Talk:Margaret Clark (arsonist)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vincent60030 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after her execution by hanging, Margaret Clark released two pamphlets arguing her case? Source: "Satterthwayt was acquitted, but Clark was found guilty and hanged on 22 March 1680 [...] Clark went to her execution penitent, accepting her guilt, refusing to seek a pardon and protesting the truth of her allegations against Satterthwayt, repeated at length to several Anglican divines and her many visitors in gaol, and printed after her death in two pamphlets" - "Clark, Margaret [Margret]". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/67999

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Goldwyn Estate

Moved to mainspace by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Is it just me, or should the hook read "Clark wrote two pamphlets to be released after her execution" or something similar? It appears logically impossible for someone who has been killed to release a publication after her death. It wouldn't be her personally releasing it.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: feminist (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi (talk) thanks for the review. Sure it's possible to publish from beyond the grave as per List of works published posthumously but yes I was going for maximum hookiness and could tone it down by adding "posthumously", see ALT1. I've also added another ALT with some words changed up ... I don't want to say she wrote the pamphlet though because she was a maid and thus probably illiterate (it's thought she dictated them) Mujinga (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that after her execution by hanging, Margaret Clark posthumously released two pamphlets arguing her case?Source: "Satterthwayt was acquitted, but Clark was found guilty and hanged on 22 March 1680 [...] Clark went to her execution penitent, accepting her guilt, refusing to seek a pardon and protesting the truth of her allegations against Satterthwayt, repeated at length to several Anglican divines and her many visitors in gaol, and printed after her death in two pamphlets" - "Clark, Margaret [Margret]". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/67999
• ALT2 ... that Margaret Clark published two pamphlets from beyond the grave arguing against her execution by hanging?Source: "Satterthwayt was acquitted, but Clark was found guilty and hanged on 22 March 1680 [...] Clark went to her execution penitent, accepting her guilt, refusing to seek a pardon and protesting the truth of her allegations against Satterthwayt, repeated at length to several Anglican divines and her many visitors in gaol, and printed after her death in two pamphlets" - "Clark, Margaret [Margret]". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/67999

• for all hooks provided. Of course works can be published posthumously, but in that case it would not be the person who died who is the publisher. I will let the promoter decide whether the original hook is appropriate. I agree it's hooky. feminist (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I undid my promotion so editors can discuss what hook can be used at this nomination page. SL93 (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• There's a rather silly discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_1:Posthumous_publication about this. If ALT0 is too hooky, then ALT1 and ALT2 should be fine as discussed above. Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion is not "silly" and the wording of all the alts is inappropriate. I am striking the alts in favor of better hook wording. Here is the discussion from WT:DYK:

Extended discussion from WT:DYK

Prep 1:Posthumous publication ... that after her execution by hanging, Margaret Clark released two pamphlets arguing her case? @Mujinga:@Feminist:@SL93: This hook is disingenuous; she did not release it after her death. Also, this is too gruesome for the "quirky" slot IMO. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC) she did not release it after her death - as nominator i think this is fine, we already had this discussion at the template page and there are two other approved hooks to choose from as a result. too gruesome - I don't know what the criteria for the quirky slot are, it doesn't seem that gruesome to me. Mujinga (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC) The two alts also name her as the protagonist: ALT1 ... that after her execution by hanging, Margaret Clark posthumously released two pamphlets arguing her case? ALT2 ... that Margaret Clark published two pamphlets from beyond the grave arguing against her execution by hanging? Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Readers will know what the hook means and that she didn’t write them as a zombie or ghost. I don’t know about it being too gruesome, although I’m fine with darker humor. SL93 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC) I like ALT2 a lot. It's tongue in cheek enough, and not so gruesome —valereee (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Well, I will be watching for the end result either way to see which death hook I should move out of prep 1 to another prep. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC) For what it's worth, I think we've had death-related hooks in the quirky slot in the past so I don't really see the problem with this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Even beyond the issue of the posthumous publication—the release was out of her hands, and someone else had to arrange for publication and distribution (we don't even know if Clark was literate), the problem I have with all three hooks is that the implication is that she was arguing her innocence, and the article states that she had admitted to the arson, which to the reader would indicate that she set the fires. Unfortunately, I can't check the Cambridge Companion source for the crucial details that detail the information used for the article and hooks, so I don't know exactly what is written there, but as it stands I don't think any of the hooks are acceptable, and the original hook the least so. A hook could, based on the article, say that Clark told onlookers that she'd written a pamphlet explaining why she committed the crime she was being hanged for, or something else could be found. If we can't find something here soon, then the hook should be pulled and a new one determined on the nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC) I've specifically pointed out this issue in my review; since I disagree with Mujinga on whether this hook meets requirements, I delegated the decision to whoever is promoting this hook. Just swap it for ALT1 or ALT2. feminist (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC) As I noted above, I think the problems run deeper than that. The hook that's there is clearly ineligible, but the ALTs have problems as well, and neither should be swapped in. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC) I reopened the nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Clark (arsonist) since the issue is so divisive. SL93 (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC) As stated above, this was discussed during the review and new ALTs were provided. ALTs 1 & 2 specifically don't make a claim on whether Clark was guilty or not. Mujinga (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC) It's a complicated story, although all the necessary details are in the article already. Clark was convicted and was resigned to her fate, but pleaded her case in the posthumous pamphlets that she had been manipulated by a Catholic plot and bribed by Satterthwayt, who was acquitted. So she admitted staring the fire but blamed it on the Devil and Satterthwayt. I don't know if the Cambridge Companion adds much on top of the already cited ODNB, but for @BlueMoonset: here's a relevant bit of it: "Standing on a scaffold awaiting hanging for arson, Margaret Clark interrupted the proceedings to explain she had 'left an account in a writing' of her very limited complicity - and the guilt of the man was acquitted. Although Clark refers to herself as the writer, she seems to have depended on the kind of collaboration that produced depositions albeit after rather than before her trial". The hooks are currently cited to ODNB: "Satterthwayt was acquitted, but Clark was found guilty and hanged on 22 March 1680 [...] Clark went to her execution penitent, accepting her guilt, refusing to seek a pardon and protesting the truth of her allegations against Satterthwayt, repeated at length to several Anglican divines and her many visitors in gaol, and printed after her death in two pamphlets" Mujinga (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm unstriking ATL1 and ALT2 because nobody so far has given a coherent reason why they don't work. As can be seen above, the original reviewer didn't think ALT0 worked, so I suggested some ALTs. Then we had a discussion elsewhere which was silly because people just revisited the original problem without reading the review. I can still AGF here but I have to say it's disheartening to create content, then put it to DYK and then go through these rather unfriendly discussions. To reply to the objections to the new hooks as they stand: two alts also name her as the protagonist of course they do, who else would they name? the problem I have with all three hooks is that the implication is that she was arguing her innocence ALTs 1 & 2 do not say anything about innocence, just that she was arguing her case, there is a difference here. Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Satterthwayt was acquitted, but Clark was found guilty and hanged on 22 March 1680 [...] Clark went to her execution penitent, accepting her guilt, refusing to seek a pardon and protesting the truth of her allegations against Satterthwayt, repeated at length to several Anglican divines and her many visitors in gaol, and printed after her death in two pamphlets" (ODNB)
• "Standing on a scaffold awaiting hanging for arson, Margaret Clark interrupted the proceedings to explain she had 'left an account in a writing' of her very limited complicity - and the guilt of the man was acquitted. Although Clark refers to herself as the writer, she seems to have depended on the kind of collaboration that produced depositions albeit after rather than before her trial" (Cambridge Companion)
• Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mujinga: you're going to need someone else to be a lawyer for this hook besides you. The reviewer, myself, and others at WT:DYK have all said that this hook is nonsensical. A dead person cannot posthumously released two pamphlets (ALT1) or published two pamphlets (ALT2). That's what I meant by being the "protagonist" (Wiktionary: "An advocate or champion of a cause or course of action"), though I see I used that word incorrectly. If you don't have another hook idea, I will try to suggest one. Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please don't ping me again for this Yoninah, I am already watching. The reviewer, myself, and others at WT:DYK have all said that this hook is nonsensical - that is a really gross misrepresentation and I hope on reflection you can see that. The reviewer, feminist, said at the discussion "Just swap it for ALT1 or ALT2" and three other people (Narutolovehinata5, SL93, valereee) said they were ok with the suggested ALTs for various reasons. The only people who don't like the ALTs are you and BlueMoonset, I've already tried twice now to explain to BlueMoonset why saying "the problem I have with all three hooks is that the implication is that she was arguing her innocence" doesn't fit to the situation, so I am still waiting to hear why ALTs 1 and 2 don't work. I don't think that's being a lawyer, I think that's trying to get to the bottom of it. By all means suggest some new hooks, that would be a positive contribution. Maybe another word for "published" or "released" if that is the sticking point? Mujinga (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that while awaiting her execution by hanging for the crime of arson, Margaret Clark told onlookers she had recorded her motives in a pamphlet, which was then printed posthumously? Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Or something instead of recorded her motives, like: argued her case, argued for her limited culpability, argued her innocence (though she did admit to it). Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've restruck ALT1 and ALT2. As noted more than once above, a dead person cannot publish anything after they've died, and the insistence that "posthumously released" is a valid locution when said to have been done by the dead person simply does not stand up. I'd be very leery of "argued her innocence" given that she admitted her arson. There is an implication in "argued her case" to my American eyes that initially led me to believe she published to argue her innocence, but it doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone else, so I'll drop it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi BlueMoonset thanks for the answer. If we can agree "argued her case" doesn't mean "argued her innocence" then I'm not seeing why you struck ALT2. In any case, I'll try to reformulate below. Mujinga (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• ALT4 ... that the high sheriff printed a pamphlet after Margaret Clark's execution by hanging in which she argued her case?

• same sources as above

• ALT5 ... that executed arsonist Margaret Clark blamed her deeds on "Pride and Sabbath breaking"?

• source ODNB and https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3ayDDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA55&vq=margaret%20clark&pg=PA38

• Approve Alt5. --evrik ^(talk) 02:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT5, but the source says she blamed her downfall on pride and Sabbath breaking, not her deeds. Do you want to use the whole quote? Yoninah (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, the source actually says: Margaret Clark, a servant convicted of arson, recounts the misdemeanours and failings of her earlier life including thefts 'of a little Tape, Lace and other frivolous things', and insists that 'Pride and Sabbath breaking hath been my Downfall', bringing about the state of mind in which she was induced to make an attempt on her master's life by setting fire to his house. So "deeds" works just fine. Mujinga (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• OK. Yoninah (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)