Talk:Burke and Hare murders

What are we doing with this...

"Burke had met Margaret on previous trips to Edinburgh, but it is not known whether he was previously acquainted with Hare. Once Burke arrived in the close, they became good friends."? It was kinda stuck out there all on its own and looks like it was moved during a copy edit (possibly mine) and not put back. Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that the line you took out earlier? If so, I'm happy to leave it out if you are! - Gavin (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, I think it might be useful to point out that they had no prior association before moving in to the close; but then I think we've said that elsewhere, so there maybe no need for this. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote

"could not sleep at night without a bottle of whisky by his bedside, and a twopenny candle to burn all night beside him; when he awoke he would take a drink from the bottle—sometimes half a bottle at a draught—and that would make him sleep." -- was he talking about Hare then? He talks in the third person all the way through this? Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• My mistake on saying it was a quote from Burke, but it's still a quote, so if we get rid of the quote marks, we need to re-word the remainder. – Gavin (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, got ya. Just seen it in the book. Cassianto^Talk 21:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

New book on Burke by University of Edinburgh Researcher. (Self-published source)

To whomever wants to update the page,

A recently published book by a University of Edinburgh researcher sheds some light on the life of Burke.

Here is the amazon link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Burke-Now-Then-Janet-Philp/dp/0995510105

The book sources lots of historic documents archived at the university and other sources. Some tidbits:

1) Burke (most definitely) did not have testicular cancer.

2) Burke and Hare did not rob graves. They were accused of grave robbing by the court. They never confessed to it, nor was any evidence supplied that they did. The reason it was established in the court case was that Burke's common law wife was also on trial, and her defence rested on the claim that dead bodies were not uncommonly found on their property.

Read the book. I believe it will help you guys improve the wikipedia article.

Kind regards,

Anon Student

P.S The cover shows an rendering of Burke's face using his death mask and skeleton. It was generated at the University of Dundee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.130.239 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• I am afraid that I just removed the information that someone had included from this book (it was only about one very minor point, so no real problems on the integrity of the information) as I see that the book is a self-published source (SPS). Please see WP:SPS for more details. There is a caveat in the policy that allows information from some SPSs, but that is in a case where they "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I am not sure that is the case in this instance (at least not so far). All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Odd sentence?

This is a bit of an odd sentence:

When a lodger in Hare's house died, he turned to his friend Burke for advice and they decided to sell the body to Knox.

That a lodger who had died would then seek advice is probably not what was meant. How should this best be rephrased? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the context, but I've swapped "he" for "Hare", which should clarify things. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sic?

This whole Scott quotation in the "In media portrayals and popular culture" section uses older forms of spelling - it seems simpler to remove the current two sics than add an extra three or four. Thoughts? - Snori (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree - those had crept in since the article was promoted, and they aren't great. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Cite Error

Reference no. 28 is displaying this error: "Cite error: Invalid <nowki><ref></nowiki> tag; name "inflation-UK" defined multiple times with different content". I haven't the time to figure out how to correct it just now—I'm afraid to damage such a well-developed article. Matuko (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm away until Sunday evening with only limited access; if it isn't sorted by then, I'll work it out. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Replace "As at"/"as of" with template

First, let me say that this is one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia, in every conceivable way.

I accept "as at" as idiomatic in British English, however, I do think the fact of the skeleton's permanent residency should be presented using a more evergreen template, such as the Start date template: "Burke's skeleton was given to the Anatomical Museum of the Edinburgh Medical School where, and has been there since 1829 (1829)."

This will save the editor from updating the page every year, and I think the reader will find seeing number of years in print quite astonishing. There are other methods of accomplishing this, but you get my general point—I'm not married to Start date, but I feel the issue should be addressed, as the MOS is pretty clear on the matter.

At the very least, I think a template like As of should be used, tagging the article as in need of an annual update. Matuko (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No. As has already been discussed, "As at" is correct in formal British English. If you can persuade a template writer to bring a BrEng version into play, that would be OK, but there is no reason to use something wrong (and it's an American term, not British) just because the guideline of the MoS suggests considering it. See Wikipedia talk:As of#"As at" for further information. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Other Burke's skin fragment (William Roughead's collection)

• Whittington-Egan, Richard, "William Roughead : Chronicler of Scottish Crime (1870-1952)", The Contemporary Review, Sept. 1979, vol. 235, no 1364, p. 146-153. p. 152 : "[William Roughead] loved to exhibit to the interested the treasures of his black museum of criminal souvenirs, such as the fragment of William Burke's skin which he kept in a snuffbox..."
• Whittington-Egan, Richard, Editor (1991), William Roughead's Chronicles of Murder, Lochar Pub., p. 139 : "loved to exhibit to the interested the treasures of his black museum of criminal souvenirs (...) the fragment of William Burke's skin, inherited from his grandfather which he kept in a snuffbox..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.109.77 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Fate of Hare - died 'blind and destitute'?

I have read in a book about names that became common words back in the 70s (in relation to the phrase 'to Burke up the evidence'), and heard from a 1980s TV programme presented by Magnus Magnusson about the murders that Hare 'died blind and destitute' [amongst working class people in the 19th century a usually synonymous fate]. (I don't think I was confusing him with Robert Knox because his wiki article makes no reference to Knox losing eyesight and had that been the case the work he was doing in his last years in London would have been impossible.) I am a little surprised that something that was given currency as late as the 1970s-80s appears to have been discredited without it being known. I am open to correction.Cloptonson (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A series of sixteen killings

I have reverted the addition of the wikilink around "series of sixteen killings" per WP:EGG. That wording makes it sound like it would go to an article specifically about the sixteen killings, not a general article about the concept of serial killers. This is a problem because it's misleading, so I have reverted it. It was only recently introduced so per WP:BRD I have reverted it as it goes against the principle of least astonishment. The IP mentioned the FAC, but the wikilink in particular was not present at that time. It's not the wording I have the issue with, it's the misleading wikilink. - Aoidh (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The link added in February this year (so five and a half months ago - recently?). The claim you make “it sound like it would go to an article specifically about the sixteen killings” is the same for the extant version (“were a series of sixteen killings”) as the version you were edit warring to “protect” (“were sixteen serial killings”). Both sets of wording were about the killings. I have no objection to the piped link to Serial killer being taken out, although I can see an argument for it being left in. Having said that, when I co-wrote the article six years ago, I don’t remember too many references to them being serial killers (there were one or two, but very few, given the number of sources used). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:881B:FFA1:26C8:A6B (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about the different wordings, I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in what is wikilinked. I have no issue with the version you just linked. I have issue with this change that adds in the extra words to the wikilink. [[serial killer|series of sixteen killings]] is specifically what I have an issue with, per WP:EGG. Not the wording itself. - Aoidh (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The wording is essentially the same. Both versions are about the killings, not the killers. The link is removed (better because they are not defined as serial killers in the text), so the point is moot. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:881B:FFA1:26C8:A6B (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lore (TV Series)

Season 2, Episode 1 of "Lore" (Amazon Prime Video, 2017-2018) was literally all about Burke and Hare. This should be mentioned/linked in the "media portrayals and popular culture" section of this article. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia rules or I would add it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.209.46 (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Omens Season 2 Episode 3

The subject TV episode had a great plot regarding grave robbing in 19th century Edinburgh. I understand the rules about bloating the list but I wish it could be mentioned somewhere in the article. 174.58.100.83 (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's not about Burke and Hare, then it shouldn't be going in, otherwise we could end up with a very long list of trivial mentions, and Good Omens would be just another trivial mention in that list. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)