Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halifax Gibbet/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 17:10, 30 May 2011 [1].

Halifax Gibbet[edit]

Halifax Gibbet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the popular imagination guillotines are associated with the French Revolution, named after the eponymous Dr Guillotin. But in reality similar decapitation devices were in use long before then, including this one in the English town of Halifax, now on display near the town centre, a warning to all petty thieves tempted to steal anything worth more than £5. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query From an ignorant Canadian, is "13½ pence" the same as "13½d"? Canada Hky (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: 3 pictures all okay—2 PD in US and source country, 1 appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just read the first paragraph and see that the link from the word "pence" goes to "£sd". Shouldn't it go to something more precise? Tunnelling down through the links from there, I found Penny, British one penny coin, Penny (British pre-decimal coin), History of the British penny, Penny (English coin), History of the English penny (1154-1485) (other periods and no doubt other articles availble!). All rather confusing (not your fault, of course), but they are all specifically about the penny or pennies rather than the £ and s as well as the d. (I look forward to going through the rest later.) --GuillaumeTell 10:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the link to Penny (English coin) as being the most relevant. Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minded to support, a few small issues: — Wehwalt 17:42, May 21, 2011 — continues after insertion below

  • Lede
"or decapitating machine" Don't people know what a guillotine is?
"13½ pence" Perhaps put in a Lsd reckoning so that people are reminded this is "old money?"
"victim" to my mind, victim implies a crime or injustice. Perhaps "subject" or "condemned"? I like the latter more.
"petty theft". As a lawyer (who just did a little quick and dirty research into larceny at common law) suggest [[larceny|petty larceny]] (or petit larceny if you like law French).
I suspect that Fifelfoo may object to your attempt to try to get a present value off of pre-Restoration money, but personally, I don't get that excited over it. Just letting you know.
  • Replies
  • Well, strictly it wasn't a guillotine, as that wasn't invented until towards the end of the 18th century.
  • I think that the conversion to new money already makes it clear that 13½d is old money.
  • As far as I'm concerned theft and larceny are synonymous, and "theft" is what the source uses.
  • My dictionary defines victim as "a person or thing that suffers harm, death, etc., from another or from some adverse act, circumstance, etc", which I think sums up the plight of those being decapitated perfectly. There's no implication of crime or injustice.
  • I'm aware that Fifelfoo has made such objections in the past, which is why the basis for the calculation is explained in a note. I am firmly of the opinion that not giving some idea of the equivalent value of 13½d is more misleading than giving one.
Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
"Halifax Gibbet Law" Do we have some idea when this law was passed? Is there a citation to the law books (something that looks like 6 Henry VIII, c. 8)?
"rather unwisely" Under the circumstances, I'd delete "rather", rather.
"victim" Same argument as before.
" Local weavers specialised ..." I'm guessing these sentences are in here to explain the unfamiliar word "tenter" in the Defoe quote. Why not put it in a note, and hang it off the word tenter?
"Eighteenth-century historians ..." this paragraph seems mildly out of place, in the middle of the history. Perhaps it would be better as the last paragraph of the section?
  • Replies
  • There was no such law ever passed; it was simply a right claimed "from time immemorial" by the lords of the manor of Wakefield.
  • As above re "victim".
  • I quite like "rather unwisely", but if others object I'll quite happily remove it..
  • I think it's necessary to explain the process in the text, at least in outline, as many historians see the gibbet law as an efficient way of dealing with thefts from the all too tempting tenterframes.
  • I think the sentence beginning "Eighteenth-century historians" is in the right place, as the argument is that these "wild and ungovernable" people were the ones that the gibbet was intended to dissuade from stealing from the tenters.
Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mechanism
but it may not have been until some time in the 16th century" A bit awkward, perhaps end the previous clause with a semicolon and substitute for the remainder of the sentence, "it may have been as late as the 16th century."
" allowing it to be raised" it is uncertain to what "it' refers, I'm betting on the block but I could be wrong.
"In Thomas Deloney's ballad ..." This sentence seems a bit out of place, perhaps move it to the first paragraph of this section as second sentence? I would include the paragraph beginning "Although the guillotine ..." immediately following in the paragraph, splitting the paragraph at the end of that text. So the discussion of the actual mechanism would be in its own paragraph. Frankly, I think what would now be a paragraph on the introduction of the gibbet to the History section.
"Dr Guillotin" I would mention that he invented the guillotine. So that the reader can guess on who copied who, I would mention the date of introduction of the Scottish device.
While an image caption says the gibbet stood in Gibbet Street, perhaps that should be mentioned in the article and supported with a reference, as well as the subsequent site.
This reference seems to discount the idea that the Gibbet Law was pre-Conquest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
  • I've clarified what the "it" refers to: "A rope attached to the top of the wooden block holding the axe ran over a pulley at the top of the structure, allowing the block to be raised. The rope was then fastened by a pin to the structure's stone base."
  • Actually, Dr Guillotin didn't invent the guillotine. :-)
  • I'll add a citation to the image caption confirming that the gibbet is in Gibbet Street.
  • Actually the local council's register of historic monuments says that the gibbet was moved in 1645, and that the replica is in its final site now known as Bedford Street North, so I've removed Gibbet Street from the image caption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discussed that source with Ealdgyth, and we agreed that it couldn't be considered to be high-quality and reliable, as required by the FA criteria. James Holt, one of the authorities on the period, suggests quite unambiguously that the claimed right of decapitation was a vestige of the Anglo-Saxon custom of infangtheof.
Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support These are matters of editorial judgment in my view, which the nominator has ably defended. It's a fine article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review Wehwalt. I'll address the few remaining issues asap. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Np. One more thing, you have "fourth psalm", aren't psalms usually rendered something like "Psalms 4" (or less commonly, like the Twenty-third Psalm)?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a question better addressed to a Christian, but my understanding is that the name of the psalm would be rendered as "Psalm 4", and that as "fourth psalm" isn't its name then it wouldn't be capitalised. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Christian myself. I fear that "fourth psalm" would be confused as meaning that 2+2 psalms were read during the execution service. You are right, there is actually a stub Psalm 4.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue though is that the source uses the term "fourth psalm", not "Psalm 4", and that's what's the note is elaborating on. It would seem a little bit patronising to me to add a "[Psalm 4]" note after "fourth psalm". Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - I'll hopefully get a chance to look at prose and related issues later. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatting on FN 9
  • Missing bibliographic information on Watson 1775
  • FN 5: is it possible to include the original publication and pagination info as well as the archive version?
  • FN 7: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look, I think I've got those now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - I've read it through and made a few copy-edits in the History section. Two other points, not major ones:

  • Neither was the decapitation of convicted felons unusual to Halifax; the earls of Chester amongst others also exercised the right to "behead any malefactor or thief, who was apprehended in the action, or against whom it was made apparent by sufficient witness, or confession, before four inhabitants of the place", recorded as the Custom of Cheshire.
    • "unusual to Halifax" is a rather odd expression. I'd say "Neither was Halifax the only town which decapitated convicted felons" or some such; also, "recorded as the Custom of Cheshire" also sounds odd. How about "This was known as the Custom of Cheshire"?
    • The word "tenters" makes an appearance in a quote from Defoe. I'd be inclined to pipe this as [[Fulling|tenter]]s - the fulling link does appear, but several lines further down. Alternatively, there could be mention of tenters first and the Defoe quote later.
  • Support - Leaving the above aside, support: a good read! --GuillaumeTell 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking. I've changed "unusual" for "unique" and moved the explanation of tenters before the quote from Defoe. I really don't like to put links in quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to go too far beyond what the source says by changing to "known as the Custom of Cheshire"'; there appears to be only one reference to it, so to say it was known as anything seems too strong to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the Custom of Cheshire, it's the grammar that bothered me. One more thing: there are two red links, neither of them linked from any mainspace articles: Beggar's Litany and The Imperial Magazine. The former apparently relates to John Taylor (poet), but this well-known (to me, anyway) phrase or saying isn't mentioned in his article, and it would be nice to see a ref there and a better ref here. On the latter, there's no reason, AFAICS, why it should be redlinked, unless you have an article on it up your sleeve. --GuillaumeTell 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a problem with the grammar. So far as the redlinks are concerned I have an article about every 19th-century magazine up my sleeve, and every 20th-century comic, but a redlink may encourage someone else to get there before I do. So far as John Taylor and the Beggar's Litany is concerned, well, it's a recurring theme that what ought to be supporting articles are often so poor, or as in the case of the Litany don't exist at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice, compact, yet comprehensive article about a deadly device. I understand and support the idea of conveying the value of old currency to the reader, but "equivalent to about £5.40 as of 2008" (most particularly in the lede) still strikes me as a bit off. I would have thought (could be totally wrong) that the 13½d was some medieval value that a peasant could not raise readily; £5.40 seems to be something panhandlers could receive in one day in these times(?). As the article mentions the cost of two horses, perhaps those values ("two horses stolen in 1650 were worth 9 and 48 shillings.") could be used in the lede instead, letting the reader to draw his or her own inference on what 13½d is worth now? Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the basis that decapitations are known to have been carried out for almost 400 years, and that the value of 13½d would obviously have varied considerably over that period, I've removed the conversion from the lead. The important point I wanted to get across was the value of 13½d in 1650, when public opinion turned against capital punishment for what was then seen as petty theft. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approval of the use of inflation (goes to 1c) As the resident inflation disciplinarian, the inflation used here is sensible and reasonable. Purchasing power represents small petty goods, much like those goods people who'd steal 13½d would steal. England's rural economy had suffered from proletarianisation and enclosures by the 1650s. A large rural proletariat and lumpen-proletariat were in existence. Halifax is sufficiently "South" for the Officer time series to be reasonably relevant. The note and citation adequately describe the method of calculation and the source used. The method of calculation chosen was a good one. Further context is provided later with the execution for the theft of goods with a good "modern" commodity equivalent worth 9/- and 48/-. (I like this article, and will be happy when it is featured). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your observations, much appreciated Fifelfoo. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with yet more comments, some of which are probably unanswerable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "allowed landowners to execute summary justice" - this is technically correct, but given the subject of the article you might use a synonym for "execute"
  • Lord of the Manor of Wakefield or lord of the manor of Wakefield
  • "The jury had only two questions to decide on: were the stolen goods found in the possession of the accused, and were they worth at least 13½d" - so if the theft is witnessed or confessed (as you mention earlier) but the stolen goods are not found in the thief's possession, what happens?
  • Wikilink assizes?
  • Could someone who purchased the stolen goods (knowingly or unknowingly) also face execution?
  • Who threatened the bailiff? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
  • I've changed "execute summary justice" to "enforce summary justice".
  • I've gone for a (hopefully) consistent "Lord of the Manor of Wakefield" and "lord of the manor".
  • If the thief confessed then there was nothing for the jury to decide on; the confession was accepted at face value and the malefactor was executed. There was no cross-examination, prosecution, or defence as in a modern court of law. Perhaps I ought to add a sentence elaborating on that aspect of the proceedings.
  • Assizes now wikilinked.
  • The law only applied to those who took part in the theft, and who either were found with the stolen goods in their possession or confessed to having stolen them, as the case of the last executions demonstrates. The two stolen horses had been sold on by the time the thief was apprehended, but the purchasers weren't prosecuted.
  • Unfortunately the source doesn't say who threatened the bailiff, but judging by the fact that Oliver Cromwell clamped down on the use of the gibbet one might speculate that it was either local Puritans or the local Parliamentary forces.
Thanks once again for taking the time to read through the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – despite its off-putting subject it is finely written, and is (as we would expect from this editor) authoritative and thoroughly referenced. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim. Malleus Fatuorum 10:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's significantrm2dance (talk)

No it doesn't. Its significance is explained in the text. Malleus Fatuorum 11:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor comments I've just had a glance through the Toolbox up at the top here and find that the Dashboard seems to be up the spout - anyone know how to fix it (not that it's of any great importance)? The slightly more important other thing is that if you click the Toolbox's External links section there's a missing access date for one of the refs. I tried to fix it from there, but everything is so confusing (i.e. it's written by computer people for computer people rather than ordinary mortals) that it's far from clear how it should be done, so I gave up. Probably easier to fix by other means, but I'll leave that to you. --GuillaumeTell 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Dashboard, it looks like the external site is down. So far as the "missing" access date is concerned I don't think that one is needed for a book, only for a web page, and even then only if the publication date is unknown. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
access dates for books are pointless. Its web addresses thats concerned with. They change or are taken down. Ceoil 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with cmts.

  1. once part of the Manor of Wakefield. - The guillotine or Halifax
  2. 'the authority to summarily execute by decapitation any thief caught' - presumably he was alowed to choke or shoot them if he so wished. If not, 'summarily decapitate any thief'
  3. between the time of the first recorded execution in 1286 and bla
  4. 'The Halifax Gibbet's final two victims were Abraham Wilkinson and Anthony Mitchell'
  5. 'use of the gibbet was forbidden by Oliver Cromwell'. [New sentence] After the use of gibbets were outlawed
  6. Eighteenth-century historians - 18th c?
  7. 'could be operated either? by cutting the rope supporting the blade or by pulling'
  8. 'An article in The Imperial Magazine of 1832' - An 1832 article in

These are quibbles only. The sources are all good, the ref formatting consistent. The images are free or PD old. Nice work. Ceoil 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies
  1. Halifax. I've rejigged to make that clearer.
  2. The authority was specifically to execute by decapitation.
  3. Removed the redundancy in "between the time of".
  4. Similarly with "final two victims".
  5. The Halifax Gibbet was unique in England, and it was specifically the Halifax Gibbet that Oliver Cromwell forbade the use of, so I think "the gibbet" is correct.
  6. Needs to be "Eighteenth-century historians" as it begins a sentence.
  7. I've removed the arguably redundant "either".
  8. I think that changing the wording to "An 1832 article in ..." subtly changes the meaning, as it opens up the possibility that although the article was dated 1832 the magazine in which it appeared could have been later, e.g., 1835 ... but thinking about it what I'd written is slightly misleading as well. The present wording suggests that it was published only once a year, whereas in reality it was a monthly magazine, so now changed to "An article in the September 1832 edition of The Imperial Magazine ...".
Thanks for taking a look and for your observations. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All good, though 'specifically to execute by decapitation' is chilling. What bastards. Where I grew up, in that period, shooting people on the spot, if you were gentry and so inclined, was considered fine, but decapitation bad form. Ceoil 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Execution by decapitation wasn't uncommon in England, although usually reserved for the toffs. Halifax was only unusual in two respects: they invented a machine to do it, and it went on for so long. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put those two facts (the 2nd with dates) in the opening paragraph, would have very stong impact. Ceoil 23:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice hook. Can I support twice I wonder. Ceoil 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I have. </JOKE> Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy is more clever than that. I think I'll have to go the sock route. PS the next redlinked user/usertalk support is me, wink wink Ceoil 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You get caught, she reactivates the gibbet.Hi, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the internet, its not Halifax. We're grand. Ceoil 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off with their heads, both of 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Halifax_Gibbet/archive1&oldid=1138462165"