Talk:William Calcraft

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Calcraft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, adding to WP:GA now. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Is "victim" the correct word for someone Calcraft executed? He did kill them, but it was not murder
  • I think "victim" is the right word, and it's the word used by most of the sources as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • i disagree, victim implies crime, he was ministering for the state, something which was completely accepted as "normal" at the time, the word victim here then implies a certain subjectivity about the death penalty and is not being used in the objective sense of a crime having a victim
• "he would sometimes swing from his victims legs" - grammar
  • Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "it is estimated that he carried out 450 executions, 35 of them women, making him one of the most prolific British executioners of all time" - repeated exactly later in the article (without the second "of", but I think that was a typo?)
  • I've rewritten and shortened that sentence to give some variation. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Is Block & Hostettler 1997 or 2007?
  • 1997, my mistake
• Who was the first author of ref 1? Current entry is "Boase1, G. C."
  • Boasel was the original author, but the entry was some time later revised by Gilliland, as is common with OFDNB entries. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• "a threat he had received that he would be shot on the scaffold unmanned him" - could be reworded slightly, as "unmanned" is not exactly a "neutral" word
  • Changed it to "unnerved". Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stability

No issues noted

Images

• The only image present is PD, so no issues there

Longest career

You should note that he's the longest serving hangman.

• Geoffrey Abbott. Calcraft. Financial World Publishing. ISBN 1-85882-058-8.
• http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/deathpenalty/2006-February/004222.html

Also thanks for the help with Jack Ketch=D.Smallman12q (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Walshe/Wells "employer"

I would assume that if Thomas Wells was as variously reported, a porter (Annual Register 110; Block; Fielding; Hostettler) or cleaner (Beadle), then his victim, as stationmaster, was his boss, but not his employer, which presumably will have been the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, as specifcally stated by Gash. Is there a reason to state that Walshe was his employer? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly significant that the men had a working relationship, and Fielding does indeed refer to Walsh as Wells's employer. For all I know the railway allocated Walsh a budget to run the station, which would make him Well's employer. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It clearly is significant, since Fielding reports that it was a reprimand by Walsh(e) that led to the murder. Walshe is referred to as "immediate superior" (Annual Register [1]), "his station-master" (Block/Hostettler [2]; Gattrell [3]), "his boss" (Bailey [4]). Hindley [5] specifically states that Wells was employed by the London, Chatham and Dover. I can't anything in Fielding, or anywhere else to assert that Walshe was Wells's employer: could you give the complete quote please? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Fielding's The Executioner's Bible immediately to hand, that would require a library trip. But if you do then you should be able to find what you're looking for in pages 3–4. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you were referring to the 2008 not the 1994? I see that Amazon Look Inside happens to have that quote and he does indeed use the word "employer". However, I suggest that the preponderance of sources and the explicit contradiction by the much closer Hindley combine to point to superior rather than employer for the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got no horse in the "employer" vs. "superior" race, I'm happy with either. The point though is that we need to accurately represent what our sources say, not what we ourselves may believe, which is what the article did. As I said on your talk page, by adding your "piquant detail" you're implying that Fielding (2008) confirms that Welsh wore his railway porter's uniform at his execution. Have you checked that it actually does? Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're in disagreement. Two sources say that Wells was employed by the LCDR, four simply refer to Walshe as Wells's boss or equivalent, one refers to Wells as employer. Hence my suggestion that superior more accurately reflects what sources say than employer. The piquant detail is sourced to Gash. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

'Controversial' method

The article implies that Calcraft's use of the short-drop method was 'controversial' because there were other, more humane methods he could have chosen. But the standard-drop method was not employed in England until after 1866, and the long-drop method in 1872. So Calcraft was merely using the normal technique of the time. The short-drop method was rarely instantaneously fatal and victims sometimes took 45 minutes to die. Perhaps Calcraft was actually being merciful in pulling on the legs or shoulders, to hasten death. Perhaps the controversy was that he made a spectacle of it, playing to the crowds. It is not clear from the article whether he switched to the long-drop method towards the end of his career. PhilUK (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Calcraft did not use the long drop, never. That was introduced by Wm. Marwood. Calcraft's drops were between 18 inches and 3 feet; that was much too little to break a neck. Calcraft's victims died of asphyxia (strangulation) or, if they were lucky, of heart stoppage by vagal reflex.--Kauko56 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

'Prolific'

Prolific? Sca (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, "most famous"? What about Marwood? Do we have any kind of source for this claim? Kitchener1898 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Prolific" means producing abundantly, e.g. children, works of art, goals if you're a footballer, fruit if you're a tree, etc. It's hard to see how Calcraft was "prolific" within the accepted definition, and perhaps "active" would be a better description. The assertion that he was "the most famous" is made in his ODNB entry and could be cited to there. The information concerning Courvoisier's crime is at present lacking a citation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Substituted "active" for "prolific" in the two instances where it was used. Removed "most famous" because it is an overused phrase in Wikipedia, the length of the article, and the estimated number of people he executed (given early in the summary), should be enough to suggest that he was well known in his era. Philip Cross (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a citation re Corvoisier's execution. Brianboulton (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would it not be nice to have an info-box to give readers quick information? Tomh903 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Middle name was Ong

William Calcraft was the son of William Calcraft senior and his wife Sarah, née Ong. His middle name was Ong, i.e. his mother’s maiden name. This is how he was baptised, and this is what appears on his death certificate. There is a secondary source for the name here: [6]. There is a more reliable secondary source for the name, from Lincolnshire County Council, here: [7]. There are also numerous mentions at genealogy noticeboards such as this one, this one and this one. Why is the article, which has been a Featured Article, missing this basic fact? Thank you. 217.38.95.23 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any quality secondary reliable sources for this. The Lincolnshire County Council link given is a bibliography and the relevant "article" it points to appears to be unreliable; genealogy noticeboards are certainly not sources that could be used either. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the various genealogical researchers have just invented this middle name for some reason? I'm not sure why they would do that. Why should the names of his parents be omitted? I have seen birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates used as sources all over wikipedia. Surely there is no more reliable source of information than these. Why exactly are they not permitted here? 217.38.80.151 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)