Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 5

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 Tk • Cb, 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 Tk • Cb, 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 Tk • Cb, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Tk • Cb, 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 Wikipedia 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 [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|the Reliable Sources Noticeboard] for their opinion. Any further comments? Centrepull (talk) 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 (Gropecunt Lane) 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. Parrot of Doom 20:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RS 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.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 12 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)

Needs improving
This article needs to be much more expansive, it currently reads like a third edition Encyclopedia Britannica!.

For my part I'll see if I can get some refs so I can attempt to give the article a more universal focus.Inchiquin (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a look over this, and a few things I have noted follow.The section of the article headed "Use in England" states early on that it only covers "several" notable cases and "It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of those people hanged, drawn and quartered'. It then goes onto to list a large number of notables executed by this method. I don't think this is a problem, it is what this kind of project does well, but I feel the initial statement here should probably be rephrased to something like "The focus of the list below is on notable examples of those executed by this method, it is not intended to be an exhaustive list..." The word several hardly fits the lengthy list that follows.


 * That was a bit of a pedantic issue, but I also feel that if possible the article should somewhere note an estimate of the number killed by this method. Apart from that, I wonder why there is no examination of comparable practices in different places and times?. Obviously you don't want to get carried away with it but surely this practice was not unique to England?.


 * Apart from that, I also think more detail is required on the Regicides/Tyrannicides killed by this method in 1660, as well as a mention of Rory Maguire (who if I am not mistaken was the first to be executed in this way as a result of the 1640s conflict).Inchiquin (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with most of your suggestions, I laboured to find a reliable estimate of the numbers killed but have so far drawn a blank. I'm still waiting for my local library to get a copy of a book on the subject, which may help.


 * I don't feel that this is the place to list comparable forms of execution, unless you can first demonstrate a reliable source that draws such a comparison. So far as I can tell, this practice was unique to England. Parrot of Doom 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about DNB as a source instead of ODNB?
To return to an issue I raised last last September, what is the advantage of using the ODNB for references instead of the DNB which is accessible to all. If there is a specific piece of information contained in the ODNB then I can understand why the ODNB is used, but for example what about for Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle? Why not use the DNB instead, as the DNB is accessible to all: ? -- PBS (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What a strange question. Are you really asking "Why use a 2004 source instead of a 1900 one?" Really? Malleus Fatuorum 05:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that unless the ODNB updates the information in the DNB in respect to the details used in this article, it is better to use a source that is available to all, rather than one that is only available with a subscription, particularly as both are considered reliabel sources and as all of the DNB articles are being ported to wikisource. -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I reject your suggestion as being absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"::::On 3 March Geoffry le Scrope, as justiciar, published at Carlisle the king's sentence against the traitor, who also seems, though with little warranty, to have been made the scapegoat of Edward's danger at Byland (LELAND, Collectanea, i. 670). The sword of the county was wrested from his hands. The golden spurs of knighthood were cut away from his heels. He was dragged through Carlisle town to the gallows at Henriby, and there hanged, drawn, and quartered. He behaved with the utmost intrepidity during all his sufferings, and convinced the Franciscan friars of Carlisle who had received his dying confession that he had acted from good motives. With his last breath he explained to the bystanders that his only aim was to bring the distracted realm to peace. His head was sent to London and received by the mayor and sheriffs with a great blast of horns, and stuck up on a long pole over London Bridge (Ann. Paul. p. 304), and his four quarters sent to Carlisle, Newcastle, York, and Shrewsbury (Parl. Writs, II. iii. 971, more precise than Lanercost, p. 251). —DNB"

"::::Harclay was arraigned for treason on the king's record before royal justices appointed for the purpose. Denied a hearing, he was degraded from his earldom by being ungirded of his sword and having his spurs cut from his heels, and was then sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered as a traitor—a fate he endured with dignity and resolution, publicly declaring at the foot of the gallows the good intentions behind his treaty with the Scots. Following his execution on Harraby Hill, Carlisle, his head was taken to Knaresborough for the king's inspection, then placed on London Bridge, while his quarters were set up at Carlisle, Newcastle, Bristol, and Shrewsbury. Only in 1328 were his remains allowed Christian burial.—ODNB"


 * I do not think that the 2004 source contradicts the older source which is available to all and as the newer source is restricted it offsets its advantage of being newer (particularly as the DNB uses in-line citations which the newer ODNB does not). Now if the Wikipedia article is going to mention something in the ODNB that either contradicts the DNB, or refutes an accusation made in another reliable source the last 100 years that the DNB is wrong, or is in addition to the DNB (such as the last sentence in the ODNB that in 1328 his remains were given a Christian burial) then the obviously the ODNB should be cited, but if not I do not see the point in using a restricted source when a PD source also does the job. -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a 2004 ODNB source over a 1900 DNB source any time. That some people can't access it isn't really our problem.  There's always the library. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is our problem (it is most people, not some people, that can not access the ONDB easily). There is a balance to be be struck, if the ONDB was freely available it would be the obvious choice, but as it is not, unless it contradicts the DNB how does citing the ONDB improve the article? -- PBS (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it our problem? I don't pay anything to access the ODNB, it's freely available to anyone who joins Manchester libraries.  As for the purpose behind citing a modern source as opposed to an antique source, well... Parrot of Doom 09:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is "our" problem because we do not all live in a place that has access to the ODNB, but if we can see this article on-line then we have access to the DNB. I have just had a discussion on another page were the ODNB, is the better source because there is a mistake in the DNB which is corrected in the ODNB, so obviously the ODNB is better for that purpose, but in the example I have given above how is the ONDB superior to the DNB as a means of verifying the facts in this article? -- PBS (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is most certainly not our problem; in fact it's not even a problem at all. What's next? We're not allowed to use books as sources unless they have a Google preview? Have you ever heard of those institutions called libraries? The DNB's interest is in its snapshot of what was believed to be true at the beginning of the 20th century, nothing more than that and irrelevant here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCEACCESS there's no requirement that sources be accessible to everyone, and I agree that a 2004 source is preferable to a 1900 source even if the two say the exact same thing (I haven't checked that they do or not, although I have access to both - and I'm not in the UK either). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see further up the section. I have provided relevant snippets from both DNB and ONDB from one of the citations. -- PBS (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the DNB is certainly more...colourful. While I don't see any outright contradictions, the information (and its presentation) is slightly different, and even where it is similar I would privilege the more recent source - as would most academic articles on the subject. I don't agree with your assertion that "as the newer source is restricted it offsets its advantage of being newer", but you're welcome to believe that; however, based on the opinions expressed here consensus seems to be against you in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What I find revealing here is that we have yet another administrator who is quite clearly unaware of even the basics of building an article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless that is meant to be a personal attack I think you mean "...who I think is quite..." -- PBS (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a statement of fact; I mean you. Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a novel suggestion that editors are to be expected to pore through different sources to find the least inaccurate online one! Not a good idea, but I'll say no more. Johnbod (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest raising this sourcing discussion at WP:RSN, and resisting the urge to personalize it. I will try to think more about the actual content dispute overnight. --John (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no content dispute. In a nutshell the disagreement is whether the (undisputed) content is better sourced to a freely available 111-year-old publication or to its more modern version, which some readers may not be able to access online without paying a subscription. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the summary, I have amended my post in light of it. I suggest bringing the sourcing debate (on which I have as yet formed no opinion) to a central location. I can do it if you like, but I am quite busy so it may take a few hours. --John (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My comment was solicited at WP:RS/N by a general call. Read the best source.  Use the best source.  Cite the best source.  In this case: use and cite the modern source.  Only where sources are of equal quality is there a presumption that free speech, free beer, Full Text Online sources ought to be used over closed, pay walled, offline sources.  In this case there is a 111 year quality difference. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The print date is not a measure of quality, and as the works are not contradictory in this situation—the two entries just have different authors and editors—that is only one consideration. The ODNB has the advantage of a modern style, but the DNB content is able to be verified by anyone able to access this article (at our library). The accessibility of a source to everyone is an important consideration, a fine quality to possess when articles are being built by anyone. cygnis insignis 07:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliance on 111-year-old sources when there are more up-to-date alternatives just makes the project look ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 08:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an immoderate comment, and also out of line with the actual content of the DNB and ODNB. For example, the DNB often gives a list of publications of an author, while the ODNB as a matter of policy dropped the very detailed bibliographical work. The same sort of phenomenon can often be seen with family information, where the DNB may give more. Depending on the situation citing either or both sources in an article may be advantageous. It is known that there are cases where the ODNB has wrongly disambiguated what is found in the DNB. It does help to know what exactly is involved here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing an older source where a newer one exists, and that's that. Accessibility to sources is not my concern. Parrot of Doom 17:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has asked you too, but would you object if someone changed the citation and/or added the DNB? -- PBS (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Archives
It is out of order to remove the old Archives and start again because the Archive 1 was created by moving and contains the history of the edits. This should have been discussed before the page was deleted. Unless anyone objects I intend to restore it. In the mean time to stop any further mess I have commented out clue bot. -- PBS (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked Nev1 to delete the lot, so Cluebot could begin with a fresh sheet. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've merged the history of archive 1 with that of this talk page so the bot can do its job. Archive 2 was created by copying and pasting rather than moving a page. Should that sort things? Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Something to look out for next time you do this:-) As a general rule I do not think that this needs or should be done as pages like this do not generate so much talk that they need bots to archive them. But it is not something worth arguing over. -- PBS (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So why are you arguing over it then? Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the bot has ignored most of the oldest talk due to the lack of proper timestamps. Does anyone mind if I do this over again after properly timestamping the old posts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)