The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [1].

---

Hanged, drawn and quartered[edit]

Hanged, drawn and quartered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Hanged, drawn and quartered/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being hanged, drawn and quartered was possibly the most grisly punishment that medieval—and well into the 18th century—England had to offer. It was used on men considered by the state to be guilty of high treason, and basically involved being dragged at the back of a horse from the prison to the scaffold, hanged for a short while, then laid out (while still concious) on a table, to have your guts pulled out in front of you and burnt on a fire as you watched. Often your genitals would be on the same fire. All this was before you were beheaded, and then chopped into four bloody pieces, to be nailed to the walls of wherever it was thought you had conspired against your monarch.

There's been some dispute and edit warring on this article of late, but not recently. All such arguments seem to have been resolved, and the article is now fairly quiet. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be submitting a review later on today (PST).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is. I list some prose concerns below, but I am concerned about comprehensiveness. What this seems to be is a well-written prose list of a series of events, with little context to help the reader. For example, legislation just sort of happens. Were there protest movements? Efforts at reform? Bitter opposition in the Lords to the idea of changing one jot or tittle? For example, the 1817 executions mentioned were the source of considerable discussion, Shelley wrote a work suggesting that the deaths were a greater tragedy than the death of the Prince Regent's daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales. Did he have anything to say about the method of execution? I don't know. It seems to me that a bit more context is needed to be truly comprehensive.

Can I ask if the nominator intends to respond or act on my above concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've been away working. Am back now and will respond when convenient. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey, I've made a few additions comprising mostly small expansions of the reasons for the introductions of the various Treason Acts. I'm keen not to head off on a tangent. I'd like to add a little more on the move away from punishment of the body, to removal of the individual's rights, but I haven't yet found a good source to do so. Will keep looking. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also moved the section of text discussed below, into the notes. Parrot of Doom 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but can you do something on the reasons for abolition? The Georgian era, everything was in the newspapers or pamphleted, there's got to be something?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gradual move from punishing the body, to punishing the individual (or removing his rights). I've read as much in a few places, but it'll take a bit of work to summarise it. I'll sort it out. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but come on, its end came by 19th century legislative action. I'm not just smoking something here (as if) in researching Ashford v Thornton, I found a fair amount of discussion of the legislative attempts to abolish trial by battle, and the eventual success. I really can't believe that hd&q would be any less the subject of writings and Parliamentary discussion. The tension between the tradition of these medieval hangovers and the "modern" penological approach was not an easy thing. Please do your best.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this sentence was the subject of a great deal of hand-wringing, mainly it was caught up in the drive to put an end to punishing an individual's body (rather than removing his freedoms) and also reducing the number of capital offences on the UK's statute books (ie hanging a man for stealing 5 shillings). I've added some context to the lessening of the penalty for treason but in truth if I added much more than I just have, I'd be crossing the line into Capital punishment in the United Kingdom, and I'd rather limit the article mainly to this particularly gruesome sentence. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I won't push you over the edge on this one. Been there myself. I'll look at the article again in the next day or two and either give my opinion or further comments. Did the act which passed the abolition also do other things? That is where it may differ from trial by battle, which was put an end to by a two-paragraph act which only addressed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Forfeiture Act (amongst other things like forcing convicts to pay for the damage they'd caused) basically ended the practice of "corruption of blood", whereby anyone guilty of treason would be stripped of their lands, property, title, etc, without chance of regaining them. Part of it is still in force I believe, traitors can't hold public office in the UK, or vote in certain elections. Basically, if you were found a traitor under this Act, you were either hanged or beheaded, and your "stuff" was no longer confiscated by the state. Drawing, quartering and the rest, was removed from the statute books. I thought to add a bit on attainder but again, it would be straying from the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) BTW, can you ascertain who the person referred to here is? If a future MP was sentenced to receive that punishment, and went on to become an MP instead, that seems very useful in the article. I gather from context the guy was Irish.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably William Smith O'Brien. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• The dates of the reigns of the two listed English monarchs may not be well-remembered. Perhaps put years in parens?

Done.

• "Although some convicts had their sentences commuted and suffered a less ignominious end" Is being hung instead (without all the trimmings) considered a commutation of sentence? I can imagine the plea bargaining. Perhaps another word instead of commuted?

I believe commuted works here, it is in effect a reduction of the penalty for high treason. I'm not particularly attached to the word though.

Perhaps "modified"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "downgraded" this seems rather a matter of opinion. I would accept, however, the word of anyone who has undergone both procedures. :)

I've changed to "changed", its a little less contentious I think.

Treason in England

• " by his justices' somewhat over-zealous interpretation of what activities constituted treason". Again, this seems a bit opiniony, especially since you don't tell us what the judges did. Did the King or his chancellor intervene?

I will look at this to see what I can add to clarify the point.

Execution of the sentence

• I'm uncomfortable with the several "may have"'s in this section. Who is doing the speculating?

Bellamy. Unfortunately most history is speculation, he is just a little more honest about it than other authors.

• "the sheer terror felt by those who thought they might be disembowelled rather than simply beheaded as they would normally expect" Does this have to do with the uncertainty of what "drawn" meant? I would not expect that people at that time were in any doubt.

No. The fear was that if one didn't perform as expected at the execution, one might be treated much more cruelly than his station would deserve. I don't believe there's much ambiguity about the meaning of the word "drawn", its clearly the practice of drawing to execution.

• " Conversely, some, such as the deeply unpopular William Hacket, were cut down instantly and taken to be disembowelled and normally emasculated" Perhaps "were" before "normally"
• The discussion in the next to last paragraph of the meaning of the execution by modern authorities seems a bit out of place.

I'm not sure exactly what section you're referring to here, could you expand? Parrot of Doom 11:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Execution of the sentence", the next-to-last paragraph, from the mention of Kastenbaum to the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean. Let me have a think about that. Parrot of Doom 12:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you want me to revisit the article, I do not watchlist FACs I am not a nominee on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think what to do with this, other than shuffle the entire paragraph off to the notes section. It won't fit anywhere else, but I think it contains valuable information that needs to stay. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a brief subsection, just for the material I mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would break up that section a little too harshly. I'm favouring placing it into the notes section. If nobody else chips in, I'll do that in a few days. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the best solution, and I don't see it as a drawback, on some of my Nixon articles, a fair amount of content is in the notes, for example United States Senate election in California, 1950--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: In general, an impressive array of scholarly sources (though it's bizarre to see the name of Jeremy Beadle in this company). A few minor points:-

• I believe I'm right in thinking that access to the OED can be done through libraries, as per ODNB, so the access information should be the same. I'm not sure that the link on "draw" goes to the best page, either
• Naish is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography
• Publisher location missing from Fielden (2009)
  • All fixed except the last, I have been unable to track down a publisher location for Fielden. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources and citations look fine. As virtually all the online sources are subscription-based, meaningful spotchecking has not been possible. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 5#How about DNB as a source instead of ODNB? -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The title seems a bit odd, to me. "Hanged, drawn and quartered" - AIUI, the usual style for pagenames would have it at Hanging, drawing and quartering. I've skimmed the talkpage, which has several discussions on "hung" versus "hanged", but doesn't seem to address this; there was apparently a pagemove dispute many years ago, but no discussion seems to have survived. Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is basically about the sentence and its carrying out - traitors were almost always told they would be "hanged, drawn and quartered" (or variations thereof). Most quality sources do the same. Parrot of Doom 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:Traitors_heads_on_old_london_bridge.jpg - if the artist is unknown, ((PD-Art|PD-UK-unknown)) is probably a better licensing option; same with the other unknown-artist images
• File:Jeremiah_Brandreths_head.jpg - source gives author name as "Neele"

Other than that, images look fine, all public domain due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion I think this is a very good article and I realize that what I am going to suggest is a rather big change but it seems rather specific to England eventhough other countries, including the US had such policies at some point. I think it should include a section other countries policies and laws pertaining to Hanging, drawing and quertering. I also notice that there are a lot of red links and I suggest perhaps replacing one of the red links with William Wallace. I believe he is a much more well known figure than many mentioned in the article. I also notice that there is no mention of this form of punishments nickname The Four Horrors and I recommend this be included as well. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention that the sentence was used in British colonies in North America, but I do not believe it was used in any other country but Britain. Other countries' punishments may have been similar, but nothing more. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting article. Here are a few comments:

• "a-quarter-inge" – you quoted it, but what does it mean?
  • I think it'll be fairly obvious to most readers that he was watching his friend being quartered.
    • I figured it meant quartering, but I'm not familiar with older styles of English. The first time through, I thought it might have meant something in addition to quartering. But then again, I was terribly tired when I did the review, so I'll let this pass. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Good Jesu, what will you do with my heart?". – Typo, I'm assuming? Also, the period is not needed at the end.
  • Not a typo, but I've removed the full stop.
• The lead could be a bit longer. Information about political corruption and other trends might merit a summary there. Also "quartered" is defined, but "drawn" is not. I find this a bit odd, especially since "drawn" is the only word whose meaning is disputed. In other words, this should be briefly mentioned in the lead as well. Other topics that could be summarized are public reactions and popular cases. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've often thought about expanding the lead but in truth, I don't think it's necessary, or even possible (to do the article justice). I think this is one of those articles whose subject matter is so gruesome that the basic introduction will draw them in regardless. I've changed "dragged" in the lead to "drawn", that will settle the argument on the meaning of drawn (which I'm fairly certain describes only the transport, drawn has little to do with evisceration). Parrot of Doom 09:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still torn on this one. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is more than just an introduction to the article, but also a "summary of its most important aspects." I feel that some of the political history is missing: the discussion of "treason" and the Treason Act, the punishment's use as a political tool and how that gradually brought changes to the judicial system and the use of the punishment, etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection you're probably right and so I'll have a look to see what I think can be added. I'm very keen not to stray too far away from the punishment itself, as it's that which people will find most interesting.
        • I've noticed the lead expansion you've done so far. The only thing that I think merits a one- or two-sentence mention is the evolution of the sentence: again, it's use as a political tool and the repercussions. I really don't think that will draw attention away from the topic, but highlight how the perception of it changed over time. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The trouble is by adding into the article the use of the sentence as a political hammer, particularly during Tudor England when that was most the case, you'd be straying more into High treason in the United Kingdom. That isn't what this article is about. The article is primarily a detailed account of the use of this sentence, discussion of treason and treason Acts exist merely to provide some context. Parrot of Doom 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Upon further review, I think the lead should be sufficient. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Further reading" – I just read WP:FURTHER, and honestly, it didn't clear something up for me. Personally, I've never used a "Further reading" section, and I wonder if it implies that the article is not comprehensive. What kind of details are included in these books? Is there a reason why they weren't cited as sources? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use further reading simply as a list of sources I've found that have something interesting to say, but which I didn't include in the article. There's a wealth of material on this subject and not all of it can be included. Parrot of Doom 17:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the books in there I've now used in the article, and given there's only two rather iffy books left, I've hidden the lot. I may unhide it if I find more interesting material. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I don't have access to these books, would you please share the general details of what they cover? Do they only provide a summary of specific cases? Would they be an appropriate source for a sub-article? I'm not trying to beleaguer the point, but I do want to ensure the article is comprehensive. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope you'll excuse me when I say no. It isn't really for me to start answering such questions, I've done the hard work in developing the article to the point it is now at. If reviewers want to ensure the article is comprehensive then they should be prepared to do their own research. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked back, and I didn't realize you had links to the sources. I could only search a sample of one of the texts, and pulled up nothing. But in "Old-Time Punishments", I found interesting information about Lord Coke terming it "'godly butchery,' on account of the divine authority." It also says, "It is stated that this kind of punishment was first inflicted in the year 1241, on William Marise, pirate, and the son of a nobleman." These two bits might be worth including. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • William Marise is another name for William de Marisco (of Lundy Island fame), who is mentioned. I've no objection if you want to unhide that section. I was a little terse in my earlier reply, just tiredness I guess, sorry about that. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't worry about it. FACs are stressful, and it's easy to misunderstand someone's tone. I wouldn't unhide the section, but possibly bring that one book back as a reference. You don't appear to mention William Marise/William de Marisco's date of execution, which this source provides. (After all, this is the first recorded instance of it.) Otherwise, is it worthwhile to mention Lord Coke's justification of the practice briefly? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Marisco's death is given as 1242, IIRC this comes from Matthew Paris's account. There seems to be some confusion (understandable given the age) but Marisco seems to have sent an unnamed assassin to kill the king, that assassin was captured and drawn, hanged, beheaded and quartered. Marisco fled to to Lundy Island and engaged in piracy before he was caught and executed. Coke's quote sounds interesting but truth be told I've found little to explain it other than guessing that its somehow related to the divine right of monarchs to rule. Parrot of Doom 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I remember that now... sorry. But what about Lord Coke? Does his justifications of it merit a brief mention? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not sure how I can answer the question about Coke as I don't know in what context he was writing/talking. There's another Coke quote in the article regarding corruption of blood (attainder) but that came from Bellamy, who is an expert on the subject, someone whose choice of quotes I think I can trust implicitly. The phrase "godly butchery" appears rarely in a casual book search. Maybe it comes from the same primary source as the "corruption of blood" quote, I don't yet know. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It was on page 201, I believe. Apparently Coke used passages from the Bible to justify the punishment, which the author of the book questioned. Anyway, if you prefer to work from the original source, then I guess this will have to do. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead sentence sounds a little funny. How about: "To be hanged, drawn and quartered was a penalty in England for men convicted of high treason as defined by the Treason Act of 1351, although the ritual was first recorded during the reigns of King Henry III (1216–1272) and his successor, Edward I (1272–1307)." – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's slightly too vague for my liking as it ignores later Acts that modified the 1351 Act. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the tense issue, but my point was that "from 1351" immediately following "was" sounds a little awkward. It's not the end of the world. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am just about to add my support. However, I found one typo: "As as happened with Edward Despard..." If I find more, I'll post back. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thanks. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: On a second read-through, I'm fairly content with this article. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've had this on my watchlist for some time. I think the prose is there, and from my lay perspective, it's a comprehensive, navigable article. ceranthor 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article does not use standard WP:APPENDIX layout. The TOC is way under developed. At the moment if I want see what the arrangements at any particular time I have to read the article down to the paragraph I am interested in. Without more sections it makes it difficult to link from other articles to specific information. For example we have an article about the Interregnum. There were various acts of Parliament passed during that period that makes it unique. There is also the question of why it was that during and after some civil wars the men in open rebellion were treated as POWs while in others they were treated as traitors and HDQed, This issue is not touched upon. There are problems with the section headings. The article covers at least three constitutionally different periods but all we have at the moment are "Treason in England" and "Later history" and Later history seems to be arbitrary why not make the cut at 1707 and the act of Union? There is no section on the "Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland" or of "Great Britain". Whether people executed this way were or are martyred is a matter of opinion, and that POV is not touched upon. The use of the word Catholic without putting qualifying it with Roman is a POV (Anglicans consider themselves to be members of the catholic church). There are inconsistencies in the article over the use of phrases like "After their sentencing malefactors" and "Another victim of the Popish plot," To know why one lot were malefactors and other victim one has to have a much better understanding of the period than can be expected of an average reader of this article and hence could be seen as as presenting a Catholic POV. There are other parts that present a converse view for example "Many Jesuit priests suffered badly at the hands of their captors but were frequently the most defiant; conversely, those of a higher station were often the most apologetic" What does "higher station" mean? "Several captured Jacobite officers involved in the Jacobite Rising of 1745 were executed" under which act an English one or a Scottish one? There is a lot on the treason side missing. For example there is no mention of the several treason acts passed during the Interregnum, or about how they effected Restoration treason acts that had a direct effect on who could be HDQ. There are issue with sources in the article for example there is a sentence about "British colonies in the Americas" yet the source that is used to cover those definitive statements is "Going down hill: legacies of the American Revolutionary War" which will limit the scope both in time and in geographic location. There is a lot more like this that I could mention but which makes me think that this article is underdeveloped and so should not be promoted to feature article. Normally whether this article was a featured article or not this would not be a particular pertinent issue for improving the article through cooperative editing, but as was alluded to in the comment at the start of the Fac "There's been some dispute and edit warring on this article of late, but not recently. All such arguments seem to have been resolved, and the article is now fairly quiet." This was a storm in a tea cup, where many editors objected to the use of an unreliable source in the article. In the end the quoted unreliable source was removed (and I think that the article was improved on its removal). The storm I think shows an ownership problem with this article which I don't think has gone away see for example the comment "I don't think I've ever seen any casual reader ever complain on any article I've authored ...". I think that if this article in its current state was to be awarded a Featured Article Status then improving the article through cooperative edit in would be impaired. -- PBS (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many errors written above to which I should respond, but I am sick and tired of people using the "ownership" tarring brush whenever they've been unable to get their way and so I'll not bother. If PBS has an issue with how I edit articles then he can either do something about it or redact his offensive comments. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the ownership issue comes up here on this page. I fully expect someone else to comment here after my diatribe and this comment but to date on this page although lots of people have asked questions only one person has replied to date. I would usually expect more than just the nominator to answer and fix issued raised. On the article page about ~80% of the last 100 edits have been made by one editor with a further 8% by one editor. Close on 400 out of the last 500 edits have been carried out by the same editor which probably the same percentage as last time. -- PBS (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What should that mean to us? It is not unusual for one person to have put in the bulk of the work on an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion relocated to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt when you write "us" who do you mean? -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, having only the nominator(s) reply to reviewer concerns here is common FAC practice - several other FACs currently on the page do the same. Also, I would suggest taking meta-commentary not specifically related to the criteria to either the talk page of this review or article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having the only the nominator reply is probably something that should not be encouraged, I think it better if more people are involved. Be that as it may, I have bought up a lot of points above, some of which I would normally be involved in fixing ... I wait with interest to hear what the nominator has to say. -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title issue that I raised on the talk needs to be revisited (and the lead fixed accordingly, which I recently did but was reverted). Per the naming conventions and by analogy with hanging, the title should be a noun form, hanging, drawing and quartering, not the current verb form. I have no idea why it was moved from that form in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I still don't think my concerns about advocacy of and reaction to the abolition have been fully addressed yet. As this article is not in a position to be promoted yet, there is time to do so, but I figured I'd post a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To UKexpat) I don't think there is an issue. I think you may be confusing the practice of hanging with the sentence of hanged. This article is about the sentence, and in just about every reliable source there is, it is referred to as "hanged, drawn and quartered". Parrot of Doom 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's about the sentence, I can read thank you. Take a look at hanging, by your logic it should be hanged. For that matter, take a look at any of the methods set out at Template:Capital punishment, they are all noun forms, not verb forms, similarly the sentence is "death", not "dying", again a noun form. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To Wehwalt) I will have a look again to see what I can do to address that concern. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added as much as I think I'm able to. I've found little which suggests that the abolition of HD&Q happened separately from the general softening of England's laws on capital punishment. I've looked right through Hansard and found next to no debate on the subject. I think if anyone can be credited with its abolition, it would be Charles Forster, but again I've found nothing which suggests that he was driven exclusively to doing away with the sentence, his motivation was ending the practice of forfeiture. Amending the law to end HD&Q seems to have been something tacked onto the end of his Felony Bill, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think that ukexpat is mistaken in insisting that this article title be changed to "Hanging, drawing and quartering" to match the title of the Hanging article, because these are two quite different kinds of articles. The Hanging article is rather technical, focusing on the various methods employed over the years (short drop vs. long drop for instance), whereas this one focuses more on the legal, social, and historical background of the sentence. Plus, the sentence as passed by a judge would have used the past tense as here, just as the statutory form of words used in the English courts did until capital punishment for murder was abolished: "... you will be taken hence to the prison in which you were last confined and from there to a place of execution where you will be hanged [my emphasis] by the neck until you are dead and thereafter your body buried within the precincts of the prison and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul". Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. P of D has done his best to act on my requests. The fact that there is no material out there is not his fault. The article meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit more that might be said about the abolition of capital punishment generally (for instance, there was until the 1860s a Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment), but I'll have to think on including it. I believe that really belongs in another article. Parrot of Doom 09:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Suggest adding "in 1326" and "1470s" to the picture caption - the reader should not have to click through to the articles to both discover when the event depicted took place, nor that this is a depiction made more than a century after the event.
  • I hadn't even thought about it but such a style would require that I do the same to the other images in the article and I cannot supply dates for all.
    • You mention the other pictures: it did strike me as strange that the 1648 picture had a long in-article caption compared to the other images. It gave me the impression that this caption was written by someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That image has a long name, and is really two images in one pane. That's about the strength of it really. Parrot of Doom 13:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Objection struck, given changes made to other image captions, and I can accept that the lead image can have a less precise caption. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "hurdle" - had to click this and that felt like I was being distracted and drawn away from this article.
  • Well, that's why we have blue links.
    • I may be cherry-picking, but WP:LINK says:

      Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with a very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence [...]. Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.

      What I would personally do here is link hurdle from where it is first mentioned in the main text of the article, but omit it from the lead section as unnecessarily distracting - I feel rather strongly that readers should be able to skim the lead section and understand it without having to 'chase links'. More to the point, though, the article linked to only mentions the use in executions in passing, hence my describing it as a 'distracting' link. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The alternative word to use is "sled" or "sledge" but that I think applies mainly to more recent uses of the sentence. Omitting it altogether suggests that they were dragged along the ground, which didn't happen often as they'd often be dead by the time they arrived. I've linked hurdle in the body and modified the lead a little. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That does help, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "during a long period of 19th-century legal reform the penalty of hanging, drawing and quartering was changed"
  • Good point, done.
• "Treason during the High Middle Ages was punished in a variety of ways which included drawing and hanging" - when was the practice of drawing started? We have no article on it, so mentioning it here would be logical.
  • I've no idea when it started, I don't think anyone else does either. One might as well ask when hanging began.
• "The 13th-century English chronicler Matthew Paris"
  • Done.
• "armiger literatus" - totally opaque - needs explanation.
  • Someone else is going to have to do that. The closest explanation I've found is "assassin" but I'm not confident of it enough to explain further.
    • Have you tried to find someone else able to do this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. I've had a hell of a fight getting the article this far, it seems of late that people (not you) on Wikipedia mostly choose to criticise rather than help :/ Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I managed to find a bit more on this, and have clarified things somewhat. Parrot of Doom 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1242 De Marisco was himself sentenced to be drawn, hanged, disembowelled and quartered." - was the sentence carried out?
  • I don't know, and the sources aren't unanimous on this. Some say he was sentenced in 1242, some say he was killed in 1242.
    • My point is that you don't say he died, you only say he was sentenced. You leave open the possibility that the sentence was not carried out. Is that what you intended here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No he definitely died, I just can't be certain exactly when. The details are in Matthew Paris's chronicles but different sources based on those seem to disagree on when he died. I've therefore left it ambiguous. Better to say nothing than say something that's wrong, I think. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe add "though the exact details are uncertain"? Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "during Edward I's reign" - is it worth saying when he reigned, or are you expecting the reader to click through to the article if they want to find out this information? FWIW, the dates of the reigns are given in the lead but not down here in the article. Also, at the moment it is not entirely clear that the two examples of Dafydd ap Gruffydd and William Wallace are from Edward I's reign. Also, you say Wallace is Scottish, but fail to mention that Dafydd ap Gruffydd is Welsh (this will not be obvious to all readers).
  • Personally I don't think its that important to add the years a monarch reigned, since the approximate year is implied already by the date of execution. I'm wary of adding too much information to already strained prose. I added the years to the lead at someone else's suggestion, but I could live without them.
    • And the Welsh/Scottish bit I mentioned? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah I missed that, I've added Welshman to the text. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle and Hugh Despenser the Younger" - give years here? Or at the least say that you have now moved on from the time of Edward I to the time of Edward II.
  • I've added Edward II to clarify, but for the above reasons I don't think its helpful to add dates here.
• Why is the bit about the American colonies (1607 onwards, with examples from 1630) put in the section on "Treason in England" and immediately after a discussion of the Treason Act 1351? This is a jump in time of nearly 200 years and across the Atlantic. It jarred immensely when I was reading this - I had to mentally adjust from 14th-century England to 17th-century North America.
  • I think its the best place to put it, since this section deals with the first Act, and not the sentence. I could have placed it into the Later History section but then I'd have to explain why I didn't mention it before then.
    • Fair enough, though a segue of sorts would make this less jarring. Something to tell the reader that you are changing the subject to overseas territories, and explaining why you fail to mention other overseas territories. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (dropping this point)[reply]
• In the next paragraph, you jump back to 1552. It feels like you are jumping around in time a bit here. And the intent of the section title "Treason in England" is not clear. Some readers will be expecting future sections on treason elsewhere. Maybe you mean "History of treason in England" or "Legal history", as that is more what this section reads like.
  • I don't see a problem with "jumping around in time". I know for some readers a rough list of executions in chronological order would make more sense but I prefer to read something that deconstructs the history of this practice, and for that, a little leeway is required in how things are presented. I'm not getting into "History of treason in England" because this article isn't a history of treason, it's a history of the sentence for high treason. The "Treason in England" exists to provide context, nothing more.
    • Sure, but if you are going to jump around in time, you should be giving dates. I'll expand on that later. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It also feels like the legal history goes on a bit too much. It feels like a history of the Treason Acts, which may be relevant here, but the following two sections felt much more relevant to the article.
  • People should understand why this gruesome punishment was used, and in what context. And believe me, there is a lot more I could have included, specifically from Tudor England, on the history of Treason Acts, that I didn't.
    • See what I said below. It is a matter of separating the why from the how, or merging them together in a better way. It would be quite possible to have a section of the article on the legal and parliamentary history relating to this penalty, and to keep that separate from the political and cultural history surrounding each specific sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Dropping this point as well.[reply]
• It is also not clear that not everyone convicted of high treason was executed this way. It should be said explicitly that this was one of a number of sentencing options available, and briefly what other options there were, and why this option was chosen instead of other options (or rather, that sometimes the sentence was commuted, I think is the technical term).
  • Can you provide a few examples of people sentenced under the 1351 Act who were treated more leniently, then I can add that to the article to clarify? Parrot of Doom 09:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You give one example already: Edward Despard. But that is not the one I was thinking of. Will try and remember what I meant here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was still sentenced to be HD&Q though, no matter how lenient the executioner was. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped this, as I'm still not sure what I meant here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In footnote three (nb3), it is not clear who you are quoting. There are hints in the citation, but that needs to be brought forward into the text of the footnote, just as you would when quoting a chunk of text like this in the article proper.
  • Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
• In the "Execution of the sentence" section, you give lots of examples, but are jumping around in time a lot. Anyone wanting to get a sense of *when* these events took place has to click through to articles each time and that get boring very quickly. If you don't have a sense of when these events took place, it quickly just becomes a list with little context.
  • I completely disagree for reasons already stated above.
    • This seems the appropriate point to expand on what I mean here. What I see in this article is an inconsistent approach to giving historical and date context to the events. In the lead you give the years 1351, the regnal dates from the 13th century, and then you say "19th-century" and 1870 and 1998, but you don't give a date for the execution of King Charles I nor do you specify over what time period the Catholic priests were executed at Tyburn (all at once or over several years?). I looked further down in the article to see if you say more on the Catholic priests, but found only scattered mentions and no summary. In the main body of the article, you date the following executions: 1238, 1242, 1283, 1305, 1630 (Virginia) But fail to give a year for the following: Andrew Harclay (1323), Hugh Despenser (1326), Maryland execution date left unspecified, Thomas Prichard (article does not give death date), William Perkins incident (16th century), William Dean (1588), Edmund Gennings (1591), Thomas Ford (1582), John Finch (1584), Edward James and Ralph Crockett (1588, slight context given by mention of Queen Elizabeth), John Payne (1582), William Hacket (no article), Thomas Harrison (1660), John Houghton (1535), Richard White (1584), Thomas Armstrong (1684), and then some slight context by mentioning Charles I. You then start using years again, saying "In 1566 Joseph Justus Scaliger" and "in 1602 the Duke of Stettin" and "William Staley [...] in 1678". So essentially the entire "Execution of the sentence" section completely lacks years. If you insist on this, may I suggest you add a note saying "The following is an overview of how the sentence was carried out - for details of the years these sentences were carried out, see List of people hanged, drawn and quartered" or even "see the following section". The contrast with the 'Later history' section is marked. In that section, you have 1681, Jacobite Rising of 1745, 1781, the following year, but fail to give a year for Edward Despard (1803); then it is back to giving years: 1726, 1789, 1779, 1786. After a brief discourse on legal history, we are back to the examples: 1817, 1820, 1839. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok I see what you mean, I'll take a look and see what I can do. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought what you were aiming at was turning the article into some kind of chronological list which is why I initially objected, but adding dates to the article is an easy thing to do and a definite improvement, so I've done it. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In footnote 5 (nb5) it should say "Harrison's" not "Thomas's". And similarly, in footnote 6 (nb6) should it be "Hugh" or "Despenser" in the phrase "Hugh's corpse"?
  • Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
• Saying "the image on the right" fails those with screenreaders and also risks being nonsensical in some layouts. There should be guidance written (if none exists) on how to properly refer readers to images. In book, readers are referred to "figure X". It is a pity we can't do that.
  • A pity indeed. There are many aspects of Wiki code which I feel are lacking, however, I've looked at the article in a range of resolutions and the image remains to the right of the text.
    • You could say "See Figure 1" and put "Figure 1" in the caption for the image, and then those with screenreaders will know how to jump to the image you are referring to. My point about screenreaders is that "on the right" is useless. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sounds a little to me like the discussion on alt text, and we know how that turned out. I think its fine as it is. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leaving unresolved, but it may come up again in future. Accessibility shouldn't be given lip service because the alt text situation deteriorated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote 6 (nb6) is fascinating. Is there a reason this material has been relegated to a footnote, rather than expounded upon in the article proper?
  • See above comments by Whewalt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
    • Personally, I think that where you have extensive commentary by historians on particular cases, that should be the meat of this article, not shuffled off to the footnotes. At the least, you should ensure that the material is present in the articles on the people executed, as that is the perfect sort of material to put there. Struck for now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "oppugned" - difficult word, should be explained or linked somehow, IMO.
  • I am wholly opposed to the linking of uncommon English words. The English language is a wonderful thing and it does people no harm to investigate words they don't initially understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
    • Good response! Try using it in conversation one day... Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "decollated" - it is not clear that this means to remove the head.
  • The first two uses of the word in the OED make it perfectly clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)
    • I tend not to assume that everyone has a copy of the OED (is it available online?). Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes its online, but its safe to say that the word is a synonym for decapitation, beheading, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The end of the article reads too much like a history of capital punishment. If other articles ever get expanded, they will be better places for this material to go, and this one will need reorganising at that point.
  • See above comments by Whewalt. I can't please everyone. Parrot of Doom 09:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is rather than it only takes a very subtle rewriting to shift the emphasis slightly and focus more on the sentence (of HDQ) being covered here, rather than capital punishment in general. Just little mentions here and there in the text that remind the reader that you are talking about capital punishment in the context of HDQ, rather than the general history of capital punishment. The whole paragraph from "The reformation of the laws" to "127 votes to 23" fails to mention HDQ at all (unless the quote "extreme penalty" is a specific reference to HDQ?) An introductory line such as "Use of the penalty of HDQ was affected by the continuing 19th-century reforms on capital punishment. As part of these reforms, politicians such as..." is what I had in mind. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok again, let me have a think and see what I can do. Its unfortunate that most sources speak about capital punishment in general, and not HD&Q, so I've had to pull the whole thing together from all over't'place. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See what you think of these changes. It isn't perfect, ideally I'd like to say "ultimately HD&Qing was ended by the 19th-century reformation of England's capital punishment laws" since that's almost certainly what happened, I just haven't found out exactly why the 1870 Act contained that paragraph which renders it obselete. Someone put it there, I haven't found out who. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hopefully you can find a source that is more direct on the topic. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I enjoyed the article. Where it seemed to struggle most was in marrying the details of individual cases and the legal history. It feels in places like some accounts of individual cases have been merged with a rather brief overview of the legal history. Possibly stepping back and considering whether to treat the legal and parliamentary aspects separately from the history of the actual executions, might be worth considering. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - following the review above and the responses, I am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.