Jump to content

Talk:Aaron Kosminski/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

DNA claim

Does the DNA claim belong in the lead? It seems pretty "iffy" and sensational at the moment. I don't see any reliable sources other than the dubious Daily Mail. I think the DNA claim belongs in the article, but not in the lead. For now, it's just some "hyped up" new revelation (supposedly). If it really bears out to be true, then it will be significant and can be added to the lead. For now, it belongs in the article body, but not in the lead. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be factual, just sourced

Hence the bold idea of placing the most important information in the first paragraph, but with a neutral POV Fxmastermind (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr Jari Louhelainen is a senior lecturer in molecular biology at Liverpool John Moores University and an expert in historic cold-case forensic research.

That is the source of the Mail story. It doesn't get much better for a source. Just because Wikipedia says a source says something, doesn't mean it's true beyond all doubt. It just means that is what a notable credible source is saying.

Fxmastermind (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

But Alec Jeffreys, who is most definitely the best source imaginable, is saying it's all very dubious. DrKiernan (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you add that as a source. The only reason this is an article is because of the suspicion he was Jack the Ripper. There is no other thing that makes him notable. Fxmastermind (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Added. 20:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing that ought not be reported is that Jari Louhelainen "extracted DNA belonging to both Eddowes and the killer", as the only connection to Eddowes or indeed Jack the Ripper is the very 'iffy' provenance of the shawl. Louhelainen knows better than to make that claim, and in the cited source, he doesn't. At best we should say, he extracted mitochondrial DNA that matches female line descendants of Eddowes, and mitochondrial DNA that matches female line descendants of Kosminski's sister. Saying he extracted Eddowes and Jack the Ripper's DNA is a misleading and I think unacceptable shorthand, even if it doesn't seem so to tabloid newspapers. It's a conclusion, not a finding, and it needs to be in the voice of whoever is making that conclusion, and that shouldn't be Wikipedia. And it ought to be noted that, in any case, mitochondrial matches are not sufficient to prove identity. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes made. DrKiernan (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this is being reported by the Daily Mail has no bearing on the substance of the claim, nor does the character, real or alleged, of the Mail. They are merely reporting on an upcoming book, and of course have no way to verify the accuracy of the claims the book makes. The spectacular nature of the claims guarantee that the book will receive wide attention in the press, the Mail is guilty only of being first. The paragraph on the Mail is an ideology driven screed that has no legitimate place in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrc424 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes made. 04:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DNA evidence proves him to be Jack the Ripper?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could track down a more reputable source than this. --Swift (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The new evidence is fascinating, but it's too early to say 'DNA evidence has proved beyond doubt that he was Jack the Ripper'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.124.5 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to edit this in yesterday, but got taken away as it's "unreliable". Even though it is a world exclusive. Charlr6 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable or not, it's being reported by media all over the world. It definitely deserves to be included, though maybe not in the lead. Just include it as a "the Daily Mail"-claims type of fact and go easy on the "proven beyond doubt"-bit.
Peter Isotalo 12:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I find these so called "DNA evidence" to be fake (or at least unverified) publicity campaign for the book Russell Edwards is selling. There are no real evidence yet, no third party tests.. only viral media reposts of Russell Edwards' word. And his word is questionable, since he has a book to sell. P.S. The book comes out only tomorrow and yet Amazon already rates it as a number 1 Bestseller. So yes, it is a definitely a viral marketing campaign. 188.6.21.212 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DNA evidence not peer reviewed

The content below is copied from Talk:Jack the Ripper

I found in here that the research hasn't been peer-reviewed yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/jack-ripper-identified-dna-traces-sleuth-024421946.html "The research has not been published a a peer-reviewed scientific journal, meaning the claims cannot be independently verified or the methodology scrutinised. Professor Alec Jeffreys, who invented the DNA fingerprinting technique 30 years ago this week, called for further verification. "

Personally, I believe a mention that DNA evidence in 2014 seems to link to Kosminski but has not been peer reviewed yet should be there cited with the right links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apavlides24 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The addition of a sentence "The claims have not been independently verified." or similar is fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it now the duty of this article to report on every unverified claim? Shii (tock) 07:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is notable. We should avoid making extensive changes to the article until this has been peer-reviewed, but (possibly) should make some note of the claim of identification. We should not, however, say that he actually was Jack the Ripper for the time being. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest changing the article to read,

In September 2014, author Russell Edwards claimed to have exposed the serial killer's true identity using DNA evidence. His book and DNA evidence which have not yet been peer reviewed purport Jack the Ripper to be 23-year-old Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski.[1]

  1. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jack-the-ripper-was-polish-immigrant-called-aaron-kosminski-new-book-claims-9716805.html

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The DNA evidence is a significant part of the story and cannot be ignored. The conclusion should be left entirely open a Proxima Centauri has it but we need to note the existence of the claim itself. This story will develop over time and WP can reflect that at leisure as it unfolds. As it stands, this article now conflicts with the Aaron Kosminski article, which reports the DNA evidence, so, whatever we do we need to reconcile the two articles. Ex nihil (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no conflict. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's now been shown that the shawl was in the same room as two of Eddowes' descendants in 2007 [1] so the shawl is obviously going to have their DNA on it. Donald Rumbelow (a Ripper expert) and Peter Gill, who is the mitochondrial DNA expert who identified the Romanov bodies and disproved Anna Anderson, both now say the shawl is of dubious provenance and that it is known to have been handled multiple times by people who could have shared the DNA profiles. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have said before, this is not the first time a "bulletproof" theory has been proposed and it is not even the first time mitochrondrial DNA evidence has been used. This claim does not belong on the page at all. There is nothing especially noteworthy about it except that it happened recently. Shii (tock) 16:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I copied this from Talk:Jack the Ripper as it's also relevant here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Anderson's memoirs

Instead of quoting indirectly from other sources, you can access the original here or here. Go to Chapter 9. Zerotalk 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The cites are to show that the quotes have not been selected by wikipedians but by secondary sources. Otherwise, the article is open to criticisms of original research, synthesis of material, use of primary sources and whether the material is notable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it doesn't hurt to cite the original as well. Then readers can check the quotes are accurate as well as that they have been highlighted by secondary sources. Zerotalk 07:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Usually such full texts of relevant books are added as external links. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Insane Polish Jew"

Stop re-adding the completely inappropriate description "insane Polish Jew" to the lead. To frequent editors like DrKiernan, I recommend being more careful of what you restore.[2] This is a statement that smacks of xenophobia.

I also question the necessity of introducing Kosminski as an immigrant, be it Polish, Jewish or both. His migratory status does not appear important enough to actually kick off the article.

Peter Isotalo 14:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

He was insane. He was Polish. He was a Jew. He was an immigrant. He was probably targeted as a suspect (1) because he was a Jewish immigrant and the victim of antisemitism, (2) because he was insane, and (3) because he was mixed up with another insane immigrant Polish Jew. These points are far more pertinent than him being a hairdresser, which is of no consequence to his story whatsoever.
I resent being singled out for special admonishment, and being subtly accused of xenophobia, when there is (1) no evidence for such a charge and (2) no such intention on my part. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but it seems I'm not the only one. DrKiernan (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't introduce someone as an "insane Polish Jew" just like you don't introduce Elizabeth II as a "rich old British lady" or Mahatma Gandhi as "a scrawny Indian nationalist". Even Hitler isn't described as a "genocidal Austrian dictator". I named you because you appeared to be the only regular user that actually re-added the phrase and you have been extremely active lately. I'm not saying you were trying to be xenophobic, but I believe it was a tad careless to put back such a statement.
I don't have an opinion whether he's introduced as a hairdresser or, as now, chief suspect. But "insane" is out of the question since it's neither neutral nor informative. And I don't consider it a problem that his ethnicity and nationality is mentioned, but it does not seem pertinent in the first sentence.
Peter Isotalo 23:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the further explanation, which is fair and convincing. DrKiernan (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Religion

He was Jewish. All the sources say so. There is no reason for us to pretend otherwise. I don't understand why we've had multiple IPs and new editors removing this simple fact. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Al Capone's infobox says he was Catholic. It's not a slur on a religion that some people of a particular faith happen to be criminals or mentally ill. If we only add that information to articles on people with think are positive role models we are introducing systematic bias. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I can understand why some people are uneasy about the Jewishness of Kosminski. When Jews, black people and others from minorities subject to prejudice are known or suspected of serious crime people notice their group and prejudice can increase. I know no evidence the other ripper suspects were other than white Caucasian and their ethnicity is ignored. Similarly the ethnicity of Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Frederick West, Rosemary West, Jeffrey Dahmer and many other notorious white murderers is ignored. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The infobox has a section for "religion", not "ethnicity". It's not the same as identifying someone as "black", since that's not a religion. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no! Judaism is a religion in the sense that anyone who isn't a Jew can become one if they want to; though it isn't as easy as becoming a Christian, which you can do by simply making a declaration. You're completely right that, in that sense, calling someone a Jew is not the same as identifying someone as black. However, the Jewish people are also a race - or an 'ethno-religious' group as it's known - and in that sense, calling someone a Jew IS the same as identifying someone as black. It certainly was the same to the Nazis! Ultimately the infobox should identify him as Jewish because any hatred or racism which arises from that information is completely in the eye of the beholder - so to speak - and it isn't Wikipedia's job to censor information because the world contains bigots!? FillsHerTease (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A different Kosminski?

It is clear that a Kosminski was regarded as a suspect at the time. We do not know why he was suspected, except for the reference to homicidal tendencies and hatred for women.

However to say that Aaron Kosminski was possibly "confused with another Polish Jew of the same age named Aaron or David Cohen (real name possibly Nathan Kaminsky), who was a violent patient at the same asylum" makes no sense. There must have been some reason for the police to suspect Kosminski - "a Polish Jew in an insane asylum who had homicidal tendencies and hated women". There may well have been a David Cohen ("a Polish Jew in an insane asylum who had homicidal tendencies and hated women") as well. However in that case both would be suspects. There is no logical reason to say that Kosminski was confused with Cohen (who may well have been the same person anyway!).Royalcourtier (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's what Fido says. DrKiernan (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Martin Fido has recently "walked back" his original speculations about this, and no longer believes that David Cohen and Nathan Kaminsky are the same person. Since no one apart from Fido ever really thought his theory made any sense, and Fido now no longer even believes it, I think this should be removed. Fido discussed this at Rippercon 2016: Jack the Ripper Suspect Panel, May 16th, 2016. See: http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=128 -- Robert House — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.53.193 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aaron Kosminski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Louhelainen defends his work and is sure in killers's identity in 2015 and 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=843XjYqhzdg https://www.techly.com.au/2015/11/10/aint-got-jack-dna-expert-maintains-identified-historys-notorious-serial-killer/

Dailymail is not a suitable source

  • First, The Dailymail is not a reliable source at all as decided by the Wikipedia community. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail. It is sensationalist and they published the same sensationalism back in 2014 as seen here.
  • The new article has several flaws and the scientific community have already said no in this article. Particularly, "Hansi Weissensteiner, an expert in mitochondrial DNA also at Innsbruck, also takes issue with the mitochondrial DNA analysis, which he says can only reliably show that people—or two DNA samples—are not related. “Based on mitochondrial DNA one can only exclude a suspect.” In other words, the mitochondrial DNA from the shawl could be from Kosminski, but it could probably also have come from thousands who lived in London at the time." ...and that there is zero evidence that the shawl was ever at the crime scene. "The results are unlikely to satisfy critics. Key details on the specific genetic variants identified and compared between DNA samples are not included in the paper. Instead, the authors represent them in a graphic with a series of colored boxes."
  • When the actual results are shared with the scientific community then the DNA may be analyzed against claims but not until. They had refused to share the results citing privacy laws but that has been debunked. "Walther Parson, a forensic scientist at the Institute of Legal Medicine at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria, says mitochondrial DNA sequences pose no risk to privacy and the authors should have included them in the paper. “Otherwise the reader cannot judge the result."
  • Daily Mail's announcement needs to be marginalized for what it is and we need to wait per WP:NOTNEWS until this can be fleshed out more. Other news sources that propagate the Daily Mail's story will not be reliable on these claims either.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The journal article is a suitable source. My edit included removing the reference to the Daily Mail and replacing it with a suitable source. DFS (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry DFS, I didn't mean to catch your edit in the reverting.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I figured that's what happened. Cheers! DFS (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

DNA is (Apparently) Russian, not Jewish (2019 evidence may point to a gentile being a far-back-in-the-line matriarch being one of Aaron Kominski's ancestors)

Folks, I want to let you know that the haplotype circulating around the Internet and attributed to this work on the "shawl" is in no way Jewish. It is an ethnic Russian haplotype from the Moscow region. It is also noteworthy that the "shawl" was attributed by independent researchers to the Moscow region. Also, nowhere in the scientific paper does Louhelainen claim that the Kosminski relatives also have this haplotype. This looks like fraud without outright false claims. Haplotype from "shawl" is from Russian empire, Kosminskis are also from Russian empire, some (which?) markers matched (and which did not?), that's why we allow that it might be Kosminski. Also, this "shawl" was offered for auction for $3 000 000. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

To what "scientific paper" are you referring? Zerotalk 07:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Some Ashkenazi Jewish men and women intermarried with local gentiles--that is a known fact. Thus, some of us got stuck with gentile DNA. Am I thrilled that a Jew was confirmed to be the Ripper? No, and Anderson (a gentile) withheld his name to prevent another Whitechapel pogrom--he was not thrilled by the idea of Anti Semites trying to use Aaron Kosminski as an excuse. 69.78.225.211 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How reliable is someone who says the shawl has been spat upon?

Come on people. Just because someone dissents doesn't mean it is evidence to the contrary. I wouldn't trust a single person who said someone spit on it. He sounds too unreasonable to be believed. That said, it is important to leave it in the article so readers can decide for themselves. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Scary "supposedly" trend in articles does not belong.

Come on people! 'Supposedly' is not a fact. Anything can be supposed but a factual article it does not write. The shawl is obviously in question but it is more correct to simply say, "said to have been" rather than "supposedly." That is a definite fact, the shawl has been said to have been owned by Eddowes. Until proof otherwise, that is the absolute truth and the turn of phrase does not indicate that it may or may not be true at all. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

I think he should be counted as jack the ripper Rowan.re01 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There's too much criticism and contradictory information to come to that conclusion definitively, as expressed by others in the talk page sections above this one. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, it has been debunked here : https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2019/03/18/archaeological-geneticists-call-jack-the-ripper-dna-study-unpublishable-nonsense/#64c7f4c1b900 GrandCelinien (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I Don't Know What More Needs To Be Said Given Anderson's And Swanson's Accounts, the DNA, Etc.. As a Jew Myself...

  1. I'm thankful that Anderson refused to release Aaron Kosminski's name and explained that releasing his name would not be for the "public benefit". Noting that Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew when he noted that releasing his name would not for the "public benefit", he was essentially implying that he did not want another Whitechapel pogrom.
  2. I'm sure that Swanson would've written if Jack the Ripper was someone else, let alone another Polish Jew.
  3. I know part of why Israel Schwartz didn't want to testify against a fellow Jew: he didn't want another Whitechapel pogrom, either!
  4. I can tell anyone that I have lived, seen, and heard as well as heard about real shandas far di goyim—including within my family—exploiting fellow Jews and especially ones with disabilities such as mental illnesses. I will go as far as to venture that someone like Jacob Levy, a shochet of ill repute, may have put Aaron Kosminski up to doing what he did (In one case in my family, even though the exploited person didn't kill anybody, the exploited person had—like Aaron Kosminski likely had—Schizophrenia; and—probably because of a lobotomy due to the Schizophrenia—was left vulnerable enough to be swayed into signing off part of his assets to his exploiters. Imagine, then, how anyone else with Schizophrenia, and per peer-reviewed studies, can be easily exploited to do someone's bidding.
  5. I doubt that very few of us who are Jews and/or people with mental illnesses (both of which I am, even though I do not have Schizophrenia) are thrilled that Jack the Ripper turned out to be a Jew whom had a mental illness—after all, are ableism and Anti Semitism supposed to be thrilling?!
  6. I'm not surprised that Aaron Kosminski has apparently-Russian mtDNA. Many Ashkenazi Jews, like the Lubnowski-Kozminski family, have gentile and apparently-gentile DNA (That's what happens with intermarriages and other interrelationships, including ones in Ashkenazi Jewish men marry Indigenous Slavic women); and Aaron Kosminski happened to inherent an apparently-Russian mtDNA marker.
  7. I say that we might as well as acknowledge that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper in light of all of the evidence and use that fact to actually help combat Anti Semitism and ableism, including by combating ableism within communities.

100.16.216.238 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

May we know what is your point and argument? Oliszydlowski, 09:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Kosminski/Archive_1&oldid=1136488858"