Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered - Wikipedia

"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)Reply

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

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)Reply

"According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason," - that sounds like a decidedly inappropriate source to me. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why? Parrot of Doom 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Undergraduate essays might not be the ideal source, but it very much depends on the quality of the individual essay. The foreword of Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History Volume XXII (in which the essay is published) says "After over two decades of publication, Historical Discourses has become a veritable institution at McGill University. It showcases the best history essays written by McGill students, provides students with an experience in publishing and helps support our vibrant, intellectual student community." So these are good essays that have been assessed by lecturers, and as such I think Maeve Jones passes WP:RS. With 59 footnotes in what appear to be a 4,000-word essay, ostensibly it certainly seem to be of decent quality, although as I'm not familiar with the subject I would defer to the judgement of McGill University, quite a prestigious institution, and the compilers of the journal. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A little bit presumptuous of you to suggest that because she's a student, she isn't an expert. For all we know she might be 75 years old with 50 years experience studying history. If you read the essay its actually extremely well written, and very well sourced. I've found nothing that doesn't tally with most of the other sources used. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

And just to drive the point home; on this topic I've found quite a few errors in sources that wouldn't usually receive comments, and removed them accordingly. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, no, actually I don't think it's presumptuous at all. An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying: if she had been studying history professionally for fifty years, then she would have a degree, obviously. Age doesn't come into it. If you are trying to imply that she could be an accomplished amateur historian in addition to a student, sure, that's possible, but there's absolutely no reason to suggest it, and that doesn't change the nature of the source. I am not saying that the essay is bad or incorrect, not at all, just that as a source it is not quite up to standard. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge the quality of the information in a source but the quality of the source itself (WP:V). And that issue hinges on whether you consider an undergraduate journal to be a reliable source. Nev1 has argued that because it is published under the aegis of a university it is. I disagree, because it seems to me that the purpose of the publication is primarily pedagogical: to encourage their students, not to publish scholarly work; and assessment by lecturers and the (student) editorial board of the journal does not qualify it as peer-reviewed.

As I mentioned though, the essay has a good bibliography of secondary literature that are definitely "reliable sources" according to Wikipedia policies, so the issue might easily be side-stepped. I don't want to step on any toes and I've never edited this article so I probably won't comment any further: I've said all I have to say. At the very least, the regular editors of this article should consider the phrase "According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason" because even if you keep the reference, an idea is being attributed to a history student sounds very odd (and it's not quite accurate). —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That may be the case with your definition of the word expert, but its quite narrow and not one I'm entirely inclined to agree with. What matters to me is the quality of the writing and sources, and I can't find fault with either. I'd already mentioned trying to track down those sources here but that isn't particularly because I doubt her work, its something I generally try and do anyway.

As for "It is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge the quality of the information in a source but the quality of the source itself (WP:V)" - well, I completely disagree. Authors regularly make mistakes, and part of our responsibility when using those sources is to spot them. Parrot of Doom 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Considering these comments by users on this issue:

A little bit presumptuous of you to suggest that because she's a student, she isn't an expert. For all we know she might be 75 years old with 50 years experience studying history.

I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself.

An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying

I think this issue needs further discussion. I can't find any clarification elsewhere, so I'm considering referring it to [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|the Reliable Sources Noticeboard] for their opinion. Any further comments? Centrepull (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I love how people are getting so hung up on the fact that it's written by a student. Has anyone but me bothered to read the document in full?

I read a book in a bookshop the other week on historic London, the part I was interested in (Gropecunt Lane) contained several "facts" that were patently wrong - and yet, were I to include that book here, it wouldn't ever be questioned. This will be a moot point soon enough anyway, once I have the extra sources I'm waiting for. Parrot of Doom 20:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

COGDEN review

Reviewer: COGDEN 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Criteria:

1. "Well-written"  
   • The prose is clear, readable, and grammatical.
   • The lede is standard and well written, and the article layoyut is standard.
2. "Factually accurate and verifiable"  
   • Provides references to all sources.
   • Provides in-line citations in all appropriate locations.
   • Does not appear to contain original research.
3. "Broad in its coverage"  
   • Addresses all the main aspects of the topic that I can think of.
   • Stays focused on the subject matter without unnecessary detail.
4. "Neutral"  
   • Is written in a dispassionate tone, with know perceived bias.
5. "Stable"  
   • Is not the subject of an edit war or ongoing content dispute.
6. "Illustrated, if possible, by images"  
   • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and are free content. The Guy Fawkes image is not a copyright issue, because it is a mechanical reproduction of an old image.
   • Images are relevant and appropriately captioned.

General note: This article is very well done, and I think it easily deserves "good" status. I have a couple of optional suggestions, however, on the way toward "featured" status. Take them or leave them, for what they are worth:

• It might be good to have some sort of comparison between this English practice and other similar practices such as execution by quartering in France during the same time period, which involved poking with a red-hot poker, pouring molten lead into the wounds, and then pulling the person apart with four horses, often while they were still conscious, and then finally burning them at the stake. It was a quite different process, but I think it could be mentioned as a comparison in the last section.
• I think it would be good to expand a little bit on the penal theory behind such draconian punishments (e.g., the tortured body served to show the truth of the crime, as well as the unlimited nature of the Sovereign's power, etc.) I know some of that is already in the article, but there is a lot to be said, and that has been said, about the subject. You might be able to cite Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish for that, or some similar philosophical or jurisprudential works.

COGDEN 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review and the pointers. I did look at the French system but haven't found any source that finds a relationship between England and France in this respect, and therefore thought that do include it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm waiting for another source to arrive at my local library, I'll see what that contains. Parrot of Doom 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship says that a research paper can be accepted if it's been "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" - I don't know if that's the case here. Given that Jones's article explicitly draws on other sources, though, it may be easiest simply to use those sources instead. (I'm not entirely sure what we gain by having a boxed quote from an undergraduate in the "sentence" section.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've restored this section as it was quite obviously archived while still under discussion. The debate above is still relevant.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Have you brought anything new to the discussion? A reliable source that refutes her assertions? Parrot of Doom 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply