Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:58, 7 October 2008 [1].

---

Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

previous FAC (15:51, 19 July 2008)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the only one of the Jack the Ripper articles which looks as if it could be ready to feature on the Main Page on 9th November, the 120th anniversary of the Ripper's final and most brutal murder.

The article has been edited significantly since the last nomination. Comparison of the two nominated versions.

There are two criteria that reviewers may wish to comment on specifically.

Comprehensiveness The article has two deliberate exclusions.

One is the "Lees" story. This refers to the psychic, Robert Lees, who supposedly identified Sir William Gull as the Ripper. This is excluded on the basis that it is yet more easily dismissed nonsense. If included, it would merely serve to confuse the reader by first attempting to explain Lees's purported involvement, and then saying why it is silly.

The other is the literary analysis applied to the stories (predatory aristocracy abusing the lower class; comparisons with Dracula; popular suspicion of surgery/medicine; penetration and misogyny; and so forth). This is excluded on the basis that it applies more appropriately to Jack the Ripper fiction and belongs in that article (which should be a proper article instead of an incomplete list). This article is about the actual theories themselves: their origin, development, and verifiability.

Neutrality The weight of opinion, and indeed the plain facts, are very strongly against these theories. They are not reasonable or potential solutions. Even the originators (Stowell, Gorman and Fairclough) have disowned them. Stephen Knight admitted in his own book that they sound like "arrant, if entertaining, nonsense", and Colin Wilson (who knew both Knight and Stowell) believes that Knight published his book for commercial reasons only and did not in fact believe its contents to be true. Though the theories' influence on fictional adaptations and subsequent analysis of the murders is undoubted, the article should reflect the prevailing, indeed overwhelming, consensus that as solutions they are insupportable rubbish! DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I wanted to be the first. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for both supporting now and helping to improve the article before! DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please note the links that require an academic subscription to access. (the doi'd one and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) This doesn't invalidate the use of the articles, as they are available in print also, but it's a nice courtesy to note the links require a subscription to the readers.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: No image concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments, tending to Support. There are numerous prose issues, small in themselves, which need fixing:-

Support: The issues raised below have all been settled satisfactorily and I am happy to support this excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Albert Victor is described as "one of the most notable..." Surely, the most notable?
  • (last line) Suggest "and the poet" rather than "or..." - he isn't an alternative to the first two

• Background
  • "...a series of terrible murders". All murders are terrible; I'd either leave the adjective out altogether, or replace it with something like "gruesome", which in this context would not I think be considered POV
  • "at least five murders ..." Suggest "at least five of these murders..."
  • (same sentence) "showed" fits the tenses better than "show"
  • "...was never conclusively identified..." "Conclusively" means with absolute certainty, a very high bar. Your phrasing suggests that some suspects may have approached this high level of proof, which I don't believe is the case. I'd drop "conclusively"
  • A similar argument applies to your use of the phrase "not likewise entirely persuasive". I'd drop the entirely.
  • "was first suggested" reads better as "had first been suggested". Also, 40 years earlier than when?

• Albert Victor as suspect
  • Comma needs losing after 1.45 am
  • "Over 500 miles (over 800 km)" I think the second "over" may be implied.
  • The sentence beginning "On the morning of..." reads awkwardly and needs some reconstruction. My suggestion s to split it into two, as follows: "On the morning of the 30th he attended a service at Balmoral, the royal retreat in Scotland. With him were his grandmother Queen Victoria, other family members, visiting German royalty, and the estate staff".
  • Stowell claimed his source was Gull. Gull died in 1890, Stowell was writing to the press in 1970. So either Stowell was extremely, extremely old, or there was an intermediary, who should properly be described as Stowell's source.

• Developments
  • (Heading) I'm not sure about development on a theory. "Of", or "from", might be better
  • "...Preferred the company of a woman". Who was she? Or does this mean "of women"?
  • In the final sentence of the first para I would suggest a full stop after "examiners", then a new sentence: "There is..."
  • Lord Salisbury and the Prince of Wales are already linked

• Claims of Gorman
  • (First line) lose comma after 1973
  • "Unfairly certified insane" - in the circumstances, "unfairly" seems a little mild, perhaps?
  • (same sentence) - suggest rephrasing, to avoid the repetition of "by Gull"
  • "He accused..." Suggest "Gorman accused..."
  • (same sentence) suggest "and claimed that after..." rather than "and claimed after..."
  • Comma after River Thames in para 2
  • "Unfair" again, in "unfair fallacies". Can fallacies be fair?

• Developments on Gorman
  • "little to no..." - "little or no..." is the accepted form.

I found this a pretty compelling read, and will certainly be ready to support after these prose questions have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for going through so carefully, and leaving a list of very detailed comments. I have made most of the changes required with the exception of the following, for which I would appreciate more guidance:

• "40 years earlier" than the accusation made against Sir John Williams.
  • I can see it now you point it out, but the reference to 2005 is way back in the paragraph and doesn't connect with the last few words. I would suggest that the last sentence is reconstructed as follows: ""Williams was a physician to the royal family; a royal connection to the Jack the Ripper crimes had first been suggested more than forty years before he was himself directly accused"
    • Yes, I agree. I've added "forty years before Williams was accused".
      • OK now
• "Albert Victor is the most notable": This depends on the definition of "notable". I would say Lewis Carroll is more famous, and other suspects are more likely culprits or more worthy of serious attention.
  • In 1888 Albert Victor was in precisely the position now occupied by Prince William...but he wasn't accused until the 1960s by which time few knew who he was. Whereas most people in the 1990s would have known who Lewis Carroll was...OK, I'm convinced, your wording stands.
    • Another option would be to go for: "Since then, the identity of the killer has been hotly debated. Over a hundred suspects have been proposed,[1][2] including Prince Albert Victor, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and the grandson of Queen Victoria."
      • That would work too.
• "never conclusively identified...not entirely persuasive". Some authors think they've identified the Ripper, and they've persuaded others that their claims and solutions are right, but the wider community has not been. These qualifying words are supposed to indicate that the solutions and suspects proposed are not accepted by the wider community, but may be accepted by a minority.
  • That's OK, too
• "Development on a theory": "Development of" means the origins of the theory to me, rather than how it developed after its formation.
  • I see it slightly differently, but it's not really an issue
• "the company of a woman": Ah, that we do not know or are not told. Possibly, a young lady, or possibly just his mother, or possibly several ladies. Harrison is loose on the point, and allows for all possibilities.
  • Then, your text should allow for a broader range of possibilities. "A woman" sounds finite and specific, and others will ask the question "who was she?" So I'd go back to my suggestion of "women".
    • Yes, it reads awkwardly too. I've changed it to "Albert Victor preferred female company and did not reciprocate Stephen's feelings".
      • OK now
• "Unfairly": Any suggestions? DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unwarrantably, insupportably, indefensibly, scandalously...all carry more punch than a somewhat feeble "unfairly". Not forgetting the unfair fallacies. Here, I would simply lose the unfair altogether.
    • How about "unjustly"? I've removed the unfair from fallacies.
      • OK now

Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Having read the article a few times now; and finding the above commentry a bit depressing: All murders are terrible, (First line) lose comma after 1973, Comma after River Thames in para 2. The article is well written, engaging and comprensive as far as I can see. I think the page skillfully represents source that presents a coherent and lucid narrative on a subject which even today never fails to draw drama. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "elderly British physician Dr. T. E. A. Stowell"

Is elderly needed?

• "all of the murders"

Leaving out "of" would be more formal, I believe: "all the"? This could be subjective though.

Background

• "Although Whitechapel was an impoverished area and violence there was common, at least five murders showed a distinctive modus operandi."

I am confused here; what was "common" and contradictory to the impoverished and violent environment of Whitechapel? Never mind, it is a case of my misreading of "violence" as "violent".

• "many can be eliminated from serious investigation."

Is this statement supposed to mean that "through serious investigation, many can be eliminated" or "many do not deserve any serious investigation"? If it is the latter, why not say "many can be readily (or easily) proved to be false."

• "Williams was a physician to the Royal Family, but a royal connection to the Jack the Ripper crimes was first suggested about forty years before Williams was accused."

I am unsure what the meaning behind this sentence is supposed to be. Williams was the royal physician (from 1886). Around 1965, someone suggested a royal connection to the murders. How would this make the 2005 accusation on William any less substantial?

• "author Philippe Jullian published a biography of Prince Albert Victor's father"

Out of curiousity, is it biography "on" or "of"? I know Google hits show 1,570,000 to 16,400,000, but I would say "I am writing a paper on magnetism" instead of "I am writing a paper of magnetism".

• "they were most likely derived from Dr. Thomas Eldon Alexander Stowell."

Why not drop "derived"?

Prince Albert Victor as a suspect

• "Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source, as Stowell shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, who is loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book."

There are two consecutive "who"s. Could we go with "Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source. The doctor had shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a writer-politican loosely credited as a source of 'hitherto unpublished anecdotes' in Jullian's book."?

• "By examining [...] it is possible to prove that"

Why possible? "An examination of [...] will reveal that".

• Consider the end of the first paragraph: "Stowell said his information came from the private notes of Sir William Gull, a reputable physician who had treated members of the Royal Family. Stowell knew Gull's son-in-law, Theodore Dyke Acland, and was an executor of Acland's estate." Now for the start of the third paragraph: "Stowell had claimed that his source concerning Albert Victor's death was Gull, but that was impossible since Gull had died on 29 January 1890, two years before Albert Victor." It seems to me that the first paragraph's mention of Gull can be moved to and merged with the third.
• "The first symptoms of madness arising from syphilitic infection"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "The first symptoms of madness that arises from syphilitic infection".

• "Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to have been infected in about 1873, aged nine, six years before he visited the West Indies."

The "aged nine" strikes me a bit strange on reading. Perhaps, "Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to be infected at the age of nine in about 1873, six years before he visited the West Indies."

• "Rather than name Albert Victor in the article directly, Stowell described his suspect in a roundabout way in a forlorn attempt to either disguise his identity or create a mystery."

"Forlorn" (desperate, hopeless) seems biased unless roundabout writing methods are truly a case of desperateness (if "forlorn" is sourced, we could put that in quotes). It could just be dropped.

Developments on Stowell's theory

• "and that Stephen's hatred"

We could break the constant usage of "Stephen" by substituting his profession in: "and that the tutor's hatred".

• "[...] because Albert Victor [...]", "[...] Albert Victor's death."

In the same light, perhaps we can replace "Albert Victor" in this statements with "the prince"?

Claims of Joseph Gorman

• "it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively, examining real evidence."

Though interrupted by the bit on the actors, a noun plus -ing situation exists. Suggestion: "it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively, who try to determine the identity of the Ripper through examination of real-life evidence."

• "Elwyn Jones's and John Lloyd's The Ripper File"

If it is joint-authorship, then it should be "Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd's The Ripper File".

• "Gorman said that his Catholic grandmother had secretly married Albert Victor"

Should his grandmother be named here instead of later?

• "Gorman claimed that his grandmother was Catholic although records prove this to be untrue. Confusing the issue further, if she had been Catholic, more weaknesses in the story arise because according to the Act of Settlement 1701 only Protestants who have not married a Catholic can inherit the English Crown."

I would not think that it confuses the issue, but rather that it proves the fallacy of Gorman's story. In other words, "Furthermore, Gorman's claim that his grandmother was Catholic, which is proven to be untrue by records, further weakened the veracity of his story. The Act of Settlement 1701 states that only Protestants who have not married a Catholic can inherit the English Crown."

• "Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884, and hence was not in London at the time of Alice's conception and could not have been her father."

Replace the ", and" with a semicolon, perhaps? "Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884; hence, he was not in London at the time of Alice's conception and could not have been her father."

• "Even if they had known her or her child, it is unlikely that prostitutes from the East End of London telling a tale of royal illegitimacy would be believed, so any attempt by them to reveal the supposed scandal would merely have been dismissed"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "Even if they had known her or her child, it is unlikely that anyone would readily believe a tale of royal illegitimacy told by prostitutes from the East End of London, so any attempt by the Ripper victims to reveal the supposed scandal would merely have been dismissed."

• "Stowell had mentioned rumours blaming Gull for the murders in his article"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "Stowell had mentioned rumours that blamed Gull for the murders in his article".

• "there is no documentary evidence linking Netley to the other characters."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "there is no documentary evidence that linked Netley to the other characters."

• "Gorman accused Anderson of being an accomplice, but he was in Switzerland at the time of the double murder, and so was clearly unable to participate in its perpetration."

We can add an "also" and move this to just after the sentence where the claim on Netley is disproved: "Gorman also accused Anderson of being an accomplice, but the policeman was in Switzerland at the time of the double murder, and so was clearly unable to participate in its perpetration."

• "Gorman claimed that Sickert had a studio in Cleveland Street, which was untrue, and that Sickert knew the Princess of Wales, of which there is no proof."

If the above was done, then we can add "Lastly," to this sentence and thus conclude the paragraph: "Lastly, Gorman claimed that Sickert had a studio in Cleveland Street, which was untrue, and that Sickert knew the Princess of Wales, of which there is no proof."

• The end of the "Claims of Joseph Gorman" does patter out with "Gorman claims this [but proven false]. Gorman claims that [again false]." Perhaps some rephrasing are in order?

Developments on Gorman's claims

• "Knight did appreciate that there were problems with Gorman's claims"

Suggestion: "Knight appreciated that there were problems with Gorman's claims".

• "although Fairclough later disowned his own book 'saying he no longer believes the theory'."

I feel the partial quote makes the sentence a bit awkward. I presume it is precisely what the Daily Express had wrote and so we cannot phrase it as "[...], saying '[I] no longer [believe] the theory." In light of that, how does "although Fairclough later disowned his own book on the basis that he no longer believed the theory." sound?

• "The Jack the Ripper royal/masonic conspiracy theories"

MOS discourages slashes unless it is part of a quotation per WP:SLASH. Can "royal/masonic" be rephrased?

• "and novels using the conspiracy theories"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and novels that use the conspiracy theories"

Images

• Can the captions for the images be expanded to some form like the one for Lord Salisbury (i.e. add some pertinence to the image displayed)?

Overall, a solid read. I am tending to support based on the content. Jappalang (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! In answer to specific points:

• Elderly is there in order to explain "sudden and coincidental death".
• Changed to "for the murders".
• Changed to "eliminated from further investigation"
• I'm unclear what you're asking. There is no specific meaning behind the sentence, beyond what is written.
• Perhaps this comes from using "biography" as a replacement word for "life" rather than "book": I am writing the life of Albert Victor, but I am writing a book on Albert Victor?
• "derived" because they do not come direct from Stowell, but from Stowell through two intermediaries (Wilson and Nicolson).
• Changed to "who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a biographer loosely credited"
• Changed to "Newspaper reports, etc. prove"
• Yes, I see where you're coming from but the duplication is deliberate. The third paragraph was originally the second, hence the link. However, I want to structure the sections so that the paragraphs have clear topics. The first is Stowell's theory and evidence in favour of it. The second is Albert Victor's alibis, and the third is the medicine-associated evidence. It's easier to follow the story if structured in this way; the way it was before was confusing for readers new to the topic.
• Changed to "that arise"
• Changed to "infected at the age of nine in about 1873"
• "forlorn" removed
• I've deliberately avoided doing just that. Using "the prince" instead of Albert Victor, or "the tutor" instead of Stephen, is too confusing for readers. It's easier to follow the story if the same person is referred to by the same name throughout. Hence, Edward VII is always "the Prince of Wales", and the Duke of Clarence is always "Albert Victor", and so on.
• I don't really see the problem here. What's the point of using so many words, when fewer will do?
• Changed to "The Ripper File, by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd in 1975."
• Again, she was originally but I prefer to name her later on. If named here, she breaks the flow of the sentence rendering "his mother" now confusing: who's mother? Albert Victor's or Gorman's? This has a domino effect throughout the paragraph making it necessary to restructure and lengthen it.
• "Confusing the issue further" removed.
• Changed to "1884; hence, he was not"
• "prostitutes from the East End of London telling a tale" changed to "their tale"
• Changed to "that blamed"
• Changed to "that links"
• That sentence used to be there, but it was moved to the end to link with Knight's realisation that Anderson was not one of the culprits in the next paragraph.
• Changed second "claimed" to "said"
• Changed to "Knight appreciated"
• Changed to "and told reporters "he no longer believes the theory""
• Slashes are deprecated where the relationship between the two words is unclear. Here the article has explained how both royalty and masonry have been introduced into a conspiracy theory.
• Changed to "that use"
• I'll see if I can come up with some. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have convinced me. I believe this article qualifies to be a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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