the younger was also castrated (although the ODNB doesn't mention that, Phillips does - I can supply page number if needed.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the younger was HD&Q, that was his sentence after all, but the elder I'm not certain about. While his execution seems to have certain similarities, was he actually sentenced to be HD&Q?  Many of the nobility were afforded the honour of being beheaded.  I've no idea what happened to the body in such cases, given to their families one would presume. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the ONDB for the elder, and I'll check a few other spots. Out the door for dinner though... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have done, the elder was not eviscerated or quartered, so I don't think its important to mention him here. The younger despenser is mentioned merely as a part of the introduction to the 1352 Act, which I'm still not entirely happy with btw. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Much past 1300 my sources get spottier - it's not somewhere I've concentrated. I have the biographies of the monarchs, but generally only overview works. Nor is crime and punishment a topic I've much researched. I'll keep an eye out for stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Henry VIII seems to be the most relevant monarch to this form of punishment. I think I'm going to strip some of the treason section out, particularly the part about constructive treason.  It seems a bit rambling.  Perhaps I should move it to a footnote. Parrot of Doom 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)