Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cock Lane ghost/archive1

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 23:25, 17 January 2010 [1].

---

Cock Lane ghost

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Cock Lane ghost/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because the Cock Lane ghost, while largely unknown now, was one of a handful of 18th-century scandals which today, almost defy belief. The other two being Mary Toft (who is included but not mentioned here), and Elizabeth Canning (who'll I'll get around to in a bit). User:Malleus Fatuorum has also been a great help with this, and if he desires I'll add him to the nomination. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

- Per WP:YEAR, year ranges should include two digits if within the same century (1756–57, not 1756–7).

Fixed Parrot of Doom 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

- Notes and references should have separate headings, rather than both being listed under the same heading (see WP:LAYOUT). Also, "further reading" should be listed separately to references, with its own level 2 heading.

I'm happy to be corrected if wrong but I believe this to be a matter of preference - "Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section." For me, I just prefer a table of contents that is relatively uncluttered. Parrot of Doom 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed that point. Very well, since MOS accepts combining notes and references in one section, I'm fine with leaving it like that. I think that "further reading" still needs to be listed under its own heading though. You may want to combine it with "external links" so that the contents remain uncluttered.Wcp07 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I can buy that, its going to form a trio of 'scandal' articles and at some point someone has changed Mary Toft in exactly the manner you suggest, so I've changed it to maintain the same style. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

- On the whole, it is a well-written and researched article and I would support its promotion to featured article after the above are addressed. Wcp07 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All my issues have been addressed, so I support this article's promotion to featured article. Cheers. Wcp07 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on sources: Have you looked at some of the recent journal articles on the topic? A search on Google, for example, reveals a number of articles that include references both to the ghost and to Samuel Johnson. I'm not sure they support the view that Johnson was a skeptic (as you suggest in the lead). T. Kselman's 2009 review of Owen Davies's book, The Haunted—A Social History of Ghosts (2007), for example, alludes to the issue. Says Kselman: "Ghosts managed to make the transition to the modern world, as is clear in the story of the 'Cock Lane' ghost, who persuaded Samuel Johnson and a number of prominent clergymen that she was the shade of Frances Lynes, murdered by her lover. But the courts found the 'Cock Lane' ghost to be a fraud, suggesting the contentious nature of ghost belief in the Enlightenment." I'm not sure what you mean by a skeptic, but in this instance, according to both Kselman and Davies, Johnson was persuaded by the phenomenon, at least for some time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnson's own notes, of course, seem to suggest that he did think that the particular demonstration he viewed was a fraud, so perhaps we may need a more nuanced view. E. J. Clery in The Rise of Supernatural Fiction, 1762–1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1999), a book whose first chapter is devoted to the Cock Lane ghost, seems to suggest in my very cursory reading that Johnson did believe in the "real supernatural" and came to the demonstration with an open mind. According to Clery, "James Boswell was intrigued by the reputation for credulity that clung to Johnson in the aftermath of the Cock Lane affair. What had led him to expose himself to public ridicule?" This is contrasted later with Horace Walpole's visit and subsequent account. Says Clery, "It goes without saying that Walpole is a sceptic; there is no hint of the interests that drew Johnson to become involved in the case, not even a shade of hesitation regarding the truth status of the phenomenon." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK all we have of that night's proceedings are Johnson's notes. Johnson was certainly a believer in spirits, he was a Christian, he had to believe in an afterlife. He was terrified of eternal, silent death, and also terrified of eternal damnation. He did not, however, believe that the Cock Lane ghost was anything but a fraud - in Life of Johnson, John Hawkins implied that Johnson's interest was supernatural, and that "by it he gave countenance to the credulity of the vulgar". Johnson thought that the Cock Lane ghost, if it was an imposture, was the worst kind - that it brought the afterlife into disrepute. Boswell (Grant argues) was "enamoured of the mysterious that he was constantly inveigling Johnson into discussing such matters". Johnson was indeed in a party of sceptics; This was a party that was not investigating the Ghost's accusations, but rather the Ghost itself. Aldrich, it seems to me, was extremely doubtful of Parsons' motives. The Captain had previously carried a gun with him, to shoot at the walls the Ghost was knocking at. John Bishop had a keen, analytical mind, and had previously exposed the lies of William Lauder, who had accused Milton of plagiarism. "A party of sceptics" doesn't mean "A party of non-believers".

Now as for Johnson being a sceptic, I use that word in the sense that the man had an analytical mind - this as much is inferred by one of the quotes in the article, but to double-check I'm going to email Ottava. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All I meant was that it is clear that some modern references don't think of Johnson as a skeptic. (Clery for one.) It is probably best not to use that word in the lead to describe Johnson unless one clarifies concurrently what one means by it. After all, one of the common meanings of skeptic (Webster's Unabridged) is "a person marked by skepticism regarding religion or religious principles." It doesn't seem, according to Clery, Johnson was that. In fact the word "skeptic" is hardly ever used as a synonym for "analytical." OED draft edition December 2009, has as the 4th meaning: 4. "Occas. used with reference to the etymological sense: A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions." (Johnson was clearly not a skeptic in the original Greek sense either, OED 1.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably correct. I'm going to retain the "ever a sceptic" for now as it fits the quote nicely (until I get more feedback), but I've changed "party of sceptics" to "A commission, whose members included Samuel Johnson, investigated the matter, and it concluded that the supposed haunting was a fraud." I prefer the OED's second meaning of the word, "One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry (e.g. metaphysics, theology, natural science, etc.); popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement. Also, one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of sceptical temper." Parrot of Doom 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit more about the feud between Churchill and Johnson, in the legacy section. The source mentions that this is one of the reasons why history sometimes considers Johnson to be credulous, but that might be construed as opinion, and I think to include all of that would be veering a bit off course. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review: after some quick checks and tidying up, every image has alt text, is verifiably in the public domain, and uploaded to the appropriate site (albeit one can be moved to Commons). Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Leaning to Support:

• "In about 1756–57 ..."

  Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not redundant to have "about" for a date range?

  Some sources offer different years, so I've generalised to highlight this. Else if I omitted the 'about', people might think they married in December/January. Parrot of Doom 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... loaned his landlord £20."

  It might be worthwhile to look into how much this is equivalent to modern currency (initially I thought a few thousands since the defaulter was arrested but...). This would lend context to Kent's pursuit of Parsons for "a relatively small sum of money" later (and the £50 fine).

  Done Parrot of Doom 10:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... who reassured her that she would be forgiven for her sin."

  "Sin" or "sins"? If the former, was it her cohabitation with Kent, or her pregnant unmarried state?

  The source doesn't elaborate, but its probably the 'marriage', and not the pregnancy. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• "In October 1761 John Lynes began proceedings in Chancery against Kent."

  What were the results?

  Source doesn't say. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Johnson's quote in Exposure can be broken down and reworked into a paragraph that succinctly describes the scene with selected quotes from him?

  I think Johnson's quote is the source of what everyone writes happened on that night. I'd just be paraphrasing people who have re-written it, and it'd be about as long anyway. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• The mention of Dickens and his work seems to be a throwaway statement; I am not certain what impact this event had on his work. Likewise, the mention of Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters (a book I think is fairly obscure) seems scant in context.

  Yes, I'd wondered what to do with that, as its an unusual ending. I may just plonk Dickens in the "further reading" section. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Rightto. I did some search and see nothing for Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters, whose article is basically something of what your article is doing with the event. As for Dickens... mayhaps there be potential here...!

  • Other Dickens: Pickwick to Chuzzlewit by John Bowen, Oxford University Press, p. 118:

  {About a character from A Christmas CarolNicholas Nickleby}

  She [Mrs Nickleby] remembers others' memories, and is haunted by others' hauntings-such as her great-great-grandfather's (possible) haunting by the Cock Lane Ghost (or Thirsty Woman of Tutbury).23
  

  [23] The Cock Lane Ghost also appears in A Tale of Two Cities and Dombey and Son. It is perhaps the archetypal meeting of literary celebrity and the returning dead. See E. J. Clery, The Rise of Supernatural Fiction 1762-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 13-32. Mr Mortimer Knag, a 'literary' character, the author of much unpublished work, is described as 'ghostly' (221), and Nicholas works as a ghost-write for Crummies.
  

  • Telegraphic realism: Victorian fiction and other information systems by Richard Menke, Stanford University Press, pp. 108–109:

  In addition to its recourse to hyperbole, the late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," the rapping of Dr. Johnson's "Cock-lane ghost" setting the pattern for the modern "spirits of this very year last past (supernaturally deficient in originality)" (TTC, 5). The novel's first reference to revolution materializes as a contrast to such dubious emnations:" Mere messages ... any of the chickens of the Cock-lane brood" (TTC, 5-6).

  • The Dickensian, Volumes 34-35:

  Edith M. Davies apparently wrote an article entitled "The Cock Lane Ghost" here. It might prove interesting to this article, judging from the focus of the journal.

  So it seems there should be material (and fairly respectable and reliable ones too) to establish a context for Dickens in this article and to flesh it (significance) out further. The other book, however, looks like a candidate to be dropped. Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've added a couple more Dickens books, along with a quote. I know there's probably something to be said about Dickens and spirits (Christmas Carol etc), but I don't know anything about him, and will therefore have to do a bit of sniffing around to put his interest in the Cock Lane ghost into context. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  I fear there might be a misunderstanding of my issue here. What I am looking for is not a listing of Dickens's works to show weightage, but a reasoning of why Dickens considered the Cock Lane ghost to be of prominence enough to put it in his works (or a critical commentary of how the event was used in his books). Thus, listing its appearances is not enough. Exposition/analysis of "archetypal meeting" and "late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," would be better. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  No misunderstanding, see the second half of my post above :) I'm already on it, believe me. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, tis a misunderstanding on my part then, no harm done. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  Best I can do for now Parrot of Doom 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  It helps a bit; at least it establishes Dickens's as a man who believes in the supernatural and Cock Lane seems to have left some impression on him (rather than a popularist inclusion or something). I believe more can be done (the Dickensian source hangs in my mind), but I think this is sufficient with the more accessible sources; so supporting now. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than that, I had a joy reading the article (the prose felt great to me) and twas an interesting case. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are no sources, then the issues I raised cannot be addressed—so stricken. As for Johnson's quote and the date range, I am not hard up on them, but I leave unstruck for others to weigh on. The last point (the two book mentions) is more concerning, and I will support after it is addressed. Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: 2c. Where, pray tell, is "Stroud?"  ; where is "James Clarke & Co." located? ; Are you sure your Penguin is from London and not Harmondsworth? Is this the actual title, "Volume 12 of Cambridge studies in Romanticism " or is the title "C. s. in Rom." and the volume is 12? Date consistency problem with ISO: 1838–39. 39th month? Consider fixing by going non ISO with "retrieved 2009-12-21" Nice citation of pre 19th century publication data!

• Stroud is at Stroud, the same as London is at London, or Cambridge is at Cambridge. I've added a location for James Clarke & Co. The Penguin book - I don't know, I don't own the book. I don't consider it even slightly important. No, the actual title is not "volume 12 xxx" which is why I've used the work field. The book is as titled and is part of a series, as also stated. There isn't a date consistency problem with 1838-39, nobody will assume that 39 means month, so that does not need fixing. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Extensive comment regarding price series over time. CPI is not the indicator to use here. Loans are not part of the consumption bundle of an unskilled working class household which is the base measure of CPI. Measuring Worth has this explained quite nicely under which measure to use. A CPI can't reflect the decision to loan monies, as loans are not part of the standardised working class consumption bundle that goes into a price series... Especially not at the massive sum of £20 in the 1700s. "if you are wondering how "affordable" this would be to the average person, use the GDP per capita, or a wage or average earnings index. For the US, we have an index of unskilled wage and for the UK we have an index of average earnings." ("Which indicator," Measuring Worth) 1759 £20 => 2008 (last available year) ~£29000 using average earnings. This is a far better indicator of the massiveness of a £20 loan; Its also a far better immediate class indicator of the status of a usurer in the mid 18th century in the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  Haven't we been here before? Didn't you recently offer to write something on this topic? Have you yet done so? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've got Wage price series as a stub. This was fairly specific to the issue of wage / price series though which was the first issue. Have to think about rename and expand if we need it to deal with all historical time series. "Value time series" would be controversial, as value is a measure specific to Political Economy but not current economics. "Price time series" might incorrectly focus it on retail or consumer prices, and leave out wages, GDP, earnings, etc. It came up on Neville Chamberlain's second FAC because of the issue of measuring (apparently unrealised losses of) capital over time. Perhaps I should write it out of Measuring Worth's available series first, explaining the series utility according to MW's own explanations, then expand into their series specific essays, then finally use their sources from their lit reviews. But just quickly, given that this is about non-consumption spending outside of capitalised money, average earnings is the better series than CPI. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  In your judgement. We'll just have to wait for your reliably sourced conclusions. To be clear, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I've just no tolerance for bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, "Measures of Worth," MeasuringWorth, 2008. Is an adequate statement. Hell, there's the article title. Measuring economic worth over time it is. Its a bullshit area because the worth of money is not expressed in terms of a single type of money, but a variety of uses of money, including consumption, income relativities, and proportion of social product dedicated to production / investment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of that, but your solution to this problem, which seems to be to omit any conversions at all, is less than helpful to a reader. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm not about to disagree with you because you obviously have a greater interest in these matters than I do. The figure is only there as a rough guide - it doesn't have to be exact, but I want a figure in there nonetheless. It just has to give people a general idea of what £20 was worth. So, I checked the value of £20 here, and it gave me:

• In 2007, £20 0s 0d from 1760 is worth £2,817.02 using the retail price index. £27,382.55 using average earnings.

• So I'm going to remove the template that's in there, use £27,000 (in 2007), in the article, and cite it to "Lawrence H. Officer, "Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present," MeasuringWorth, 2009. URL http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/". Would that be better? Parrot of Doom 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Support with suggestions below:

• I'm not going to oppose over this, but the linking of common terms like inn and and post office will get this article on Tony1's list of ridiculous links.
• Fanny meanwhile went to stay with her brother, at Lynham This is presumably another brother, which might be better anchored with his name.
  • The source doesn't elaborate, so I've changed it to "one of her brothers" Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Is it just cheekiness that makes you name a section "Fanny" in a Cock Lane article?
  • I don't know what you mean...whistles... I did however consider naming the "Haunting" section as "Scratching Fanny". If that doesn't translate well in the US, you should know that Fanny means something else entirely in the UK... Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I know what it means, minge commander. Works just as well with the American meaning of bum. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Ignorant American that I am, I don't know the difference between 3 guineas and 20 pounds.
  • Guinea is linked, there was a price comparison in the article but its gone, I don't know who removed it. Look above, there's a discussion on this very issue. Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• her sister Ann Lynes (who lived at Pall Mall) attended the funeral, which took place at St John's. If Pall Mall and St. John's has some significance, it is not readily apparent what it is. Is it really necessary?
  • No connection really, it was to highlight that her sister lived in London and not Norfolk (which is some distance away). I've clarified that. Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• *titter* thou are not the ghost of my Fanny!!
  • Shame on thee! Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• In all, an interesting article. Suggestions are just that. Do what you wish with them. Let me know if you have any questions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, with comments:

1. William Kent, a usurer from Norfolk, Richard Parsons, a parish clerk, and his daughter Elizabeth. This sentence is ambiguous as it is not clear whose daughter Elizabeth was.
2. The story became a focus of controversy between the Methodist and Anglican churches, and is frequently referenced in contemporary literature. This sentence is too vague (even for the lead).
3. He refused, and following a brief argument, the supporters left. Who were those supporters?
4. Elizabeth his wife to be imprisoned one year; Was the wife of Mr. Parsons also Elizabeth? (So there were three Elizabeths!) If she was, this should be mentioned at the beginning of the article to avoid a later confusion.
5. I am actually interested in the wooden board used by Elizabeth to make sounds. It is mentioned only briefly in the article (Her maids then witnessed Elizabeth concealing on her person a small piece of wood, 6 by 4 inches (150 by 100 mm), and informed the investigators.). Can more information be provided? Why, for instance, she was able to conceal it for such a long time?

Ruslik_Zero 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.