Talk:Patricia Cornwell/archive

This is an archive of past discussions about Patricia Cornwell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive extracted from an ongoing discussion. See Talk:Patricia Cornwell

The last edit to this page has introduced too much POV, and it now needs to be balanced. [Note, this entry was unsigned and undated, but is old, so the "last edit" was a long time ago.] DreamGuy 11:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Requests

This article needs to include:

Cornwell's other publications

Her notorious "affair" with the wife of an FBI agent, and other publicity coups

Jumbo 16:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I've put the Jack the Ripper/Sickert stuff back AGAIN. This stuff CLEARLY belongs on this page and NOT Walter Sickert. [unregistered anonymous user]

"CLEARLY"? What, a while back several registered active Wikipedia editors moved information to the Sickert article and you, a sole unregistered anonyymous user object to it, it's supposedly clear? As already explained, the information here duplicates coverage of the Sickert article so there's no point to having it in both locations. As far as your edit comments that the Ripper accusations are only in the sick fantasy of Cornwell goes, Sickert actually has been accused of being involved in the Ripper crimes by atleast five different authors, Cornwell only being one. AS the theories are different, you can't cover them here because most of it doesn't relate to Sickert in any way. The Sickert page is the proper place for it. Now stop blindly reverting the page with the exact same comments without even bothering to read the talk pages of the articles involved as if your will is the only thing that's important here. So far your actions have been little better than that of a vandal. DreamGuy

You are getting personal, making things up accusing me of vandalism and being disruptive, this is all very rude behaviour, please desist. My edit summary clearly explained why I re-instated this information. I said "This should not be on the Walter Sickert page because it is all a fantasy in the head of Cornwell and had no place in a proper biography of Sickert" I did not use the word "sick" - so stop twisting my words. I am not talking about what other authors have written but what Cornwell has written. You said - "the information here duplicates coverage of the Sickert article" - but my point is that it shouldn't be in the Sickert article any more than the suggestion that G.W. Bush is a reptile should be in the George W. Bush page. Sickert was not even in Britain at the time of the murders so the suggestion that he was the Ripper has no foundation whatsoever, so why do you taint the man's biography with this scurrilous nonsense. This information should be on the page of the authors concerned if they are notable enough to have an article and should also be on the list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects page. [unsigned again, but same person as above]

I am not getting personal, I'm trying to get you to realize that you are harming this encyclopedia with your stong bias and unwillingness to follow along with what several editors have been working on. The reptile argument makes no sense, because G W Bush is notable for so many things that the reptile accusation doesn't even enter the picture. Sickert is notable first and foremost for the Ripper accusations. He's also known as a student of Whistler, but would have been mostly forgotten except for the fact that the Ripper accusations keep putting him in the spotlight. Even the major exhibitions and books by art critics discuss the Ripper accusations. Some of his major biographers support some of the accusations (not sure which because we are still waiting for Anna Greutzner Robins' book to come out). Trying to sweep it under the rug instead of objectively covering the pros and cons of the arguments is not only ridiculous but completely contrary to how encyclopedias work. Your edit summary simply states your bias and doesn't take into account the work that myself and many others have put into these pages. For you to come along and not just decide you disagree but to try to tell us to do the exact opposite of what we all agreed to do (move in-depth coverage of theories about suspects to the pages for those suspects) is fairly ridiculous. All you do is keep repeating the same arguments I've already responded to several times over and phrased in several different ways. As a new editor here at ikipedia, you should go read the NPOV policy as well as the other information about how to interact with others here and what the goals of an encyclopedia are before making any more edits. DreamGuy 10:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Sickert is notable first and foremost for the Ripper accusations". - No he is NOT!. He is notable (first and foremost) because he was an artist of repute. - If he wasn't of famous for this (i.e. his art) then he wouldn't even be in the frame for the Ripper would he!? He was one of the most prominent painters of his era. One of the most influential British Impressionists of his day. And he was not even in the UK when the murders happened. So if one thing can be stated clearly it is that he is NOT Jack the Ripper - Turkey

This shows that you do not understand at all about the case in question or how encyclopedia work. His art only gets attention now because of the Ripper claims, not vice versa. And, yes, there is evidence that he was on vacation in the south of France during a length of time, that, if he didn't leave in the middle, overlaps some but not all of the Ripper murders. Objectively that's all we can say. That's different from 1) claiming as a fact that he couldn't have made the trip back to make a murder, 2) claiming he didn't kill any of the victims that were killed when he was proven to be in the UK either, 3) claiming that he couldn't have done anything he was accused of, and 4) concluding that it should not even be discussed in his own article. DreamGuy 11:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

He was president of the Royal Society of British Artists for goodness sake. He WAS a prominent artist of his day. His paintings were hanging in museums and being sold for high sums long before he was first suggested as a Ripper suspect in the 1970s. You are talking rot. IVoteTurkey 12:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You ARE getting personal because you are accusing me of all sorts of vandalising and bias etc..etc.. when all I am doing is re-instating information about Cornwell's book on her page. I don't see anyone else other than you complaining about that. - Turkey

You are vandalizing this page, clearly haven't read at all about how wikipedia is supposed to work (because you don't understand NPOV, etc.), and you have violated the Three revert rule which is an offense that could get you banned. Please learn from your mistakes and do not wallow in your ignorance. DreamGuy 11:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are the one who keeps reverting the page by removing relevent information. By they way your tone is extremely rude and condescending. It is not appreciated. - Turkey

Have you read the Three revert rule? You violated it, that means you should be banned now. You have made no attempts to learn how Wikipedia works and are violating its policies and whining about people who follow them. If that sounds rude, and you don't appreciate it, perhaps you should go read up on how this site works and follow the rules instead of being offended when people point out that you don't. Your obstinance to following Wikipedia policy and inability to try to work with others is what's rude. DreamGuy 02:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

three revert rule

I have just looked at the timestamps for this article which are as follows

(cur) (last) 12:13, 6 Dec 2004 MacGyverMagic m protected because of revert war, please try to come to an agreement on the talk page.)
(cur) (last) 10:10, 6 Dec 2004 IVoteTurkey (restoring information about Cornwell's most recent and probably most infamous book, because THIS is where it belongs)
(cur) (last) 10:00, 6 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (the same guy finally registered, but he is STILL reverting the article without even trying to respond to explanations on the talk page about how the info duplicates & contradicts the other article)
(cur) (last) 09:34, 6 Dec 2004 IVoteTurkey (revert again)
(cur) (last) 22:51, 5 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (again reverting change by anonymous user who says the exact same thing, ignoring discussion and ignoring the fact that several editors made the changes he/she objected to on the other page.)
(cur) (last) 13:31, 5 Dec 2004 80.43.205.224 (Revert - This should not be on the Walter Sickert page because it is all a fantasy in the head of Cornwell and had no place in a proper biography of Sickert)
(cur) (last) 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (rv cahnges by unregistered user -- there's already info on the Walter Sickert page, claiming that removing redundant information is bad and makes no sense)
(cur) (last) 13:19, 3 Dec 2004 80.43.205.224 (Revert - This should not be on the Walter Sickert page because it is all a fantasy in the head of Cornwell and had no place in a proper biography of Sickert)
(cur) (last) 01:35, 3 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (Jack the Ripper - think the bulk of this should be on the Walter Sickert page, copying text to talk page of that article for merging later)

I have also just looked at the three revert rule page. This clearly states - Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

I made 4 edits on this page, the first is dated - 13:19, 3 Dec 2004 , the last is dated 10:10, 6 Dec 2004 - by my reckoning (someone can check my maths) there are 68 hours and 51 minutes between the first and last edit. Therefore I DID NOT violate this rule. DreamGuy - I would like you to apologise for claiming that I broke this rule, and threatening to ban me for something that I didn't do. IVoteTurkey 13:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why are you comparing the first of four edits to the last of four? Compare the closest set of three. Those last three were all within 24 hours.

07:31, Dec 5, 2004 80.43.205.224 (Revert - 
03:34, Dec 6, 2004 IVoteTurkey (revert again)
04:10, Dec 6, 2004 IVoteTurkey (restoring

And since you admit above that you did the Dec 3 revert, that proves the 80.43.205.224 revert in this set of three was you. You did three reverts in 21 hours. I can't ban you for it because I am not a sysop, but you violated it just the same. DreamGuy 13:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Eee gads it says - more than three - more than three - not three! IVoteTurkey 13:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page. Please try to summarize your view on the edits that keep getting reverted in ten lines or less without insulting the other user or assuming bad faith. Remember, we should strive for consensus. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:18, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to preserve this page in its current format, i.e. containing several paragraphs about Cornwell's book, which accuses Walter Sickert of being Jack the Ripper. I did not write this information, but I think it belongs on this page. DreamGuy believes that this information should be on the Walter Sickert page and has been replacing it with a summary and a link to the Sickert page. I believe that it is wrong to include this detail on the Sickert page. This information is not about the life of Sickert, it is about what Cornwell did in order to try to prove her allegations against Sickert. It is not biographical to Sickert at all. Whilst it is true that other authors have suggested Sickert as the culprit, few seriously minded people believe that Sickert was the Ripper. I therefore believe that we shouldn't be unbalancing that article by having such blackening suggestions (i.e. that he was a serial killer) on Sickert's page. Info about these books suggesting Sickert as the killer should therefore be on List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, which can then link to the Cornwell article. IVoteTurkey 12:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As already explained above, currently there are two pages, Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert that contain in-depth information about her theory that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The two pages duplicate and contradict each other on several points. It should only be in one location. The Walter Sickert page is the best place for it because the editors of the various Jack the Ripper pages agreed to move in-depth discussions of individual suspects to the pages for that suspect (so they don't unbalance the coverage of the suspects list, where small sections only are devoted to each), where their candidacy as the Ripper is a highly notable aspect of their lives. Sickert is named as the Ripper or an accomplice in no less than five different books (one from well-respected Sickert biographer Anna Greutzner-Robins, whose opinions are not so easily dismissed as the others), and his current fame is due largely to that fact. The consolidated information cannot be on the Cornwell page, because there are five different theories to discuss, many of which share little if anything in common with Cornwell's theory. Objective discussion of the most notable aspects of a person's fame is clearly the way encyclopedias handle such matters. Removing "blackening suggestions" is to not only pick a side but to declare that the other side should not even be mentioned, clearly violating NPOV policy. DreamGuy 02:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I feel I have to follow DreamGuy's post. DreamGuy's claim about other editors wanting to move information into suspects articles appears to be bogus. IT was suggested that the information about Cornwell's book and Sickert be moved from the main Jack the Ripper page, because Cornwell's book was dominating that article. One user suggested moving the info to Sickert, but in the end it was decided to put in on Cornwell's page and a brief reference to this was left on the Sickert page. Later on this Ripper information was expanded and grew to duplicate the information on the Cornwell page. It was also agreed to remove the details regarding the Duke of Clarence and Lewis Carroll because few people take the claims about them being Jack the Ripper seriously. Since then the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects has been created. What better place to discuss in detail all those (including the unlikely ones) who have been named as suspects. IVoteTurkey 05:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, IVoteTurkey's summary of of what happened at what times is all messed up, which is unsurprising because he wasn't involved with any of them. The list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects existed previously under a different name, was merged with Jack the Ripper, and was split again. In depth information was moved to pages for the suspects, and for those suspects where it was not very notable at all (Lewis Carroll having one minor book mentioning the theory, for example), most of the information has recently been split off again, with summaries still remaining (which he is also apparently object to, as he doesn't want any mention at all of the Ripper theories on the pages of people named as suspects). The splits for Lewis Carroll and the Duke came long after the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects was created, and no editor other than newly-registered IVoteTurkey here has recommended that that information be removed completely from the biographies or returned to the list of suspects page. His proposal goes against the standards set by the editors of the Jack the Ripper pages as well as those of the suspect pages, where concensus has been set time and again. DreamGuy 09:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

If there's more people that proposed Sickert as the Ripper there's a difference in information. I think the Sickert page can contain indepth info about all theories, but Cornwell's page can contain info about her own theory with a reference to the list and the Sickert page. If there's discreprencies in her own theory between the pages, that needs to be fixed.

DreamGuy, could you make a compromise to have the information about Cornwell's theory in both articles as long as they contain correct and verifiable information? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. The duplication sounds like it'd be a little hard to keep in sync on both pages, which is what I was hoping to get around, but if it solves anything it's fine by me. I was actually the person who (before I registered) went through and added most of the points showing the con sides of Cornwell's theory, so in principle I have no problem with the discussion being here. My main objections here have been the redundancy between articles and IVoteTurkey's stating that he/she wants to keep the info here because he hopes to erase it on the Walter Sickert page. Based upon that, I suspect that your compromise suggestion won't be to Turkey's liking. His main stated goal is to remove Jack the Ripper references from all articles of people who have been, in his opinion, unjustly accused, no matter how well-noted the accusations are or ho objective the coverage of those accusations has been. I am more curious as to what he would suggest as a compromise, as so far his idea of trying to work things out is to demand that everyone else accept his way. DreamGuy 09:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

DreamGuy is distorting facts. Firstly the other books claiming that Sickert was the Ripper have long since been discredited they are not worthy of merit by all normal standards of investigation , next he says "Anna Greutzner-Robins" <sic> claims that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. He is actually reporting what Cornwell wrote in her book.

Untrue. I am reporting what Gruetzner Robins has announced in press releases and in interviews about her upcoming book Walter Sickert: The Camden Town Murder in Focus which is due to be released any day now. The ISBN is 1-8543751-5-6. I am not distorting any facts, I am exposing your lack of knowledge about the topic. DreamGuy 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ok so what EXACTLY does she say.. you can't know in detail because the book hasn't even been published. Are you saying that in this book (which is about a single painting by Sickert) - that she firmly states that Sickert was the Ripper?! - I doubt it. IVoteTurkey 12:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For crying out loud, you never heard of this book a half hour ago and now you are trying tell me what's in it and claiming that I can't know anything about it even though I already explained that she has been interviewed about it by others already? Either way, the point is that I was not lying about her book and you don't have the background to be making the claims you keep making. DreamGuy 13:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

No I don't know what's in this book - and neither do you (in detail) - that's the point surely, but I do know what Cornwell wrote about Gruetzner Robins saying - and that did not gel with what you stated - I never accused you of lying - please desist from using emotive terms like this. Now I'm just using my intuition so forgive me if I'm wrong here but given that she is an art historian and given what she has already written about Sickert - and given what she has already said according to Cornwell - then I would take a poke and suspect that she talks a lot about his painting - what do you reckon? - do you have information about what precisely she said in the press releases and interviews - you haven't elaborated on this? IVoteTurkey 18:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- On page 60, Cornwell refers to Anna Gruetzner-Robins and claims that "she does not see how it is possible ... to study Sickert extensively and not begin to suspect that he was Jack the Ripper." - this is NOT the same as what DreamGuy claims - i.e. "Sickert is named as the Ripper or an accomplice". If you want to check what she actually worte you can e-mail her - [1] - note all her publications are listed here, they are about art not Murder.

Which does not have the book I am referencing because it hasn;t been released yet. 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have looked at the Jack the Ripper Suspects page which was the version of the list of suspects before it was recreated. Just before the page was redirected to Jack the Ripper it was simply duplicating information in the main article and was very short, as can be seen from this version [2]. DreamGuy mis-reads my intention. I do not want to expunge completely any mention of Jack the Ripper from these article pages, but for Lewis Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Walter Sickert, all of whom are HIGHLY speculative suspects, merely a passing reference should be made to these theories and the details of these theories should be put in a sensible place namely List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. With regard to Cornwell's allegations - I will make mention of what must be seen as the single defining principle behind my view that this should not reside in the Sickert page, and that is that all of it, every single word of it is not about the life or work of Sickert, it is about what Cornwell has done. Look at this, each paragraph begins as follows -

Cornwell has been involved ....
She contends Sickert ....
Cornwell cites Sickert's artistic ...
In recent speeches, Cornwell says ...
All in all, Cornwell claims ....
Ripperologists and other critics of her theory ....
Critics also note that Cornwell ....

Why should all this stuff about Cornwell be in Sickert's page!? You might say well it would be worded this wy because it is currently on the Cornwell page... ok well let's look at what is currently says on the Sickert page ....

In 2002, crime novelist Patricia Cornwell ....
Cornwell purchased 31 paintings by Sickert ....
At the time of her research and book publication, Cornwell was not ....
Critics of her theory note ....
Critics also note .... Even if Cornwell can ....
Cornwell's claim that Sickert .......
Most problematic for Cornwell's theory .....

So can you not see that this IS NOT biographical information!?

You seem to be under the misguided notion that everything in an article about an individual has to be strictly historical biography. This is not true. The articles cover whatever is notable about that person, and in this case it's that he has been extensively linked by several authors to the Ripper case. In fact, it's the single most thing he is known for. He hasn't had an exhibition of his artwork for years, and now after Cornwell's book came out, he suddenly has two, both using publicity about Cornwell's book to advertise the show. Whether those theories in your opinion make sense or not should have no bearing on the objective process of covering all sides of major topics of note about an individual. DreamGuy 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I firmly agree that all sides of this subject should be covered - but not in the page about Sickert. If the subject of Jack the Ripper comes up on the Sickert page it should be in the context of his work as an artist. I suspect that this is how Anna Gruetzner-Robins treats the subject. IVoteTurkey 12:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is what it all comes down to: You want a highly notable aspect of his current fame to not even be discussed objectively on his page because you find it personally offensive. This is clearly against the NPOV policy.

I don't find it personally offensive - so you are on the wrong track there. IVoteTurkey 10:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok so now I come to the compromise suggestion - this I'm afraid is not acceptable for two reasons 1) I concur with what DreamGuy originally said i.e. that the duplication is unnecessary. 2) This information should not be on the Sickert page for the reasons stated above.

The most sensible place to put information about the other books is on the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects page with a link to Patricia Cornwell (or perhaps a new page about her book) which should contain the details of her book. As previously stated this is not biographical information about Sickert, if anything it is biographical information about Cornwell and what she has been spending here time and money on. IVoteTurkey 10:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In other words, your idea of compromise is to ignore what I recommend, ignore what MacGyverMagic recommends, ignore what the people who have worked on the Jack the Ripper pages have done and to ignore what the editors who worked on the Walter Sickert page have done so you can do what you wanted to do from the very beginning? That's not compromise, that's an attempt to hold this encyclopedia hostage to your whims. A diverse number of editors were working on these pages in harmony before you came along. We've all already voted by our previous actions, and obviously your position that the info should be removed from the Sickert article is not accepted by most. Frankly, I am rather shocked that someone with such a short history here and who has violated wiki rules (with your three reverts in 24 hours, the first before you registered) is in a position where you are now trying to make demands out of the rest of us, especially when what you want to do is to violate the NPOV policy to advance your opinions. Either make an honest attempt at compromise or leave the article alone so the people with more experience and who have been working in harmony can get on with things.DreamGuy 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have asked for people to come here and comment on this page but as yet no-one has come forward , other than MacGyverMagic who came here after I requested that the page be protected from your reversions. MacGyverMagic was not in full possession of the facts when he made his suggested compromise, I suspect that his aim is not to take sides anyway. Oh and for the final time of asking will you quit with this rude, aggressive and condescening tone where you keep going on about getting me banned or whatever, I really do not appreciate it. I think we need the opinions of other people who have worked on these articles and as I said earlier I have asked people to come here. I think we should wait to see what other people have to say. IVoteTurkey 12:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's amazing that you think you can complain about my reversions. You reverted it more times than I have (including three in 24 hours), without explanations why, and without having had the history of contribution to the article that I do. But the fact remains that what you intend to do (remove references to Jack the Ripper on the Sickert page) has clearly already been shown to be something the majority of editors of the associated pages were actually doing just the opposite of. For you to not offer any sort of compromise and to try to claim that other opinions are needed is to willfully ignore the history of these articles. And if you feel that it is somehow rude for me to point out that you are violating wikipedia policies, the easy solution is for you to stop violating them. I find it extremely offensive that you can flaut your violations of the rules, harass me on my talk page, claim that I am lying, and then pretend to be the victim when I point out that what you are doing is wrong. Two editors here already have agreed to a compromise, while you are deadset against budging from your drastic and unsupported plans to change to how Ripper suspect pages have been handled during their history here. Suggest a compromise or leave the pages alone to the people who have been editing them just fine without you. DreamGuy 13:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

DreamGuy You say "you reverted it more times than I have (including three in 24 hours), without explanations why.." -this is simply not true. The edit summary (as shown above) clearly shows why I reverted your removal of this information. Now concerning various users contributions to this subject. - When the Jack the Ripper page contained the list of suspects it made perfect sense to "farm out" the details to other pages so that the page wasn't overly long, but now we have the list of suspects page it makes perfect sense to "flesh out" this page with the details of the theories concerning the various suspects. Let those who have contributed come here and speak for themselves. Please do not assume to speak for them. You say "And if you feel that it is somehow rude for me to point out that you are violating wikipedia policies, " - I have clearly demonstrated that I haven't violated the three rule revert policy. As for me claiming that you are lying - what exactly are you referring to here? I'm sure I can validate the truth of the matter. IVoteTurkey 13:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, lets look at what someone said on the Talk:Lewis Carrol page - "I can see how it would be too much text within an entry on his life, as it seems to pay too much attention to a strange theory, but the same problem creeps up with others who have been suggested as the Ripper for almost equally unlikely reasons (Walter Sickert, Prince Eddy and Sir William Gull, for instance)." - DreamGuy wrote that - and I agree with it completely. IVoteTurkey 13:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer that the theories about Sickert remain at Sickert....after all, if John Keegan writes a book on World War I, his theories should be put at the WWI article, not his own. I share DreamGuy's concern about duplication, but if Mgm's compromise will end this strange edit war, I am happy with it. I do not agree with what IVoteTurkey is proposing. Jwrosenzweig 15:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy - We are talking about an individual (i.e. Sickert) not a broad subject like WWI. However I would hardly expect an article on Wikipedia about WWI to have 4 or 6 paragraphs about how Keegan (or some other author with a pet theory) has gone about trying to prove that Archduke Ferdinand was actually killed as part of a British conspiricy or something. I might expect a passing reference to Keegan's work in the Wikipedia WWI article but I would more likely expect it on a page about the book itself or the author himself. John Keegan is of course a respected author and he deals with facts. but these allegations about Sickert are almost universally believed to be false. I'm sure even DreamGuy would admit that. Jwrosenzweig the reason I asked you to come comment on this page is because on the Talk:Jack the Ripper (it's now on talk:List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects) you said "'::Do we really have to have Lewis Carroll here? The author of the book attacking him lists as his qualification "twenty-five years in the data processing field" (ref [3]). Sounds a lot to me like someone self-publishing a pile of tripe. If I published a book claiming that Queen Elizabeth II was actually Ramses II, returned from the planet Nepton, would that rate it a mention in the Queen's article? I guess I'd advocate deleting Carroll from the list. " - following what you say here these books about Sickert (which have all been discounted) do not deserve mention on Sickert's page. - What is your objection to my proposal? IVoteTurkey 17:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why the analogy is wrong -- both Sickert and World War I are encyclopedic subjects, and I see no reason why Sickert's position as an individual human being makes the case different. But be that as it may. The allegations about Sickert may or may not be acknowledged to be false -- do you have a verifiable data source for that? Without it, all I can say is that several books, at least one of them a fairly well-known book (Cornwell's book sold quite well, as I recall -- perhaps even a week or two on the NYT list?), made these allegations -- with that many people buying the books, it's at least worth mentioning. I understand, Turkey, that you invited me here because I had made a comment that made you think I would be sympathetic to you, but that doesn't give you cause to complain if I don't say what you expect. :-) I have not seen it demonstrated that these books have been "discounted", as you say, and given that allegations have been raised by a respected biographer of Sickert, as well as by Cornwell (who has some level of expertise in crime detection, given her work experience, and whose allegations were seen as conclusive by several Scotland Yard detectives, if I remember her book's introduction aright), I think something needs to be said on Sickert's page. Even if the book by Cornwell is given its own article, a summary of the charges would still have to go on Sickert's page. Some scholars have alleged that Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children -- even if I believe that these charges have been discounted, or that the allegations are a smear job, I still have to admit that the allegations are public enough to warrant mention on Jefferson's page (whether or not a more detailed article on the allegations belongs elsewhere). Surely you can agree to this? Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I invited you here because when I read your comment about the Queen and the planet Nepton I was struck about how similar it was to my words about George W. Bush and David Icke on the Talk:Walter Sickert page. I'm not complaining about your opinion - but I was suprised by it - and suspected (as you have now yourself stated) that you were not in full possesion of the facts regarding the validity Sickert allegations. Yes a well-known author (of fiction) had a best-selling book about the subject - but the book has been almost universally condemned by seriously minded people - read the reviews at Amazon.com. I suspect that DreamGuy, given his interest in the subject, might very well have written one of those negative reviews - in fact I'd put money on it. To use another analogy - many books have been written about the supposed faking of Project Apollo and specifically Apollo 11 (some by "supposed" experts), but I see little or no mention of this on those pages, because these theories have all been discounted as bogus. IVoteTurkey 10:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok - I'll make a proposal - I suggest that the information about Patricia Cornwell's book be moved to Jack the Ripper: Case Closed - which is the title of her book. Now I suspect that DreamGuy will object to this because he has already stated that he thinks all the anti-Sickert allegations should be in the same place - but does anyone else object to this idea? IVoteTurkey

Why not do what seems to have successfully been done with the Duke of Clarence - put the accusations at a page specifically about the accusations that that person was Jack the Ripper, and only have a brief mention of the stuff at Walter Sickert? john k 21:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would accept moving the detailed summary of the allegations and the criticisms of them to the article that Turkey proposes, and simply placing a paragraph summary on Sickert's page (with a link to the detailed article, of course). Jwrosenzweig 22:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the material on Sickert as murderer ought to go on the same page.

By the way, I think Jefferson fathering slave children is a lot more respectable than these Ripper theories that revolve around Prince Eddy. Recall that Jefferson was accused of fathering slave children in his own day, and that a DNA test proved that the descendants of one of Sally Hemings's sons are, in fact, descended in the male line from the Jeffersons (yes, it could be another Jefferson than Thomas). On the other hand, nobody every accused Prince Eddy or Sickert or any of these people of any involvement in the Ripper crime until decades later, and it seems to be all based on no evidence at all. Nothing actually ties Sickert to the Ripper case except the extneded detritus of the Prince Eddy story which, so far as I am aware, was made up out of whole cloth without any actual evidence to back it up many many decades after the event. It should be noted that Britannica's article on Sickert makes no mention of the Ripper stuff. Neither does the Columbia article, although that is very short. It seems to me vaguely libelous to include lengthy discussions of what are essentially absurd conspiracy theories with no genuine evidence to back them up as the bulk of articles about people who are distinguished in their own right - and Sickert, while perhaps not the most highly regarded artist out there, is certainly distinguished enough in his own right to warrant an encyclopedia article that is about his actual accomplishments, rather than repeating deranged accusations that seem essentially to be based on nothing. Sickert is only a suspect because someone made up the Prince Eddy as Ripper story and then found out that Prince Eddy was in Scotland at the time, and had to find someone else who could actually commit the murders within the same basic storyline. That Cornwell seems, at least from the account of her version here, to have discarded the detritus of the Prince Eddy version seems immaterial - the only reason anyone ever thought of Sickert as a suspect is as a result of the Prince Eddy stuff. The problem with the whole thing is that a suspect is come up with based on a completely bogus line of reasoning. When the reasoning is shot through, the suspect isn't discarded, just a new (totally bogus) line of reasoning is come up with to explain how this person is the Ripper. It's just like Shakespeare authorship theories.

That is to say - I think all this ripper theorization is encyclopedic and deserves to be somewhere. But I don't see how anything more than the briefest notice is appropriate to an article about these people who are "suspects" for absolutely no reason at all. john k 23:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John, I grant you the Jefferson allegations are more well-founded. :-) Re: Sickert, I guess I would say that my limited knowledge had given me to believe that Sickert was a reasonable suspect, but that I wouldn't want to contend with someone who said otherwise -- all I can say as an editor here, however, is that the allegations are real, and that it looks to me that the most popular book on Ripper of the last five to ten years was Cornwell's, so I have no doubt that there are a reasonably large number of people who believe Sickert is somehow associated. By reasonably large, I don't mean "a majority of English speakers" but at least a significant minority of those who care about Jack the Ripper's identity. The paragraph I'm suggesting would be something along the lines of:

"Sickert has been accused in recent years by several popular authors (including Name and Name) of being responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders. He was never listed as a suspect while the murders were taking place, and no physical evidence conclusively ties Sickert to any of the Ripper murders. The most well-known work connecting Sickert with Jack the Ripper is Cornwell's book; the details of her allegations can be found at that book's article. The connection between Sickert and Jack the Ripper is seen as unlikely by most students of the Jack the Ripper case."

Does that seem to be too much of a smear to you? I don't think we can understate the case more than that without taking too strong a stand against the POV that Sickert is connected to the murders. Jwrosenzweig 00:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you are already taking a stand against the point of view means your version is quite POVy. I don't see why you think all the various theories about Sickert should be split up on separate pages for each author and book, as it makes sense to have them all in one place. You might as well say, "Yeah, he's an artist that nobody would have heard of except for these list of accusations we'll give you links to read elsewhere on separate pages because we think they are bunk and splitting them up dilutes the 'smear' on his character." This case is quite a bit different from the Lewis Carroll case, as he is well known for other things and the accusations about being Jack the Ripper were in a book hardly anyone has even seen and nobody except the author seems to support. Sickert is primarily known for the Ripper accusations, and many of them have taken strong root in the field and public consciousness. He pops up in fictional accounts as a character because of these accusations. It's his claim to fame. And regarding nobody linking him at the times to the crimes, it can be argued (not by me, for the record, but by the people whose opinions I'm am defending here strictly out of objectivity and encyclopdiec standards) that he linked himself, by naming his paintings after the crimes, telling people that the room he lived in was the place where Jack the Ripper had lived, telling stories about a mad veterinary student who was the Ripper, etc. The idea that you are here to defend Sickert and admit you are understating the case shows you've taken a side, and that shouldn't be happening in an encyclopedia. IVoteTurkey's bias is over the top obvious, what you recommend here doesn't sound much better at all. But then we should move the talk to that page instead of here. DreamGuy 02:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

You say Sickert is primarily known for the Ripper allegations. However, every other encyclopedia has an article on the man which does not even mention the Ripper stuff. So Britannica and Columbia (and probably Encarta, although I can't look at it) seem to feel that he is significant for things other than the Ripper murders. Britannica calls him a "painter and printmaker who was a pivotal figure in British avant-garde painting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." At any rate, I fully agree that there's no reason to split up the Sickert theories. But I don't see why we can't do what was done for the Prince Eddy article, which is just to split off all the theories about Sickert into their own article. As far as Jwrosenzweig's suggested article, I have no particular objection, although I don't think it needs to go into it that much. I think it could just be mentioned that he has been brought up as a potential Jack the Ripper suspect and point people to the article on theories about him as Jack the Ripper. john k 04:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re to DG

Sorry to all you Ripperologists here to be off topic, but I cannot leave DGs lies unresponded.

You wrote:
...you are still mad that I objected to you placing links to your own personal websites to probably a hundred unrelated articles or more
...but I am understandably annoyed at the kind of people who harass me on my talk page (as you and ILoveTurkey have both done).

Here are the facts and the truth is:

When I recently stopped by to edit the serial killers list to a country-order, I found your link-removals with every edit commented like this:

- Site has been link farmed in tons of wikipedia articles. If there were a Bundy page linked to it'd be different
- Site has been spammed to tons of wikipedia pages
- also removed link to site that's been spammed to all sorts of wiki pages to which it has no relevance
- One half sentence mention on long page of unrelated info is not worth a link, site (other pages) has been actively spammed to tons of wikipedia articles
- Removing link to site with little to no information on article topic that has been spammed to tons of wiipedia pages
- removing site that has had links added to tons of basically unrelated wikipedia articles... it'd be different if it was to a specific page on the Atlanta Child Murders
- removed link to page that makes no sense for this article, that site is spammed to tons of wikipedia pages
- ...and the "R" section of same site is totally over the top link farming

I was surprised as those links stayed there since April, but much more I was surprised about the way you commented your deletions, so I looked up some FAQs how to deal with my questions - and I went to your UserPage.

In my humble opinion the solution would have been an easy one - contact me and I would have changed the links to appropriate articles in my database.

Following my entry to your talk-page, which you call "harassment" now. I used a polite tone and I meant it politely. I also admitted to your concerns about links to a general serial killer database, not to specific articles. :

Hi DreamGuy,
what do you mean with the above statement (which I find repeated several times)?

The link you were referring to was neither spammed nor to "all sorts of wiki pages" nor does it have no relevance to those pages I added the link. Furthermore I checked with some Wikipedians, if it would be okay to add the link.

Serial Killer Crime Index indeed has relevance to articles about serial killers. I can agree, if you don´t think it is appropriate to specific articles on individual serial killers. I remember having added it to pages, where there is more detailed information on an individual serial killer.

As I don´t mean to spam, I would appreciate your explanation when adding external links is meant to be spam.
Kind regards from Austria
eliZZZa

Your replies were hostile, insinuating and brought in an unacceptable tone and continued repeating over and over your "spammed to tons of articles", "linkfarming" (you obviously don´t even know what that is), knowing that you removed 23 links and I myself removed the rest, 15 links (after our discussion). About 20 out of all were links to specific serial killer articles.

You know (as you wrote you checked the sites) that those are not my "own personal websites".

Serial Killer Crime Index is a private research project since 10 years and honored by many of your Criminology Institutes and Organizations (e.g. NCJRS, JustNet and many more), by well-known authors and reputable Criminologists as the most comprehensive - public - serial killer database worldwide.
Neither is the incriminated site a "pet site" as you stated in one of your replies. Nor do I need Google rankings, hits-pushing etc. as this project is non-profit and well-known to people interested in that topic in any way. And spare your words now on the amazon-links on my sites - I am too glad to give you the permissions to access the reports - those links are a courtesy to many people asking for literature and movie references.

I find you behaviour damaging to "the spirit of wikipedia" and discrediting every polite and good-willing Wikipedian.

P.S. Also ALargeElk made a deletion of one link - in a neutral and wiki-manner (as I understand it):
ALargeElk: External links - - delete link to Serial Killer index (has no information on the Wests)

Sorry again to the rest of the readers here, but I had the urge to reply where those false accusations were placed once again.
I won´t engage in any further discussion about this my statement and for sure I won´t bother you here with any further disturbancies.

eliZZZa 21:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)eliZZZa