Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 7

"A penalty in England"

Being hanged drawn and quartered was not only in use in England. It was also in use in Ireland, e.g. in the cases of Felim O'Neill of Kinard and Robert Emmett. I have referenced this, but User:Malleus Fatuorum keeps removing the reference based on his belief that Ireland was once part of England. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So you decided to edit war with him about it instead of talking it out? Atomician (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Under what law were they found guilty of treason? That is the important matter here. Was it under the 1351 Act, or a later Act? And was this applicable only to England and Ireland, or other countries also? Right now, all I'm certain of is that the law applied to England. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about being hanged, drawn and quartered in general, so why is it important which law they were found guilty under? And yes, they were both found guilty of high treason. Felim O'Neill [1] [2], Robert Emmet [3],

Two brothers sentenced in Ireland to be hanged drawn and quartered for high treason [4]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The charter of Waterford listing being hanged drawn and quartered as the punishment for high treason [5]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

The section of the article you edited is not about HD&Q "in general", it is specifically about when the Act was first applied, and which territory it covered. You have not demonstrated that Act covered Ireland from 1351 and as things stand, the article is most likely factually incorrect. Parrot of Doom 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Emmet was certainly convicted under the 1351 Treason Act, as the citation above clearly shows. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Explicit reference to emmet having been hanged drawn and quartered in Ireland [6] [7]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck's sake. Now we have a lead on a featured article with six badly formatted citations, referencing something not contained within the article's body. Brilliant. Why do I fucking bother? Parrot of Doom 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If we can get a middle ground perhaps Reaper Eternal will lift the protection. How about "To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty under English law."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nev1 (talk • contribs)

Because I cannot be certain that the executions in Ireland were carried out under the 1351 Act. They may have been carried out under more recent Acts, but not the 1351 Act. Right now, the article is probably incorrect. This is why I deliberately left the lead ambiguous. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How was the previous lede ambiguous? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the 1351 Act of Parliament was enacted in English law. Do you know for certain that from 1351, that Act also applied in Ireland? None of the sources I've read say any such thing. Which Act were your Irishmen charged under? There is more than one, so name it. Parrot of Doom 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, this article is about the punishment, being hanged drawn and quartered. It is not just about that punishment under one particular act. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you fucking stupid, or just obstinate? Parrot of Doom 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the references above[8] clearly shows that the 1351 Act was used in Ireland to convict Robert Emmet (page 1111). Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. I quite like Nev1's suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with stating that it was applied in both Britain and Ireland? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it's misleading, as it was equally applied in Wales, and perhaps also in Scotland after the Act of Union. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And does Britain not include Scotland and Wales? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it include Ireland in your opinion? Bear in mind we're talking about the state of play in 1351, when the Treason Act came into force. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Ireland was never part of Britain. When I say "Britain and Ireland" I mean the geographic terms "Britain" (The island comprising modern England Scotland and Wales) and "Ireland" (The island containing modern Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland). Using these avoids having to refer separately to the Lordship of Ireland, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of England and Wales, Kingdom of Scotland, United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland etc. etc. separately, as the topic covers a time span during which all of these entities existed. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But in 1351 the Act would not have applied to Scotland for instance, which is why I favour Nev1's proposed form of words: "To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty under English law". Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But that wording makes it sound as if the punishment was only ever applied in England. It was definitely applied in Scotland [9] (though I don't know from what point), as well as being used by the Spanish in South America [10]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It makes it clear that it was a punishment under English law, which extended to Wales and Ireland but not Scotland, hence "Britain" is incorrect. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish account you allude to occurred in 1600, but Gowrie had been killed some time before his trial by the king's retainers, so it wasn't really much of a punishment. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"English law", on it's own, without any qualifiers, will suggest to most people that it was only carried out in England. And what of its practice in South America? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The point you seem to be obstinately intent on missing is that the lead sentence is specifically talking about the 1351 Treason Act, which clearly didn't apply to the Aztecs 300 years later, or even at all, ever. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth should an article titled "Hanged, drawn and quartered" only be about the the practice in one country? Why should relevant material on the article's subject be excluded? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has said that it should, but once again you're missing the point. The relevant sentence in the lead is specifically talking about the 1351 Treason Act, not random acts of cruelty by the Spanish. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But 'why' is the first sentence of the lede to be specific to one country only? Should it not be more general rather than launching straight into a focus on one instance in which it happened? The article's about hanging, drawing and quartering, not about the the Treason Act 1351. That has its own page. There's no more reason to focus on the Treason Act in the first sentence of the lede of this article than their is to focus on hanging drawing and quartering in the first sentence of the lede of the treason act's article. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to put this as gently as I can. If you think you can do a better job than PoD has done then make your suggestions on the article's talk page, where they can be discussed. The fact is that this article was considered to meet the FA criteria only a few months ago, but your "improvements" distort the meaning of the word. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been making suggestions, and you've been simply ignoring them rather than providing any valid reason for why they should be excluded. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's no wonder that editors are abandoning Wikpedia in the face of complete and utter crap like this. How many reports have you raised against editors who disagree with you today alone? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

None. I reported an editor once for being incredibly aggressive, and once for a separate incident in which he was edit warring. I haven't reported anyone for disagreeing with me. I notice that you're still ignoring my suggestions after asking me to bring them to the talk page. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

<--While the article is under protection, and while discussion on the talk page is ongoing, I have restored the earlier version--not because I think it's right, but because possession is the greater part, and the lead as it was right after promotion to FA (e.g., this version) met the FA requirements. The current lead, with a half-dozen misformatted references, does not. I have good hope that this will be worked out here one way or another, but in the meantime the article should not be uglier than it was. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Break

It seems to me that one question need to be resolved.

1. The original Act became law in 1351. Therefore, from 1351, to which geographical areas was it applied? England certainly, but Scotland? Wales? Ireland? Parts of France? English colonies? The Channel Islands?

I don't think this is easily resolved without expert input, and that's why I chose, originally, to make it simple and just write the obvious - that it was an English law used in England. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the geographical area link here it says England and Wales, the usual jurisdiction I suppose. Unfortunately the "timeline" link doesn't seem to show when or whether there were any extensions of jurisdiction from England. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This account suggests that it includes Ireland.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they extended the 1351 Act or passed another Act - or didn't have to in the circumstances. I expect what is needed is access to a university law library.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This article in the Irish Law Times from 1903 states that "Treason is specifically a breach of allegiance, nor is any other definition needed. It is the " violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or liege lord, or to the chief authority of the State," and the crime can be committed only by a person from whom allegiance is owing, whether perpetual or temporary. The old name of " high" treason seems no longer necessary, since "petit" or "petty" treason has disappeared as a distinct crime, and is now treated as murder." ...which seems to indicate that the law is not bound by geographic borders at all. This was affirmed in 1916 during the trial of Roger Casement when the court interpreted the original 1351 Act's phrasing "in the realm or elsewhere" to be construed broadly. Casement's treason was committed in Germany which lead to his hanging.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Which would mean that only one guilty of High Treason against an English monarch could be hanged, drawn and quartered. So we could reword the lead to reflect that, and avoid having to decide what countries are important enough to be mentioned. Parrot of Doom 16:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. I would further suggest that the section title Treason in England be renamed to Treason against the crown.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What else might treason be committed against? Parrot of Doom 19:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The change in title reflects that the treason didn't have to be committed in England to be against the crown. This is in keeping with your suggestion above that it is treason against the monarch. Further, it distinguishes that it is high treason and not petty treason. To answer your question, a wife committed petty treason against her husband if she killed him....or a servant committed treason if he killed his master.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, against which, annoyingly, I have no answer :( Parrot of Doom 21:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This still leaves the fact that the Spanish used it against the Incas, as well as the likes of [Tiradentes] who was subject to the punishment for leading a revolution in brazil. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps you might like to write Hanged, drawn and quartered (Spanish punishment), because other than obvious similarities I do not see what relevance those instances have to what was an English invention used almost exclusively in England. Parrot of Doom 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth should there have to be a separate article on its practice outside of England? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you haven't yet demonstrated that the Spanish method of killing people is in any way related to the English method of executing traitors. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, unless this was more widespread in its usage, it looks like a case of undue weight.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of a rather similar discussion over wife selling, which was eventually resolved by having separate articles on wife selling (English custom) and wife selling (Chinese custom). The background to the punishment as used in England and in the Spanish or Portuguese colonies is clearly very different, even if the sentence is carried out similarly. I've always thought that the articles such as witchcraft, which attempt to cover the practice all over the world, fail on every possible level with their naive "Witchcraft in Saudi Arabia", "Witchcraft in the Philippines", "Witchcraft in Japan", "Witchcraft in India" ... sections. There is very little if anything similar about the idea of witches in, say 17th-century England and the Xinjiang region of western China. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Then should this article not be called Hanged, drawn and quartered (English punishment) so that people know by the title what the article is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unless and until someone writes Hanged, drawn and quartered (Spanish punishment), for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a different body of law for Scotland and Ireland. I am not sure of the statute that covers Scottish law but the treatment of those executed at the Restoration was different in Scotland. Those that were executed depending on their station were either beheaded or hanged and then beheaded. In the case of those hanged the beheading was merely a practical step to allow their heads to be displayed on spikes. (See Restoration (Scotland)#General pardon and exceptions).

In the case of Ireland the legislation was Treason Act (Ireland) 1537 and the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 both of these statutes are still on the books in Northern Ireland and were modified in 1998 by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to remove the death penalty.[11][12]. The key to whether this allowed HDQ depends on the interpretation "have and suffer such pains of death and other penalties as is limited and accustomed in cases of high treason." custom of course can change and as such "as is limited and accustomed in cases of high treason" is a wonderful slippery lawyers phrase. While some on this list may have been executed under English law (those executed in England) most would have been under Irish law.

On a separate note. At least two people were HDQed by Parliament during the civil war, and as such are notable because it was unusual -- see Robert Yeamans and the 1643 Bristol Plot (ODNB. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/30203.). Also During the Commonwealth (1649-1669)there was a different act (Treasons Act 1649) from the Royal treason acts.

-- PBS (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)