Talk:Tarring and feathering

Template:1911 talk this has just happened in northern ireland bbc news article

How do you clean off the tar and feathers? What would you used in early America around 1906? JB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.243.80 (talk) 18:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian Americocentrism, I'm sorry to say. The article begins by describing the practice in a purely American context, yet tarring and feathering is clearly a punishment from Britain. Surely the American history of the practice should follow its origins, unless tarring and feathering is clearly identified more (outside the USA) with America, which I feel it doesn't. Wikipedia is read by people in all of the 190 nations, yet a preponderance of its contributors write from the perspective of just one. - PW

I invite you to contribute a different point of view to the article. Deltabeignet 20:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does tarring severely burn the skin? Does the punishment result in permanent injury? Kent Wang 10:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I recall hearing that tarring and feathering was actually often fatal, as it clogged the pores in the skin to an irreparable extent. Anyone know if there is any truth to this? -R. fiend 01:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The right John Malcolm? The link from the picture seems to refer to someone who was active in a different part of the world and at a later time.

Source?

Is there a source for this comment? I don't dispute that tarring and feathering is not rehabilitative, I dispute the cause and effect (that it was abandoned because it was not rehabilitative):

It was eventually abandoned in the United States partly because it did nothing to rehabilitate its victims of the criminal behavior for which they were sentenced

67.183.154.41 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences

Are there documented cases of people surviving tarring and feathering? Is it possible to keep the tar cool enough to not cause severe burns? How long did it take to remove the tar, and did people die of heat strokes because their skin pores were blocked? The article seems to assume that the penalty is not fatal, and in some cases does not even cause injury, but is there evidence to back this up? William Smith seems to have survived without serious hurt, but he was apparently thrown into water immediately after being tarred. dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apparently it wasn't fatal as a rule, according to the Straight Dope link at least, Unlike its close cousin lynching, tarring and feathering usually wasn't fatal. One historian says it was employed chiefly when a mob was feeling "playful." [...] A Tory assaulted by a mob in 1775 was stripped naked and daubed with hot pitch, blistering his skin [...] In 1912 Ben Reitman, companion of the radical agitator Emma Goldman, was beaten by a mob in San Diego, then tarred and covered with sagebrush. Afterward he spent two hours cleaning off the worst of the gunk with turpentine and tar soap. dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that "Third degree burns are sustained after a split second contact with a material that is 160ºF (~70ºC)." I find that hard to believe; third degree burns involve deep charring of the skin and the like (see burn). More likely, first degree burns are meant. Now, I have occasionally had my skin splashed by boiling water (at 212ºF), the contact lasted about a second, and a first degree burn was the result; so, based on this personal "experiment" I am changing the text of the article to say "First degree". If you feel like changing it back, please provide some sources for your unlikely claims. Freederick 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between getting splashed with boiling water and sticking your entire arm in the pot for possibly hours. BethEnd 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requote: “split second contact”. End quote. Besides, nobody is talking about boiling people in a pot; tarring is coating with a thin layer of warm (160ºF,70ºC) material that presumably quickly cools. Third-degree is absurd. Freederick 03:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am pretty sure the figures are all wrong. 56C is usually quoted as pain threshold and is several degrees below where damage takes place. There are very detailed figures available on this but I haven't seen them online. --BozMo talk 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is another reference to “very high” temperatures of a piddling 140ºF. As the tar layer must have cooled very rapidly, there is hardly a case for a first degree burn, let alone anything worse. Irritation and reddening, most likely. I am removing “very high”, as it is laughable. Freederick 03:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes questioned

Someone has just made some significant changes related to the section about Mormons. I don't have the knowledge to judge these changes, but hopefully someone will take a look. They may be legitimate, but they seem perjorative, and without sources, i think they should be removed. Richard Myers 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made

I feel that whatever changes were made to the bit of history about the tarring and feathering of Joseph Smith now more accurately reflects what happened. The case of his son dying is true. The article as it is reflects the consequences of tarring and feathering, and other persecutions done to people. For sources on this, i suggest looking up the mormon "Church History".(Squeejay 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Times

Page 3 of The Times today (29 August 2007) contains 4 interesting nuggets of information about tarring and feathering. Each of them seems to have been lifted directly from this article, no doubt with a miniscule bit of background checking. Some of the text is identical. Is modern journalism just a question of having a quick squint on wikipedia in order to fill those spare boxes? Or does The Times and Wikipedia both just lift their material (word for word) from the same common source, in both cases without adequate attribution? Dr Spam (MD) 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the top of this page and you'll see an attribution to EB 11th ed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41 4 October 2007 (GMT).

The Music Man

Some reference to The Music Man might be considered for the pop culture section. In at least the 1962 film, tarring and feathering was the punishment to be faced by the main character, Harold Hill. Mirutsa (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem source

There's a sentence about a 1767 feathering of Salem customs agent_s_. I only found references to a September 7, 1768, feathering of a single Salems customs agent, which may have been prefaced by a couple in Newburyport, Mass. Anyone have a definitive source? --Thatnewguy (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]