This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cock Lane ghost article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 91 days |
Cock Lane ghost is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"He listened to the couple's plight and was sympathetic, offering them the use of lodgings in his home at what (in 1965) was 20 Cock Lane, to the north of St Sepulchre's."
Is that supposed to say "(in 1965)"? I see in the history it was changed to 1765 last night, but reverted at some point. It doesn't seem to make sense. Also, having the parentheses placed there seems wrong regardless. Should probably be "... in his home at (what was in [whatever year]) 20 Cock Lane." I'm not sure such a clarification needs to be there at all, though. Lara 15:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Fanny scratching? Cock Lane? Is this an April Fool's joke? Unknown Unknowns ( talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Came here to point this out. Feel a little late to the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 ( talk) 12:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
An excellent article on a fascinating piece of history, my congratulations to the authors, but I have a few questions/comments:
No doubt most of these can be resolved from the references already used in the article, or ignored if irrelevant. I don't mean to be critical, just to make sure that this article is as good as it could be. -- Testing times ( talk) 18:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone who has worked on this article - it has been the most-viewed article of 2011 so far, with over 222,000 views on 1 April. This makes it the eighth most-viewed Today's Featured Article since we began tracking statistics in December 2007. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics for how it compares with other Today's Featured Articles, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed for the all-time list. Prioryman ( talk) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just read a fairly bowdlerised account of this case in an old paperback, "Famous Historical Mysteries" by Leonard Gribble, published in the 1970's. Gribble adds an interesting epilogue to this story: many years later (he claims) the vault at St John's Clerkenwell was cleared and many of the coffins removed. Some of the coffins were opened & their contents inspected - including the coffin of Fanny Lynes. Her corpse was discovered to be surprisingly well preserved, with little decomposition and showed no signs of the smallpox which supposedly killed her. A medical examination of the corpse was therefore ordered - and concluded that she had, after all, died of arsenic poisoning (suggesting the 'ghost' had been telling the truth)- the arsenic had preserved the corpse.
Sadly Gribble gives no references for this - so I wondered whether the author of this Wikipedia article knew of this claim & whether or not it is supported by fact? (and if so, whether it's worthy of mention in the article?) Butcherscross ( talk) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth Parsons was caught engaging in fraud only once, and that was on the night that she was told that unless the ghost manifested that night, her parents were going to prison. That is strong motivation for fraud, even if it had never been committed previously. In addition, the witnesses that night commented that the raps sounded different than they ever had before---they sounded like they were coming from Elizabeth's bed, whereas always before, they had emanated from around the room. Given these facts, I believe that it's erroneous to claim that this case has been proven fraudulent, and although I know that it is common (but erroneous) to state that it was, I object to it in this article. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:CDE6:F417:35D9:A70E ( talk) 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cock Lane ghost article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 91 days |
Cock Lane ghost is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"He listened to the couple's plight and was sympathetic, offering them the use of lodgings in his home at what (in 1965) was 20 Cock Lane, to the north of St Sepulchre's."
Is that supposed to say "(in 1965)"? I see in the history it was changed to 1765 last night, but reverted at some point. It doesn't seem to make sense. Also, having the parentheses placed there seems wrong regardless. Should probably be "... in his home at (what was in [whatever year]) 20 Cock Lane." I'm not sure such a clarification needs to be there at all, though. Lara 15:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Fanny scratching? Cock Lane? Is this an April Fool's joke? Unknown Unknowns ( talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Came here to point this out. Feel a little late to the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 ( talk) 12:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
An excellent article on a fascinating piece of history, my congratulations to the authors, but I have a few questions/comments:
No doubt most of these can be resolved from the references already used in the article, or ignored if irrelevant. I don't mean to be critical, just to make sure that this article is as good as it could be. -- Testing times ( talk) 18:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone who has worked on this article - it has been the most-viewed article of 2011 so far, with over 222,000 views on 1 April. This makes it the eighth most-viewed Today's Featured Article since we began tracking statistics in December 2007. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics for how it compares with other Today's Featured Articles, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed for the all-time list. Prioryman ( talk) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just read a fairly bowdlerised account of this case in an old paperback, "Famous Historical Mysteries" by Leonard Gribble, published in the 1970's. Gribble adds an interesting epilogue to this story: many years later (he claims) the vault at St John's Clerkenwell was cleared and many of the coffins removed. Some of the coffins were opened & their contents inspected - including the coffin of Fanny Lynes. Her corpse was discovered to be surprisingly well preserved, with little decomposition and showed no signs of the smallpox which supposedly killed her. A medical examination of the corpse was therefore ordered - and concluded that she had, after all, died of arsenic poisoning (suggesting the 'ghost' had been telling the truth)- the arsenic had preserved the corpse.
Sadly Gribble gives no references for this - so I wondered whether the author of this Wikipedia article knew of this claim & whether or not it is supported by fact? (and if so, whether it's worthy of mention in the article?) Butcherscross ( talk) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth Parsons was caught engaging in fraud only once, and that was on the night that she was told that unless the ghost manifested that night, her parents were going to prison. That is strong motivation for fraud, even if it had never been committed previously. In addition, the witnesses that night commented that the raps sounded different than they ever had before---they sounded like they were coming from Elizabeth's bed, whereas always before, they had emanated from around the room. Given these facts, I believe that it's erroneous to claim that this case has been proven fraudulent, and although I know that it is common (but erroneous) to state that it was, I object to it in this article. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:CDE6:F417:35D9:A70E ( talk) 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)