Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:51, 19 July 2008 [1].

Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories

edit
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article for a little light relief. DrKiernan (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "grisly murders" - Maybe its me, but grisly sounds too informal.
  • I don't like the lists - can you convert them to prose?
  • Some footnotes use the "p. 8" style (space after p.), but some have no space - please be consistent.
  • If a publication has an article, you should link its name when used in a footnote.
  • Web access dates should be linked.
  • Align the last picture to the right, to avoid obstructing the 'see also' section header.
  • ..." from August 29 to September 7." - don't link days/months, only full dates with day/month/year.
  • ..."admitting to the Sunday Times" - Shouldn't that be a capital T for the? (or you could leave 'the' out of the linked words)
  • Sources look fine.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Casebook is operated by Stephen P. Ryder (author of Public Reactions to Jack the Ripper and co-author of Ripper Notes: Jack the Slasher), and Thomas Schachner (author of Jack the Ripper: Anatomie einer Legende (Gebundene Ausgabe) [in German]). The pages linked give their sources. Contributors include Stewart P. Evans (author of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, Executioner: The Chronicles of James Berry, Victorian Hangman, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, The Lodger: Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, etc.) and Christopher Scott (author of Will the Real Mary Kelly...?). DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - Very interesting subject. I got a bit confused in a few points, and I think the prose needs a bit of massaging so that some of the paragraphs read more clearly (and less like a list of facts).
    • The second paragraph of the section Prince Albert Victor as a suspect has almost every sentence beginning with "Stowell claimed". It is usually better to mix this up a bit.
    • The information about Sickert is a bit confusing. I assumed at first that the story was that of Joseph Sickert, talking about his own experiences, but the dates don't match. I finally figured out that it was likely talking about Walter Sickert. This should be made much more clear in the article.
    • Furthermore, I'm confused about the BBC program. Was this a completely fictional account (there are fictional detectives), was it more of a documentary, or what? Did the show only depict Sickert's information, or did it also show other theories?
    • I see by clicking the link that Stephen King's book on Jack the Ripper was nonfiction. This should be specified in this article, as most people are familiar with King primarily for his fictional works, and I assumed at first this was also fiction.
    • If Walter Sickert is from Denmark, how would he be a good choice to teach Albert Victor about London social life?
    • I think the prose needs a bit of work to make sure that it flows well. For example, the section Sickert rebutted reads to me like a hodgepodge of useful facts, but there could be better transitions between then.
    • "Working back from her birthday, Alice was conceived between 18 July and 11 August 1884. Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884, and hence was not in London at the time of her conception" - I think this should be clarified with "assuming she was born at full term" or something like that. If she was a 7-month baby (and many could survive with the medical care at the time), then the June-August information is irrelevant.
    • I find it interesting that both theories discuss Sir William Gull. I am unfamiliar with him, anything about Jack the Ripper, or Albert Victor; is there a reason that he would be named in both? If so, this might ought to be explained a bit.

Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Taking each of your points in turn:
      • Changed.
      • Changed Joseph Sickert to Joseph Gorman throughout to avoid confusion between him and Walter Sickert.
      • Added: The programmes mixed documentary and drama in an investigation of the Jack the Ripper murders.
      • It's Stephen Knight not King. Changed to: Later works based on Gorman's claims, such as Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, first published in 1976, have treated it as a reality.
      • Dunno. Gorman presumably had to invent that bit to make the story work.
      • Yes, it used to be a list, hence the choppiness. I've tried to spruce it up a bit.
      • The source given just states that that's when she was conceived and Albert Victor was away then. I don't know of a source disputing the analysis.
      • Added: Sir William Gull, 1st Baronet, a reputable clinician who had treated members of the royal family. to explain his connection. DrKiernan (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've stricken most of my comments.
        • I think there should still be a line making it clear that Gorman's story was one he was presumably told by his father. It is still not quite clear to me in reading it that Gorman is telling a story about his father.
        • As for the conception, it might be best to put, "According to so-and-so," in that sentence somewhere.
        • I'd also insert an according to into this sentence Ithas been suggested that the name of her father was omitted from her birth certificate... .Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed to: Gorman claimed that Sickert had told him a story...
          • Changed to: According to Trevor Marriott, an expert on the Jack the Ripper case, Alice "must have been conceived between 18 July and 11 August 1884".
          • Yes, thanks, that would be better. Changed to: Ripper expert Don Rumbelow has suggested... DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three concerns:
    • Image:William gull.jpg: Attribution problems and discrepancies. Date asserted by summary is 1896; date written on photo is 1881. Author is attributed as de.wiki user Bluebird666; I somehow doubt this user was taking photographs in 19th century England. Image does not appear to be available at the asserted source. Life of author +70 years is the PD criterion being used; how can we confirm the author died in 1938 or before?
    • Image:3rd Marquess of Salisbury.jpg: No support for GFDL license (why would the photograph of a man who died in 1903 be under this license and not a PD claim; GFDL version 1.2 - the current license - did not exist until November 2002, i.e. not in the author's lifetime). Image has no source, no author and no date of first publication (cannot make PD claim without this information).
    • Image:FromHellLetter.jpg and Image:PrinceAlbertVictor.jpg do not have verifiable sources (WP:IUP).
    • Image:From Hell film.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and is decorative (NFCC#8). Why is this image necessary to understand royal conspiracy theories and what is its significant contribution to our understanding thereof? {{Non-free poster}}, further, requires critical commentary of the film or poster itself, neither of which receive such commentary in this article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the images are now removed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So stricken. No licensing concerns on replacement images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back Image:William gull.jpg after changing the description on commons, and adding a new web source. It is from a biography of Gull published outside of the United States in 1896, and is hence public domain (as a work published outside of the States before 1st July 1909). DrKiernan (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A minor issue in the references; they need some consistency. For instance, "(Sept 2004). " → "(September 2004). ", and if dates are going to be linked in the body, then they should be linked in the references, too, so that all of the dates are the same format. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest? DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • I tried several times to read the article, and had difficulty concentrating. When that happens when I'm not hungry and the TV isn't on, I start to wonder what it is about the article that isn't getting my attention.
  • The article starts with the beginning of the theories (I ended up on the page about Virginia Woolf, then realized I wasn't doing what I was supposed to be doing...) I think it should begin with the murders. These murders have captured public interest for 120 years, so they are powerful acts still. From there, it should explain what evidence there was, then go into details about the possibilities of the royal family as suspects.
  • It's not clear in Gorman's story if you're addressing From Hell or Murder by Decree.
  • There are sections in Gorman's story with no citations. Are you claiming the plot lines of From Hell or Murder by Decree are more than fanciful interpretations? Are these legitimate theories? The entire section reads as if someone is relaying the plot of a film. I don't understand what's going on.
  • What is this? Murder by Decree "bore all the hallmarks of a film of some distinction ...[but]... erases them completely". In fact, this section has me completely confused.
  • I think the article will benefit by reorganization and rewriting portions of it. I wish you luck with it. It appears to have the potential for a very interesting article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking the second, third, fourth and fifth of your points in turn.
    • This would repeat information in the parent article: Jack the Ripper. This article is about the conspiracy theory not the murders themselves.
    • First part of the section rephrased as Gorman's story as told by Knight has become well known, especially through fictional adaptations such as the graphic novel From Hell and the movie Murder by Decree. In Knight's book...
    • The citation is at the end of the section: Knight, pp.22–39 for the version with Anderson; Knight, pp.246–262 for the version replacing Anderson with Walter Sickert. The purpose of the section is to tell the story as originally told by Gorman.
    • It is a critique of the film which supports the statement "The films were savaged by critics." Same goes for the remainder of the paragraph. We could change the title of this section to "Fictional adaptations" if this is clearer. DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DrKiernan. Sorry for not returning sooner, and thanks for dropping a message on my talk page. Can you explain what your vision is for the article? I understand that you're concerned about repeating information in the main Jack the Ripper article, but the list of victims is already in this one, just as they pertain to Prince Albert Victor. If you started the article with a brief overview of the murders, really no more than what there is now, then explain how members of the royal family came under suspicion, I think it would capture interest more effectively.
Can you tell me what your reasoning was behind leaving so much of the information in Gorman's story uncited? With so much information sourced with a 14-page reference, my concern focuses on accuracy. There's a great deal of room here for interpretation. --Moni3 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the focus of the article is the conspiracy theory, how it came about, who invented it, how it's developed and why it's rubbish. The difficulty with starting with the murders is the discontinuity between the reality and the fiction. Albert Victor was never implicated in the murders at the time; the story of his involvement only starts with Jullian and Stowell in the 1960s. You say I should explain how the royal family came under suspicion, but all that we know is already in the article. Stowell said Albert Victor was the Ripper; Julian said there were rumours; Gorman claimed to be descended from royalty.
I don't agree that Gorman's story is uncited. The source is given three times before the story is laid out: "writer Stephen Knight published ... heavily based on Gorman's claims", "Gorman's story as told by Knight...", and " In Knight's book...". It is repeated with page numbers at the end of the story. I'm not keen at all on splitting the Knight reference, that just tinkers with the section while I get the impression that there is a more important underlying problem with distinguishing Gorman's story from what is actually known. I need to think of a way of phrasing those two paragraphs so that it is obvious that the whole thing is basically derived just from Gorman's imagination without much in the way of evidence. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think this article needs quite a bit of work. Like Moni3, I found it difficult to follow in places, and less than engaging for what ought to be a pretty gripping story. A few more specific points:
  • "Annie was often institutionalised, but this was because, as noted in workhouse and infirmary records, of recurrent epilepsy." Pretty awkward. What about "Annie was often institutionalised because of recurring epilepsy, as noted in workhouse and infirmary records."?
  • ... but with Prince Albert Victor getting Ripper victim Mary Jane Kelly pregnant instead of Annie Crook." "Getting" seems a bit less than encyclopedic in this context.
  • Gorman's story claimed that Annie and Alice's apartment ..." His story wasn't making any claim, it was Gorman himself making the claim.
  • Furthermore, any marriage between Albert Victor and Annie would be invalid ..." Would have been invalid?
  • The first symptoms of madness arising from syphilitic infection tend to occur about fifteen years from first exposure ..." After first exposure?
  • Those were just some examples of the less than engaging prose. My other concern is around the structure of the article. In the second paragraph of the lead, for instance, it says: "Once the government discovered Albert Victor's secret, the British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, his freemason friends, the London Metropolitan Police, and Queen Victoria herself, conspired to murder anyone aware of the child." It is not at all clear whether that is part of some theory or a statement of historical fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the lead in the hope of removing the ambiguity, and rephrased four out of the five specific examples above. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to both Moni and Malleus: I'm not sure what else I can do to meet 1a. As far as "engaging" goes, that has always been the most difficult criterion to satisfy. Ultimately, it may come down to what interests you. You may find it boring, while someone else finds it fascinating. Gorman's story may be gripping in itself but I think it's complete bunkum, so I want to keep in the prosaic and mundane refutation. However, if I can't see how I can make the article more interesting or less ambiguous without coming down very strongly on the side of the argument that I favour, making the distinction between the conspiracy theory and what I see as reality clearer, which puts me in the line of fire for claims of non-neutrality or bias.

If this nomination is archived without promotion, as looks quite likely, I'd like to thank everyone for reviewing the article with such care and dedication. I think it's improved as a result, but I'm having difficulty seeing how the remaining problems can be overcome. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan, I know this is frustrating to get this opposition at FAC. But I was thinking if the article appeared similarly:
  • Lead
  • The murders, similar to the brief points you have right now, and a statement that points out that a great variety of suspects have been named, not only in police investigations immediately following the crimes, but by amateur theorists since the murders occurred.
  • Emergence of theories involving the royal family, including a discussion of how valid the claims are
  • Gorman's story: and I think it would seem more valid, and less like the section reads as a plot summary from a graphic novel to state throughout this section "Gorman claims...", "According to Gorman...", "Gorman also writes...", with corresponding page numbers for his claims.
If you have a particular reason, a vision, for why the article is structured the way it is right now, I don't understand it. That's why I was asking for clarification. As now, the article reads as a reference for Ripper enthusiasts (if there is such a thing), but is not easily accessible by those who are unfamiliar with the details of suspects and the canon of literature that has developed from these crimes. As I'm sure you know, all articles should stand on their own, regardless if they are spawned from a larger one. Should it appear on the main page without this connection, I'm afraid that it would be very confusing. I really hope to help here, and I apologize that this is tremendously inconvenient. Of course, we all must decide what we're willing to change in the article for the sake of the bronze star. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't my intention to put a dampener on proceedings. Moni3 has described pretty well my own concerns about the structure. The prose stuff I'm frankly not too fussed about, as that can fairly easily and quickly be fixed. It's really the overall structure of the article that I'm having trouble with. I'd be happy to support its promotion if that could be sorted out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two of you have convinced me. I see now that the extra section explaining the murders is missing because the article first arose as a fork of Albert Victor's biography, rather than growing out of the Jack the Ripper articles. And I've begun to hate that Gorman section myself. I've tried to do a "quick fix" by putting a box around it, but I don't expect this to fully solve things. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanatory opening section Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories#Background. DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still work to do on the prose. Here are random examples:
    • "The previous day he had gone shooting in Glen Muick with, amongst others, Prince Henry of Battenberg, and in the afternoon there was a recital given by Emma Albani." There's a tendency towards awkward, winding sentence structure. Try this: "The previous day, he had gone shooting in Glen Muick with Prince Henry of Battenberg among others, and in the afternoon there had been a recital by Emma Albani." Tense, redundancy problems there, too.
    • We have "9", but "forty-seven". See MOS, which prefers the reverse, with the boundary at nine/10.
    • Here's a long sentence: "On 5 November 1970 Stowell wrote to The Times newspaper denying that he had ever implied Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper, and the letter was published on 9 November,[13] the day after Stowell's own death." Add a comma and split it for easier reading: "On 5 November 1970, Stowell wrote to The Times newspaper denying that he had ever implied Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper; the letter was published on 9 November,[13] the day after Stowell's own death.
    • "The BBC television series Jack the Ripper, with fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively,[23] aired weekly in five episodes between 20 July and 17 August 1973." Look, it's not wrong, but why not make it easier for us: "The BBC television aired a weekly television series Jack the Ripper in five episodes between 20 July and 17 August 1973; it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor, respectively[23]." Yes? Sometimes your commas serve a difficult, winding road; sometimes you could add commas, as I've done there, as standard options, for example, after a time- or prepositional-phrase opening a sentence.

On the basis of these examples, can you sift through the whole thing and simplify the sentence structure? TONY (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've had a go.[2] DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall the article is very strong, but I have a few quibbles, all of which hopefully are easily fixed,
*The article title is confusing, 'theory' singular would be better IMO, as I think the idea is a continuation of a strand (a meme in todays lingo?)
  • I prefered the opening para at nom, tbh. I realise I'm re-opening a can of worms, but compare this and this [3] [4]. The latter is not perfect, but is a clear basis for improvement.
  • The Knight quote is too long, I found it difficult to get through, and is off topic in areas.
  • I think there is great potential here to write a pacey article a la Bishonen. It is currently dry and factual in areas, adding colour would not be difficult.
  • I would like to ditch completely "Portrayals in popular culture" as trivial, if only because of the section title, which is a red rag to a bull. There might be worth-while content here but the heading makes you want to go eugh, didn't read it (eg I didn't read it).
I would be close to support, and none of the above points above are fatal. ( Ceoil sláinte 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two main theories, Stowell's and Gorman's, with Harrison's and Spiering's (and maybe Cornwell's and Overton-Fuller's) as sideshows. It may be possible to reinsert a sentence such as There are two main conspiracy theories; one that supposes that Albert Victor was the Ripper, and another that falsely alleges others performed the murders to conceal his illegitimate child. onto the end of the first paragraph in the lead. However, someone is bound to complain about "alleges" and someone else will no doubt complain about "falsely".
    • I don't wish to reinsert Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories as the first phrase seen by the reader for three reasons: (1) It introduces Jack the Ripper before we link to his name or explain who he is. (2) It is already shown in big black letters at the top of the page, so why repeat it? (3) Per WP:MoS#First sentences: "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".
    • I don't really see how the conspiracy itself can be off-topic.
    • I admit I am unable to match that editor's style.
      • Fine; but not my point.
    • Murder by Decree was the most expensive Canadian film ever made (at the time), and From Hell is well-known. I think it's important to keep in that content, as they are really the only reason anyone has ever heard the story. The films are the subject of "Media studies", which purports to be an academic subject. As I said before, this section could be renamed to something along the lines of "Fictional adaptations" or "Portrayals in film and media" if "popular culture" is a phrase which strikes one with horror. DrKiernan (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until some narrative and sourcing issues are cleared.
    • My initial impression after reading the lead is that the author(s) have a distinct POV about the conspiracy theories. Wording choices like "strong alibis", "convoluted", "widely dismissed" (which I would hyphenate, by the by), and "conspiracy theorists" lend to the atmosphere of a persuasive essay that says, "Look how ridiculous these theories are" rather than an encyclopedia article presenting NPOV research.
    • The article deals with two royal conspiracy theories—are there really no more?
    • You have some rather important statements sourced to Ripper Notes. Is that a journal, or what? What makes it reliable?
    • Not a fan of beginning a heading with "Eight years later in 1970 ..." What if I started reading there? Don't make me go scanning back to find out what happened in 1962. If the correlation is important, please restate the event in the next heading.
    • "In 1973, the BBC television series Jack the Ripper investigated the murders by using a mixture of documentary and drama ..." Was the series fiction or non-fiction? How did they use drama to investigate the murders? --Laser brain (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_the_Ripper_royal_conspiracy_theories/archive1&oldid=1138464303"