Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Layout

From the history of the article:

• 19:39, 1 March 2011 Philip Baird Shearer (Standard headings bibliography is not usually used for a list of general references on Wikipedia (with bold for comments to distinguish in-citations from other footnotes)) (undo)
• 1 March 2011 Malleus Fatuorum (Undid revision 416604480 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) it's a perfectly standard used on many other articles)

See WP:REF and WP:LAYOUT The current layout is not standard, the usually layout is ==Notes== and ==References== (or the two combined). -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So? Nev1 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment before. So I suggest that we change the layout to that which is most commonly used in articles. -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure inter-article consistency on a significant scale is realistic or even that beneficial to this article. There's more than one way to skin a cat. To be honest, I don't think it matters whether notes is its own section or part of references. The only real change it makes is one more line in the table of contents. Having notes in a table of contents is a useful navigation aid in a book, but not in this article where you can go directly to the notes via the link, eg: ^{[nb 5]}. As the notes are dependant on the content of the article, it is not necessary for a link to them to appear in the TOC. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it not beneficial for this article to use standard formats for the WP:APPENDIX? Or put another way what is the advantage of sticking to a none standard format? As I see it there is no benefit and several disadvantages. Not using the standard layout means that footnotes that are not citations are mixed up in the References section. The name Bibliography is not as clear as the standard name References (for example done it or does it not include further reading)? -- PBS (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Like much else of the MoS WP:REF is contradictory as to what a References section should contain, but I prefer the present layout used in this article because it doesn't clutter up the table of contents. This format is used in many other FAs and has not been an issue before. I'll also point out that WP:REF has this to say: "Do not change the citation style used in an article merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the specific needs of the article, gain consensus for a change on the talk page before changing it." And it also says to avoid changing the section heading "to or from ==References==, ==Notes==, etc." unless there is consensus, which there clearly is not in this case.

It is therefore for PBS to explain in what way the present citation style is "inappropriate for the specific needs of the article". Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You quoted "Do not change the citation style used in an article merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons." I am not sure if you have had an account long enough to remember why that statement was introduced. It has little to do with section headings as they are not a style. The two major styles are footnoted citations and parenthetical citations.

The current format for notes and references is not the usual format used in most articles. The argument that one extra entry of "notes" clutters up the TOC is an interesting one, but I do not think is warranted. If anything the TOC is far too brief.

The References section includes in it a subsection called footnotes that are not general references or inline citations. The Bibliography section is misleading because is is not a Bibliography as it only include general references and not further reading. However if someone adds a book that is not cited to this article they will assume that the place to place it is in the bibliography section an assumption they would not make if it were to have its usual name of ==References== -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a format that is used in many articles without comment, whether you like it or not, and it is perfectly serviceable, it does the job. How can a TOC be possibly be "too brief"? And what is the advantage of including an entry for the sources used in the article's construction? Your argument holds no water in any event, as "Bibliography" is a a subsection within the "References" section. If someone wanted to add a book not cited to this article then they would use a "Further reading" section. You've got an opinion, I've got an opinion, and they're different. Now can we please move on to more pressing matters? Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A TOC is too brief it it does not optimise navigation to information contained within a page a TOC is too detailed if it hinders navigation to information contained within a page. I am sorry which argument does not hold water? That we have footnotes in a references section that are not citations, or that Bibliography may be understood to be a list of books about the subject and not a specific list of general references coupled to the in-line citations? As to passing on to other subjects as we have not yet reached a consensus I think it is a little premature. -- PBS (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A TOC includes those sections that the article includes, no more and no less. Your point is absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You think my point is absurd. Like the rest of the article the TOC can be altered. If you did not think that was true how do you square it with you comment "but I prefer the present layout used in this article because it doesn't clutter up the table of contents"? -- PBS (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen any casual reader ever complain on any article I've authored that they could not find the information they required from the way I had formatted the citations. PBS I can appreciate your good faith but how about looking into mentioning something about Attainder in this article, something that might make a significant improvement? I'm a bit maxxed out by this and have a stiff neck. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Most casual readers will not have easy access to the ODNB when the DNB will be accessible to them. Casual readers do not usually know how to complain about a Wikiepdia even if they wanted to. Until small changes that I make which I think improve the article are accepted particularly when I take the time to explain in detail on the talk page why I think the the change is beneficial and no clear reason is given for reverting changes. I see little point in doing research on and contributing information to such an article.

My own opinion is that some useful information was ditched last year that I think should be put back into the article, but I have raised these points in the past and I am not willing to spend too much times seeking consensus to put them back in, when changes such as dropping the quoting of unreliable sources takes months to gain consensus, and a simple change to standardise the format of that used in the WP:APPENDIX sections of the MOS guideline and used in thousands of articles are reverted with the only justification given that the Table Of Contents grows by an entry!

Now back to the topic at hand what are the benefits other than one less line is a five line TOC for using a non standard layout for the WP:APPENDIX sections? -- PBS (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well my preference for this layout is that it looks nicer. That's it, really, otherwise I'm not particularly attached to it, I don't think this article needs a TOC. I remember the discussion about things removed and I thought I answered your questions honestly. I'm sure you'll admit that previously, the article was just a list of "stuff that happened", one of those articles that builds up over time into a mess. I removed nothing, I just re-wrote the article, from scratch, into something that followed a logical progression. Parrot of Doom 08:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I have always thought it best to put the footnotes in the very last section of an article as that allows for the footnoting of the references and further reading sections which can be useful for editorial comments, but the consensus at WP:LAYOUT was to place ==Notes== next to the ==References== section and as that is the consensus format I think it best to follow it, particularity as there are problems with the current layout. Aside from aesthetics do you have any objections to it being standardised to the common format? -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather have a generic "look here to find out where these statements came from", which contains footnotes, citations, and the books used. I'm not really that attached to what they're called, I never made a concious decision to choose the current layout (I seem to have adopted it from somewhere) but I agree with Malleus and Nev1 that having headings for several sections just creates unnecessary clutter. This isn't even a particularly long article so if a compromise is to adopt the layout you'd prefer, while removing the TOC, I'd be content with that. For me these things are just crumbs on the side, its the content of the article I'm most concerned with. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much my position too. Part of the problem here is that in a traditionally published medium the footnotes would appear at the bottom of each page (perhaps they really ought to be at the bottom of the relevant section?), but here we have only one page, the article. Of course that's exacerbated by the MoS's contradictory advice in WP:LAYOUT. I'd be quite happy with subheadings like "Footnotes", "Citations" and "Sources", for instance, but I really do fail to understand the advantage of having separate sections for each. On balance I'd prefer to keep the TOC, but I'm very much against splitting up the generic References section. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Which part of Layout do you think is contradictory? -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) I thought I'd have a look over the article before taking a stab at reviewing it for the FAC candidature, and then stumbled on this rather long acrimony. As far as I can see, the article is fine as it is, even the ToC which seems to have had a lot of discussion. It may not be the longest one ever, but it covers the needed sections - who got HDQ'd and how it happened - perfectly adequately, given that it is quite a specific article. So it has my support for the current consensus. Skinny87 (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus consists of two things, both the local consensus and that of the wider community as expressed in policies and guidelines. Do you think that increasing the small TOC size by one entry offsets the advantages of using the standard WP:APPENDIX layout? -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

If this is going to FA review, the title issue that I raised above 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) 16:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We decide the title/name of an article based on frequency usage the common term is "Hanged, drawn and quartered" (a search of Google books shows that usage of "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is about six times more common than "Hanging, drawing and quartering"). -- PBS (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the whole story. The gerund form is quite clearly the preferred format for most articles on processes. An examination of sources would not help there as the form used for the title would be entirely dependent on the context in which it is invoked. I'd support an RM request here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphing

One shouldn't have to say it at this stage, but: the article needs more paragraphing. Good paragraphing improves the readability of an article. Roughly, one topic per paragraph. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "drawn"

The name of this horrible punishment is not "Drawing, hanging and quartering"; being "drawn" to the place of execution on a hurdle is not the important thing. In this context, to be drawn surely means to have one's guts pulled out - done properly this would not be rapidly fatal, just to add to the overall horror of the thing.Moletrouser (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I see that I did not read far enough - silly me, this has already been covered.Moletrouser (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions

This is certainly welcome material, but I've hidden it from view for now as there are a few problems. One, the lack of page numbers for the citation - as this is a featured article, that information is required. I had a look at the preview on Amazon.co.uk and found that the pages for Cooke's death are 337–338, but these pages make no mention of iron screws or the anus. That needs to be clarified. I've saved the pages from Amazon as the burning entrails is pretty rancid stuff, and ideal for this article, but I wanted to give the editor a chance to respond first before I started rearranging his edits. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote on my own Talk page before I read this: "::Hope I can help. I don't know what 'minor problems' you're talking of: cursory examination of the page doesn't reveal any. The one of which I am aware is that I haven't got any current access to the book, so, e.g., I can't give page numbers without a greater investment of time than I can currently spare. MacAuslan (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)" Now I've got here, I see that it WAS the page numbers. As I recall, the info was in the preliminary chapter (Introduction?), as a gruesome start to the story: and the 'screw drawing irons' were illustrated in a photo of an item in the collections of the Tower of London. I still have no easy access to the text; sorry. MacAuslan (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can trick the Amazon preview into letting me see the first few pages, and I'll get back to you. Parrot of Doom 16:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Burning at the stake, vs hanging and cremation

Footnote 9

"Although women were usually burnt only after they had first been strangled to death, in 1726 Catherine Hayes's executioner botched the job and she perished in the flames, the last woman in England to do so.[65]"

seems to contradict the statement in the leader that

"For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burnt at the stake."

As I understand it, burning at the stake is a method of execution, rather than a way to cremate the already dead. Since the footnote has a citation and the leader does not, I would assume that the footnote is correct, but someone with more knowledge (or at least, access to Gatrell's book) would be better positioned to resolve this contradiction. PRB (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Women burnt at the stake were first strangled, or garrotted. They did not normally suffer the flames. Parrot of Doom 14:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand the term "Burnt at the stake", the contradiction I'm concerned about persists even in your explanation. AFAIK, burning at the stake is a method of execution also known as "Death by burning". This means that you can't kill someone then burn them at the stake, that's just cremation. My understanding is reinforced by the fact that Burning at the stake is a redirection to Death by burning, and that the link with the text "burnt at the stake" in the lead, also points to that article. PRB (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no contradiction, "burnt at the stake" refers to the historic English method of executing women guilty of treason. Death by burning is a crap article. Perhaps you might start by improving it? Parrot of Doom 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I lack the knowledge required to improve the other article in favour of the "kill them first" definition, the only reliable source I have for the subject confirms the "kill them in the fire" definition. The Britannica article "burning at the stake" states:

"In some cases of burning at the stake, mechanisms were provided to shorten the victim’s suffering. These included attaching a container of gunpowder to the victim, which would explode and kill him instantly when heated by the fire, and placing the victim in a noose, often made of chain, so that death occurred by hanging."

No mention is made of killing the victim first, only of these concurrent mechanisms by which a life might be shortened. This is why I asked the question, rather than making any change. PRB (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Britannica, lol. Parrot of Doom 18:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not a particularly comprehensive source, but I don't know you from Adam, so if it comes down to what they say vs what you say, I'd side with them. If, on the other hand, you can produce proper sources that show me that there is no contradiction, then I'll happily agree there isn't one. PRB (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have completely missed the modus operandi of Wikipedia, and of Britannica for that matter. It's nothing to do with what PoD says, it's to do with what the sources he uses say. Burning at the stake was a sentence of execution, but it was a matter for the executioner whether or not the victims were alive when the fire was lit, and commonly they weren't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point, which is why I keep asking for sources, and all I get is "because I say so". Until your interjection, all I had was one stranger telling me that victims were always killed first, which is no different from me trying to convince you that the moon is made of green cheese, now I have two strangers. Ideally, someone with citeable sources for these facts should create a new article for burning at the stake, distinct from death by burning, and link to that article from the lead here. Since both of you evidently have such sources, one of you could do it, or you could point me to these sources and I'll read them and do it. As it is, by linking to Death by burning, the lead implies very strongly that women were killed by fire, and the footnote states otherwise. PRB (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said that the women were always killed first. If you want the issue clarifying, then do it yourself, as I did when I reworked this article into its present form by getting off my arse and finding decent source material. Don't sit there insisting that others do your bidding for you, it's offensive and, in this case, futile. Parrot of Doom 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have discovered sources that support my position, that those burnt at the stake were burnt alive (one of which is already cited in this article), some supporting the notion that their death amongst the flames might be expedited, but none that support your position that they were killed first. You evidently have some source for your belief, which, somewhat contrary to the spirit of collaboration, you are keeping close to your chest. PRB (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And what are those sources? Parrot of Doom 09:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I could just say, "Don't sit there insisting that others do your bidding for you, it's offensive, get off your arse and find them", but I'd rather take a collaborative approach, and let you know that one is the source I've mentioned above, and another is Death Comes to the Maiden (page 9, to be precise). PRB (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A more careful reading of that page re-iterates the point I made above, in that the sentence was to be burnt alive; the practice was somewhat different. No doubt there were indeed cases where the sentence was carried out literally, just as there were many where it wasn't. Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So the afore-mentioned Britannica, generally a rather poor quality source, and a quotation in another book whose source isn't readily visible. Meanwhile you might look at Punishments of former days by Ernest W. Pettifer, page 120, or Qualities of mercy: justice, punishment, and discretion by Carolyn Strange, page 30.

While you're studying those, perhaps you should get to work on Death by burning. Or will you, as so many here do, wait for someone else to do it, complaining all the while about the article's poor condition? Parrot of Doom 13:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll examine those, and do what I can. PRB (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)