Jump to content

Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Hung v Hanged

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

Hanged is how it is described in most contemporary reports. Parrot of Doom 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The act of 'drawing' is to open the abdominal cavity and to to remove the internal organs, not, as described in the text, to draw by horse and cart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.165.31 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Maeve Jones

See Some problems with the article text and Jones 2007-2008

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

Have you brought anything new to the discussion? A reliable source that refutes her assertions? Parrot of Doom 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not the way it works, can you point to anyone apart from yourself who supports the inclusion of this source? -- PBS (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
"Not the way it works" - how does it work then? I tell you what, instead of nit-picking, why not try improving the article yourself. Or is that too much to ask? You can start by finding superior sources, I tried, my library was unable to get hold of them. Give it a go. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
For how it works see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V, and possibly WP:OWN. An undergraduate essay is not a reliable source. It may be usable for backing up a point in a paragraph if no other source is available when the same point in the undergraduate essay is backed up by a reliable source (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), but the text from such an essay should not be quoted as it is in the current article. -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah right, I'm looking for this consensus you're suggesting exists. I don't see it, but to be honest whenever people resort to quoting WP:OWN, I tend to turn off.
This is nothing but intellectual snobbery. Find something that refutes what she's written, then I'll pay you more attention. Parrot of Doom 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not intellectual snobbery it is to do with what is considered a reliable sources on Wikipedia. None of the editors of Wikiepdia are experts, so we are not qualified to judge if her views are notable or not. If she is not notable then her view may not be refuted or supported by other sources, which is why we do not use unreliable sources as we can not know if their views are mainstream or not (see WP:FRINGE). If her views are mainstream then it should be easy to find more reliable sources that support her, in which case those sources can be cited and quoted, otherwise if her views are not then they should not be quoted. Either way there is no reason to quote an undergraduate in a Wikipedia article. PBS (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how if you're not an expert you feel able say she also is not, and frankly I find your suggestion that no editors on Wikipedia are experts to be rather insulting. This author has been published by what seems to me to be a reputable source, her essay seems to be cited from a list of reliable source material. Why don't you try and get copies of those sources, as I've tried? Or is that too much hard work? As I said, intellectual snobbery. Parrot of Doom 21:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Parrot on the essay, assuming that the writer in question has used reputable sources. Having said that, I don't agree with the above charge that PBS is an intellectual snob: while I don't always agree with Philip's views on various issues, I have found him in the past to be open minded and reasonable. Inchiquin (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entire Jone's thesis. Its inclusion, in a topic subject to enormous academic research is ridiculous. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If this topic is "subject to enormous academic research" then surely you'll be able to quote some of that research, particularly sections which refute what Jones has to say? Until then I think its entirely appropriate for it to remain, and I have reverted your deletion of that section. Parrot of Doom 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No one "refutes" Jones - because no one cares. It's an original thesis, it has no place here.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
So your answer is "no, I can't refute any of it", which it follows must precede "I cannot prove she is not an expert, and is not therefore a reliable source". I suggest you read the publication, instead of judging its author. Parrot of Doom 00:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The onus is entirely and unquestionably upon you. It is you that must support inclusion and it is you that must show the presented source meets the Wikipedia standards found within WP:RS. Note that the relevant Wikipedia standard explicitly states that "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence... The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. " No evidence has been presented to support any such influence, nor has the claim even been made. The material must be removed until support, and consensus, for inclusion are found. Your one-person quixotic campaign to rewrite the accepted scholarship of the period here in this article is not acceptable according to this encyclopedia's standards.99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sick and tired of people presenting Wikipedia guidelines as though they're some kind of indisputable biblical text that must be obeyed no matter what. I've read Jones's essay, it seems well-researched and reliable enough to me. It's bizarre that on Wikipedia, the writings of a newspaper columnist on a subject with which he or she may be unfamiliar are often assumed to be perfectly reliable, and yet, the writings of a student who is very clearly versed in the subject matter, and who presents a list of sources which Wikipedia would certainly consider reliable, are not necessarily so.
That's why I've repeatedly asked people to actually read the material, instead of seeing the horrific word "student" and immediately assuming that students are incapable of possessing any sort of expertise on the matter. That you're unwilling to actually try and demonstrate that she is in any way incorrect is proof enough that there's some seriously lazy thinking going on.
Take it to whatever hallowed Wikipedia content dispute page you like, but I'm thoroughly sick and tired of people assuming the worst motives of those who try and improve articles. I will not allow you to simply remove content based on nothing but intellectual snobbery, and if that means someone has to block me, so be it. Parrot of Doom 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Your threat to insert the contentious material until blocked over any and all objection highlights one thing clearly - Your complete contempt for, and hostility towards, our guiding principles to source reliably and support inclusion by consensus. The material has been removed as per all the points raised by numerous editors here for months. You do not own this, or any article here. On that you may look up WP:OWN. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There are several things being highlighted here, WP:OWN is not one of them. Quote guidelines all you like, you may find WP:IAR of interest. As I've said before, this is intellectual snobbery, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 02:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You've said nothing - and have not presented any support for the inclusion. Reverse-intellectual snobbery is not a supportable basis. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you say. I've made my case, and I stand by it. Parrot of Doom 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you know that the views expressed by Jones are not novel and a minority view and as such are not being given undue weight in this article? -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Its a good question. How do we know the same of any author, on any other obscure subject? How do I know that on Dick Turpin, Derek Barlow didn't write a lot of nonsense? Or on Elizabeth Canning, Judith Moore didn't do the same? I don't take it for granted that just because an author has been published, everything written will be absolutely correct. I read what's been written and judge it on its own merits, and I've seen little to indicate that Jones's work is unreliable. That's why I've repeatedly asked people who object to its inclusion here to come up with some evidence that she's wrong. Why is nobody doing that? Parrot of Doom 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not the way it works. We do not "prove" she's wrong in order to remove her. We do not even attempt original research. What we do, according to all the most basic tenets of Wikipedia policy, is use reliable sources, verifiable through academic citations or notable peer reviewed publications. This is ridiculous, a single editor blocks the bridge and champions a novel thought uttered once by an undergraduate. It's an ignorant position to even put forth. The idea is not notable, it's unknown. The author is an unknown undergraduate. It fails every basic Wikipedia guideline and your intransigence is breathtakingly bold. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I see little point in debating the matter further with you. I will continue to revert your removal of this material until the matter is escalated for discussion elsewhere and a proper consensus formed, or until one of us is blocked. Parrot of Doom 11:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You've made no effort to discuss the matter with any off the numerous editors who over the last 6 months or so have opposed its inclusion. You have also failed to find a single editor to support you. It's inclusion is in violation of numerous wikipedia norms, it lacks consensus, it's original research, its not notable, its not peer reviewed, the author is not notable, the idea itself exists no where else in any literature. It's nonsense. You simply wear everyone down here in this dark corner of the encyclopedia - and then you crawl under the bridge and wait for the next poor soul who attempts to improve the article - only to drive the next one off, ad infinitum. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So I'm a liar and a troll. As I said, no point in trying to discuss the matter with you. Don't waste your breath. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious original research written by an undergraduate student in a school essay for a class, which found itself included in a student selected 'Best Student Essay' pamphlet. Numerous editors have opposed its inclusion - save for one single intransigent editor who seems to feel he owns the article. The mention has found a consensus OPPOSED to inclusion. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been placed under full protection for two weeks due to the ongoing edit war. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{edit protected}}

Delete entire section entitled "Robbing of honour". A clear consensus exists for the removal of the student essay. Its inclusion violates numerous Wikipedia guidelines, policy and even pillars.

  • It is not notable.
  • It is Original Research.
  • The concept is found nowhere else in scholarly writings.
  • It is not peer reviewed.
  • It lacks consensus, opposed by all but one solitary and intransigent editor.
  • It is not reliably sourced.
  • The author is an undergraduate, the paper a class essay later included in a student produced pamphlet prefaced by the decidedly not encyclopedic, "we have chosen twelve essays that best illustrate the academic talent and intellectual diversity of our fellow history students. I hope you enjoy reading their fascinating papers."

Its inclusion without consensus and in violation of the most basic Wikipedia principles is not proper. There is no basis on which to retain it at this time. Not a single one. Nothing supports inclusion in any way, shape or form. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined. The above request is an extension of the edit war the article has been protected to prevent. Warring through a proxy is still an edit war. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's always disappointing to see an Administrator decline to enforce basic Wikipedia principles. The proposed edit enjoys near universal consensus ~ except, of course, most famously our lone gatekeeper and seemingly self-appointed article owner. It's a simple matter. An undergraduate's unique idea from a class essay and it's inclusion opposed by consensus. You were given the choice to uphold consensus, remove contentious material, uphold the tenets of Reliable Source, Verifiability, Peer Review and Notability whilst at the same time maintaining our prohibitions against Original Research and limitations regarding Fringe. You chose to do nothing. Thoroughly embarrassing. What you have done though, while reinforcing in many a readers minds the negative stereotypes surrounding our encyclopedia, is left a bigger mess for someone else to mop up later. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Whichever version of the article was protected was going to leave someone unhappy. Perhaps you'll take this opportunity to expand on your position. Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is why the norm is for the locking Administrator to simply lock. You did not. You've made an edit changing the article's text for which you are solely responsible. It is you that have chosen for the encyclopedia to include an entire section promoting the fringe view of an undergraduate's classroom essay. All of your edit's, be they additions, subtractions or yes, even reverts, are your's. It has always been this way, at least since I began contributing in the summer of 2001, some likely 100,000+ edits ago, then as now, as an IP. You've sided, made a content edit, locked the article for all and now seemingly folded your arms over your mop while the bucket you placed in the center of the room obstructs. Smooth move there, Fred Astaire. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit, hacking the article's references in half and removing over 10kb of text, was an escalation of the edit war. I have neither endorsed nor condemned Jones' essay, which is the whole point of this edit war, but that edit removed a swathe of sourced information without explanation, and the edit summary of "expanded" was misleading at best. If you have been around Wikipedia since 2001 then you know that full protection is used to "force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page". Take that opportunity. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Your defense of your edits is disingenuous, you fail to recollect or mention that you reverted not one, but two separate and distinct edits. The one you do mention was ripe for removal, I felt this myself and should have not added it in the first place - but it's the one you fail to mention that I quibble with. That was an earlier edit you chose to revert at very the same moment and hid - one which simply applied the consensus found here on this page, discussed thoroughly, and which removed mention of the undergraduate student's class essay putting forth a fringe opinion not found anywhere in academia, literature or society in general.99.141.243.84 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
By escalating the dispute beyond the issue of Jones' essay, and using a false edit summary, you compromised your position. Hence I rolled back your edit. So are you going to discuss the issue of the article's content? Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
BS. I discuss, and numerous others have discussed, Jone's undergraduate classroom essay above on this page at length for quite some time now. I'm disgusted by this entire experience. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See above Maeve Jones and Some problems with the article text and Jones 2007-2008

She is not a recognised expert on the issue, the Maeve Jones quote should go, as should any text based on her opinions that are not supported by other reliable sources. (BTW 99.141.243.84 Maeve is usually a woman's name) -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many citations on this encyclopaedia to sources not written by "recognised expert(s)". I'd wager on FAs and GAs, at least several thousands. They generally pass without comment. If you read the Jones essay (it seems I'm one of the few that have) you'll see it has a long list of citations from sources which would pass here without comment. Her work is published by what I and others consider to be a reliable source. If this essay was featured elsewhere, for instance, a compendium of essays in a book sold by a publisher, nobody would bat an eyelid.
I've repeatedly asked people to point out exactly what it is she's written that's so objectionable. What is it that's incorrect, or unsubstantiated? Nobody has highlighted anything other than the fact that she's a student. Nothing. Despite my repeated requests to do so. Just one, tiny little problem, anything, that would cast doubt on the rest of her work. It should be simple. Once again, it's a fine piece of work cited to multiple reliable sources, so what's the problem, other than "A STUDENT OMFG WE CAN'T HAVE THAT HERE"? Parrot of Doom 12:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Our policies and guidelines are quite clear on this it has been pointed out to you above (WP:RS "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. ...").
I asked you "How do you know that the views expressed by Jones are not novel and a minority view and as such are not being given undue weight in this article? -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)"
You replied "Its a good question. How do we know the same of any author, on any other obscure subject?"
The answer is given in WP:RS in the bullet points that start
  • The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received ...
  • Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. ...
This is not even a Masters dissertation and so the level of proof that the views are not novel need to be shown more clearly than for a Masters dissertation. If the view are not novel then it should not be difficult to find more authoritative sources that make the same points. If they are novel then they should not be in this article. Either way it is not appropriate to quote, and base a section on the view of an undergraduate. You have been asked repeatedly to give further proof and instead of doing so have edit warred to keep your undergraduate essay in this article. It is making the article unstable because your stance is contrary to the policy and guidelines on verification. -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So once again we have the fallback position of "she's a student and therefore unreliable", without anyone actually reading the work. I'm sick of repeating myself. I wonder why, when this article was largely cited to unreliable sources (if at all) and in hilariously poor condition, did you not insist on the removal of uncited text? Don't answer that one, I already know why. Parrot of Doom 09:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a "fallback position". It's a pillar rule, the foundation of the project - we reference our content to reliably sourced material. A student's essay, expressing an idea found nowhere in academia, nor literature, written by an unknown undergraduate and appearing in a student produced "best essay's" pamphlet without even a teachers oversight - fails on every level. The second pillar, consensus - ensures it will be removed. The tragedy is the senseless disruption your quixotic campaign has had on participants time and patience. You've succeeded in wearing down numerous editors for months here, I don't know if it's your default M.O., but at this point you really should step aside and yield to clear and overwhelming consensus. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you're flattering yourself if you still think that by now I could care less about your opinion. I was replying to PBS, not you. Parrot of Doom 21:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Came here from AN/I. My first reaction is that PBS is correct and per WP:RS we cannot use a student essay as a source. We certainly can't have a section that starts "According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason...". I am going to read the essay now and will tell you if I change my mind. It might be best if folks could refrain from personalizing this discussion about sources. --John (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can also include her idea that Pepys was a trained anatomist. I realize that her concept of "honour killings", fleshly embodiment of being after death and Pepys training as an anatomist exist no where else in academia or literature - but now that she looks to be a Reliable Source and expert, if regrettably neither peer-reviewed nor even employed in the field, we should incorporate all of her new ideas. Perhaps we should also move to correct the obvious errors in that pesky WP:OR policy - and of course a new article for Robbing of Honour. We could be at the forefront of Wikipedia's push to become a research institute. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Very funny, 99.141.243.84. Sarcasm is always appreciated around here.
The sources for the essay include:
  • Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 47.
  • Richard Evans, Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany 1600- 1987 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 53.
These sound like good book sources that we could use to verify some of it, no? --John (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire section is only a recitation of an original idea from Jones, quoting Jones and directly from Jones. Is there any argument with which to support the sections inclusion? Any at all? It seems we agree that Jones has no place here - why then don't we remove, as per policy, the non-conforming prose? The current section is unsupportable.13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.243.84 (talk)

Let me guess - this is a stalling tactic, Parrot of Doom won't actually participate or even try to support inclusion of the student essay. He figures its in the article ,a nd locked. So he has no work to do until he begins to edit war again when the article is unlocked. No doubt at that exact moment he'll be reverting at lightening speed while dismissing all discussion with the back of his hand again and begging for blocks and locks. Ridiculous behavior, the section is indefensible-which is why no one tries to defend it.99.141.243.84 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've actually taken the trouble to read this student essay, which clearly some of those commenting above have not, and it was immediately clear to me that almost all of the material cited to Jones has been misattributed, and ought to be attributed to Kastenbaum. Problem solved? Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Robbing of Honour @ the WP:RSN

Find it here:Reliable Source Noticeboard Thank you for your time.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that was quick. It's not a Reliable Source.(1). As per the board.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This section definitely needs to be re-written to omit direct reference to the non-reliable student essay. I note that the essay contains several very good sources ... these might be usable to support some of the material. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying for a long time to get them, without success. Parrot of Doom 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone can help you with that. In the meantime lets not edit war to keep unreliable sources in the entry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:RSN#Undergraduate Student Essay that the Jones essay is NOT a reliable source, I am removing this section. If some of the material can be cited to other reliable sources, then some of material can be returned to the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The better approach in this case would be to remove the citation, not the section, as none of it seems very surprising or contentious, and then introduce higher quality sources. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The concept found in the section is unknown in academia or literature. It's found in the student's essay and in Kastenbaum's book. Note that in Kastenbaum's book he prefaces the idea with this clear and unequivocal statement:*"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." (pg 193-194)
The section's new and original idea is unfounded. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Robbing of Honour II" - the Kastenbaum ref.

We'll need to remove the Kastenbaum 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."

That's from the ref (pg 193-194), itself simply copied over without reading from the student essay - and it precedes the authors brief discussion of our subject here. It has no place in Wikipedia. (and I dare say it's use by the student should have failed the essay at the classroom level.) 72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I apologize for neglecting this. In my opinion we should remove the section (once protection expires) while we thrash out a good compromise here. There are some excellent suggestions from Nev1 and others at User talk:Parrot of Doom#WP:RSN. I suggest that discussion be carried on here rather than there. --John (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What has been suggested at User talk:Parrot of Doom#WP:RSN is not a compromise! It was what Joseph RoeTk wrote back on 25 August

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 RoeTk•Cb, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And what I wrote on 14 December:

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

To which came the reply:

... This is nothing but intellectual snobbery. Find something that refutes what she's written, then I'll pay you more attention. Parrot of Doom 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggested compromise is not a compromise it is following policy and guidelines and is what was suggested nearly half a year ago, I think it is a shame that it has taken so long and an edit war to get to this point! -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ego's a funny thing... —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from UTPoD)

I won't be performing further administrative actions on the article after accusations of bias, but at least I'm now allowed to have an opinion. Below is an analysis of where and how Jones is used and some suggestions:

  1. High treason was the most egregious offence an individual could commit, seen as a direct threat to the king's right to govern. Attempts to undermine his authority were viewed with as much seriousness as if the accused had made a direct assault on his body, which itself would be an attack on his status as sovereign. As such an attack could potentially undermine the state, retribution was considered an absolute necessity, for which the ultimate punishment was required.[1]
  2. Each dismembered piece of the body was later displayed publicly, as a warning to others.[2][3]
  3. The sentence of hanging, drawing, and quartering punished the guilty traitor via his body. Although gruesome and cruel by today's standards, the practice was a logical legal mechanism that reflected complex conceptual understandings of the time. It magnified and inverted the crime perpetrated on the integrity of the king by mutilating and completely destroying the physical body of the traitor. Various steps involved in the penalty worked to stamp the authority of the monarch on the criminal and to purge the threat by marking the dishonour of the condemned. Central to this punishment was the understanding that the physical body and individual were inextricably intertwined even immediately after death. Therefore, it followed that the penalty should operate by targeting the body.[4]
  4. According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason, each step of the procedure marked a rite of passage and the "progressive robbing of honour from the offender". Dragging was a form of transport usually reserved for carcasses and other low-value goods, and served to humiliate the offender. Removing their clothing stripped them of their social status.[2] Several purposes were served by the criminal's mutilation. In the case of Hugh Despenser the Younger, his hanging was punishment for theft: "that you are found as a thief, and therefore shall be hanged". For being a traitor, he was quartered, and for being an outlaw he was beheaded. For coming between the king and queen he was disembowelled, and his organs burnt. In the opinion of Professor Robert Kastenbaum, Hugh's mutilation (presuming that his disembowelment was post-mortem) was a reminder to the crowd that dissent was not tolerated. The corpse became so unrecognisable to them that any compassion was unlikely, and even in the afterlife, God might no longer want Hugh—a view which lingered for centuries, exemplified by the controversy surrounding the dissection of corpses for anatomy. Quartering the corpse might also remove any prospect of funereal support, as relatives had to wait until the spiked remains had decomposed before they were allowed to bury them. Since relatives were normally responsible for taking care of a recently departed family member, denying them a funeral in this way spread the traitor's shame onto his family.[5]
  5. Jones writes that the evisceration of an offender while conscious did not just mark his public disgrace; the intimacy of the executioner's method also highlighted the offender's submission to legitimate authority. The burning of his organs may have been a supplementary form of torture, a method of prolonging his agony.[6]
References
  1. ^ Jones 2007–2008, pp. 78–79
  2. ^ a b Jones 2007–2008, pp. 81–82
  3. ^ Abbott 2005, pp. 158–159
  4. ^ Jones 2007–2008, pp. 84–85
  5. ^ Jones 2007–2008, pp. 83–84
  6. ^ Jones 2007–2008, pp. 81, 83
Comments
  1. This seems to be one of those straight forward points in student essays that aren't usually referenced as it seems so obvious.
  2. This point is referenced to Abbott 2005 as well as Jones, so would seem uncontroversial and doesn't seem to be problematic here.
  3. In the essay the first two sentences are referenced to J. A. Sharpe, “Last Dying Speeches: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England,” Past & Present 107 (1984), 146-147. As such, I suggest changing that part of the citation to Sharpe 1984, pp. 146–147, referenced in Jones & 2007–2008, p. 84. This method is used in academic sources when the author is unable to access the original source for whatever reason and should be fine for Wikipedia. The rest of that paragraph is Jones' conclusion, the bit about inversion of the crime and magnification Evans is referenced earlier in the essay to David Brandon and Alan Brooke, London: the Executioner’s City (Thrupp, England: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2006), 7, and Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 9.
  4. The point in the first sentence is referenced in the essay to Richard Evans, Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany 1600- 1987 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 102. So I think something similar to what I suggest above can be done here. The bit about dragging in the essay is referenced to the same part of Evans 1996, and John Bellamy, The Tudor Law of Treason (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979); John A. Laurence, A History of Capital Punishment (New York: The Citadel Press, 1960), 187. The bit about clothing is referenced to Bellamy 1960, 205-206.

    I searched the document for Hugh Despenser and Professor Robert Kastenbaum but was unable to find mention of either.

    On the issue of spreading the shame of the traitor onto the family, that's referenced to Ruth Richardson, Death, Dissection, and the Destitute, second edition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 16-17.

  5. The bit about conciousness and submission is referenced to Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 13.

While the essay itself may not have been peer reviewed, many of the key points referenced in the Wikipedia article are effectively using the essay as a proxy for other sources such as Foucault or Evans. I think just tweaking the references (ie: retaining Jones as the other sources are unavailable currently, but noting Jones cites these sources) would help allay a lot of the concerns. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. I still want to get some of those sources so may be able to expand on the points above, at some stage. I doubt that "Each dismembered piece of the body was later displayed publicly, as a warning to others" even needs a citation, its perfectly apparent that body parts were displayed so remind people not to mess about with authority. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(end of copied section) I suggest we go with the above. Can everybody live with that? --John (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have ordered Bellamy's book from Abebooks. I'm working in the Middle East next week so won't be able to add anything from it until the week after. Parrot of Doom 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Six references to the student essay, one elsewhere. It seems to be entirely reliant on our student essay, save this one uncontroversial and common knowledge point, "Each dismembered piece of the body was later displayed publicly, as a warning to others." I dare say, I fail to see the usefulness of it. The undergraduate student's essay, and its unfounded suppositions unknown in academia or literature have no place. I thought that discussion was over. As to substitution of one ref for another without inquiry, research(that would be actually reading the ref and quoting relevant passages) and discussion - well, that's a non-starter.72.5.199.254 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered/Archive_3&oldid=1136785453"