Talk:Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories

Renaming this article

A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 05:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

All well and good, but

... This article taps sources on the shoulder then runs away. I personally don't think it is good enough to make vague (and clearly loaded) claims like 'dismissed by reputable historians'.

If these theories have been dismissed, let's hear how they have been dismissed. And why. And by who.

There is not a single solid (or even semisolid) fact offered in this article to dismiss the theories described, as given.

Garrick92 12:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The first problem here is that the conspiracy theories are not based upon any reputable sources whatsoever. They are rumors, bizarre speculations, falsehoods and outright fiction masquerading as fact.

.

The fourth problem is the claim that no facts are given to dismiss the theories is simply untrue, and rather beside the point since there are no facts to support the theories. People making extraordinary claims are the ones who must give extraordinary evidence to support them. DreamGuy 15:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to learn that I am actually seeking facts to refute the Royal Conspiracy Theory of JTR. I came to this entry looking for them. I did not find them. In answer to your specific points.

Point one: reputable sources are often guilty of omission. Remember, for example, that the history of intelligence during the Second World War was completely wrong for thirty years because the ULTRA secret was kept secret until the 1970s. Waving the words' reputable sources' about is no substitute for a reasoned argument.

Point two: Tendentious tosh. I observed, in the bit about PAV's alleged marriage, that the Heir Apparent marrying a Catholic and producing a child would be a cause for serious unrest in Britain at the time. To simply state that PAV could be removed from the succession with no knock-on effects to the Monarchy is not disingenuous, it is downright stupid.

There are two laws in effect here: 1) The Act of Settlement, which means that anybody who is a Catholic or marries a Catholic is removed from the line of succession. However, this would not come into effect in this instance. Instead, the applicable law is the 2) Royal Marriages Act, which means that Eddy couldn't have married without Grandmummy's permission. Any marriage he may have contracted would have been null and void, and any child he had would be a bastard. For examples of British heirs secretly and illegally marrying Catholics and this not leading to horrific instances of serial killing, see Maria Anne Fitzherbert. And a child wouldn't change this. The precedent of the children of such a match being excluded from inheritance rights had already been established in 1843, when the son of the Duke of Sussex by a similar illegal match was not allowed to succeed to his father's titles. Of course, if a secret, illegal (or are people suggesting that Victoria gave her permission?) marriage between Eddy and a Catholic prostitute had been exposed, it would have been embarrassing. But there's no reason to imagine murder as a likely consequence. And there's no reason to imagine any particular unrest, either. It should be noted, again, that Eddy would not have been excluded, just as George IV wasn't excluded - he hadn't actually married a Catholic, just sham-married her. I find it hard to see how Eddy having a bastard by his Catholic mistress/pretend wife would have been anything but a minor embarrassment for either crown or government. john k 04:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I see your points, and you're right on the legals. However, the Victorian period was not the oasis of Imperial calm and majesty that one might imagine. The fact is that Queen Victoria was deeply unpopular at times, especially during her prolonged mourning. There were several republican voices in high places, the magazine Punch was devoutly republican, and there was prolonged public agitation. Queen Vic herself was the target of about 11 assassination attempts. Even granted length of reign, that is unusual. (Comparison: Assassination attempts on EdVII = 0; on GeoIV = 0, on EdVIII = 1, GeoVI = 0, ErII = 0.5 (blanks fired at her in 1981). The Prince of Wales was widely hated, and disgraced during two court cases, one of which called him as a witness in a high-society divorce. He was often booed in public. Legally, yes, there wasn't any real problem. However, publicly there was a real problem. Anti-papist agitation was rife at the time, and bastardy was a badge of shame on any family. Of course, I am not claiming that any of these definitely apply to PAV, but in the context of the matters discussed the public attitude to QV was highly volatile. The difference (to use a modern analogy) is between convicting a suspected paedophile and lynching him. The first is the official way, but it's very difficult to prevent a stoked-up crowd taking the alternative. 81.5.185.18 16:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

How this amendment is 'much much worse' than anything already on the entry, I fail to comprehend -- and to be honest, I think you're just saying it for effect.

Point three: certainly untrue.

Point four: I am surprised that an intelligent person can be so daft. If there are facts to refute the conspiracy theories, then that is not 'beside the point'. Those facts should be presented. They have not been, certainly not to the point at which one can claim the countertheories 100 per cent invalid.

As for the Randi 101 classic: "People making extraordinary claims are the ones who must give extraordinary evidence to support them;" the theorists claim to have done just that. I do not have a view on this, but their claims are prefectly refutable. Would someone please refute them?

By the same token, people making ordinary claims should give ordinary evidence to support them. This has not happened.

Exhibit: summary dismissal of the 'Impetus' theories is given as:

Joseph Gorman's claims have been dismissed as ludicrous by the vast majority of historians. - period.

Great. Well, that's sorted that out, then.

This is a genuine pov problem and so I'm restoring the pov flag until details are provided. When people refuse to explain comments, I generally assume they're just acting on prejudice. And, IMHO, I'm usually proved right.

Garrick92 11:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

First up, please read the following so that you understand what they say: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:NPOV. Your actions have violated both of those very important policies.

Second, you have provided nothing to support your claims of NPOV problems other than highly biased statements yourself. It is a fact that Joseph Gormans claims have been dismissed as ludicrous by the vast majority of historians. It is not a violation of NPOV policy to state that. In fact, when claims are highly disputed by experts, the NPOV policy demands that we note that.

You've given nothing other than an emotional outbirst to try to support your claims of NPOV problems. Please try to give a more reasoned explanation of what you consider to be wrong with the article. If you do not, I will remove the tag as spurious. DreamGuy 04:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to take such de haut en bas remarks from someone who has previously (with no evidence offered) described the article's subject as "They are rumors, bizarre speculations, falsehoods and outright fiction masquerading as fact" and then said: "your changes to the article were your personal beliefs. You cannot complain about the other side not giving as explicit of citations as you would hope when the parts you add were much, much worse." That mention of the other side rather gives your game away, doesn't it?

There's personal abuse, and then there's personal abuse. If I stand accused (by you) of believing rumors, bizarre speculations, falsehoods and outright fiction in preference to the truth, then I ask you -- where is your evidence of this? I'll save you the time - you don't have any evidence. In case you have missed it, my objection is that the rejection of the Gorman/Sickert claim is apparently on the basis of 'all my mates say so, so it must be true'. If his claims are that easily demolished, then it calls for a wrecking ball in full view, not elision. This is not personal bias, it is unsatisfied curiosity. I am as calm as can be on this subject, please do not provide your own 'to the gallery' commentary on my supposed emotional state. That's just playing dirty.

Garrick92 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am confused as to Garrick's claim that nothing of Gorman's claims have been refuted. Several supposed facts - the fate of Annie Crook, her supposed Catholicism, are clearly refuted. Beyond this, I'm not sure how one can refute contentions that are not based on anything except one man's crazed imaginings. john k 04:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The points are refuted on the basis of say-so, which is the same basis the original points are made, so I wouldn't say they were "clearly refuted." Nobody is citing any sources here. That being said, I was also highly curious to know why this popular theory is considered "ludicrous" by experts--don't most of the Ripper theories have holes in them?--and I did not find an answer from this article, so I think Garrick's original point is valid.

I would also note that some of the other Ripper theory articles such as Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend have detailed discussions of why the theory is considered to be invalid, rather than just claiming such to be the case. --67.177.29.183 07:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC) (Aaronius)

Quite.

Garrick92 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Just reread some of my remarks above. I do come across as a touch bad-tempered, don't I? Sometimes what you think is fairly light-hearted comes across a bit crashingly in print. Apologies for any offence or annoyance caused.

Garrick92 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Strong evidence?

Where is the "strong evidence" that the prince was elsewhere at the time of the murders? There are no sources listed, just words like "reported to be" and "supposedly". What are these irrefutable sources? What is the concrete proof that he couldn't have been there? If there aren't cites, the legitimacy of the evidence can't be determined. "Strong", without references, is POV. Is there a photograph of Albert in York on the evening of September 8, 1888 or something? If so, where? Personally, I don't think Albert was the Ripper. But if everyone - or even anyone - could be completely and unquestionably ruled out as a suspect, they'd have found their man. Kafziel 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong evidence as in he was a royal family member and EXTENSIVELY reported on in the media and proven to be nowhere near the murders. Court circulars announced where he was, papers reported it, it's difficult to think of a more strong alibi, except perhaps for having already been dead at the time of the murders (which actually has to be pointed out to some people with their theories). Cites are all over the books mentioned. DreamGuy 04:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Extensive" media coverage doesn't really have the same meaning when you're talking about the 1880s. Some reporters saw him during the day, presumably. Then what? There weren't paparazzi hiding in trees and security cameras documenting his whereabouts. What we have is the word of other nobles and their employees (which doesn't do much good if one is a conspiracy theorist). I still say the phrase "strong evidence" is POV... which, clearly, it is, since it isn't strong at all in plenty of people's points of view. Kafziel 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Extensive media coverage in towns far, far away from London. By the same token that extensive coverage doesn;t mean paparazzi, having an hour or two free doesn't mean you can high tail it alllll the way back to London and commit a murder and then go back. I guess obviously I have to be super explicit here to explain the details to you before you accept them, but the major point is that the experts on the topic all call it very strong evidence so I don't get why you not knowing the details thinks it isn't. Can't you go with what all the books on the topic say? DreamGuy 08:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because these are second- or third-hand citations. You're citing a source (a book) that cites a source (a newspaper or another book) that cites a source (the supposed eyewitness). That's evidence, for sure, but it's certainly not "strong" evidence.

My point is not that he could have jogged back to London from York, but that the press could have easily been manipulated at that time to think he was there at all. That still happens to the press sometimes (like in the case of Saddam Hussein's many decoys).

It so happens that I do believe the books (well, 90% at least). But the point isn't whether I believe them, it's whether the article is NPOV and has clear and reliable sources. I see you've got a couple of barnstars for both of those reasons, so I don't really see what the big argument is here; you know what POV is and you know what good references are. This article needed fixing, so what's the problem? Kafziel 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The article IS NPOV and DOES have clear and reliable sources. What you are trying to do is ignore them based upon some strange idea you thought up in your head. The problem is you're violating a whole string of policies to try to remove info you and only you have a problem with. If you claim that multiple books reporting easily verified court circulars and newspaper accounts is "unreliable" then you would pretty much distrust every source in the world and nothing could count as strong evidence. What evidence do you have that he WASN'T there? None. So your whole not of nothing is supposed to overrule truckloads of evidence? Give me a break. DreamGuy 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the "strong" part; as far as I can see, that fixes both the POV problem (now it just states that it's evidence, which is a fact, rather than strong evidence, which is an opinion) and also means your citations are adequate. I hope that's acceptable. Kafziel 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous POV tag

Your claims that "the press could have easily been manipulated", if applied to any evidence anywhere would overrule any evidence. Strange little conspiracy theories with no support do not overrule overwhelming evidence as presented by tons of well-respected sources. That's ridiculous, and the POV tag is ridiculous too. Not allowing an editor to make stuff up off the top of his head to ignore overwhelming evidence is not a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, it's simply a matter of following that policy and also WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. Find me a verifiable, reliable source that says that he wasn't where the court circulars and independent members of the press all said, THEN you can theorize that the evidence isn't strong. Until then your arguments are nothing but pushing the POV that expert sources and citations cannot be trusted, which is not something Wikipedia allows. Plopping up a POV tag for no reason just because you didn;t get your way isn't going to fly unless you have a real reason from the NPOV policy itself to put it there. Wanting to ignore experts and sources to entertain your own wacky ideas doesn't count. DreamGuy 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't tag it because I think there was some big conspiracy. I tagged it because the adjective "strong" is POV. You have it there because you want to debunk the theory presented here. I agree with your reasons, but not your methods. All I did was remove that one word, to make it the more neutral "evidence" without any qualifications (and the reader can judge for himself whether or not it is strong if he so chooses). You reverted me; your edit summary on the revert makes it pretty clear that it was because you feel that your point of view is correct, and anything to the contrary is "ridiculous". Well, I agree that thinking Prince Eddy killed all those hookers is pretty ridiculous... but, as you know, wikipedia is not a soapbox.

The whole reason we have cites in the first place is so that people can look at the sources themselves and determine whether or not they trust them. The cites are there; the interpretation of those sources needs to be left up to the individual reader. Kafziel 20:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took the tag off and removed the "strong" because the above comment sat here for four days with no response. But as soon as I did that, you were back. Clearly, you're not interested in productive discussion, so I'm going to put the tag back on and wait for more input from other contributors. Kafziel 14:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All your objections were already answered, there's no point in repeating the same things back to you which you ignore each time. You aren;t following the NPOV policy in the slightest by trying to dismiss facts and the input of every expert on the case and replacing it with your thoughts. DreamGuy 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't guess it matters but the thought that partial statements from the nobility and official papers are strongly posed as the utter proof against royal involvement also struck me as doctored. For example a prince being warded would still usually allow him plenty socialising, the article contradicts this and poses that contradiction as actual proof against involvement, thats a bit suspect, all in all, pov yes, officially doctored, yes, rightly so? maybe, fascinating is the guy that starved himself in response to the prince death, the prince did die young, several persons that might be a witness to anything, do indeed conveniently die and eg. deny their own researches posthumously, there it gets a bit hilarious. .24.132.170.97 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Came here from request for third opinion. I wouldn't include evidence/strong evidence either way in the opening paragrah. Claims of evidence (and strength thereof) is better left to be discussed in the sections below, where you can go into depth on both sides. The opening paragraph should be brief without mentioning claims on either side as much as possible.

Suggestion: Various theories existed that the Duke of Clarence either was the Ripper, or prompted others to perform the murders to cover up alleged misdeeds. , have been comprehensively dismissed. There is strong evidence that the Prince was elsewhere at the times of the murders and there is no evidence that he was implicated in any other way.

Feel free to both agree with each other by disagreeing with me :) MartinRe 11:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The lead is for summarizing the important parts of the rest of the article. Saying that incontrovertible evidence ("strong evidence" is actually a compromise version, one the above editor refuses to accept so he can try to push his POV onto the article) shows him innocent of direct involvement is absolutely necessary. DreamGuy 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with putting important parts of the text in the lead, is who decides what's "important", which is why I thought trimming it down to basics might help. Adding a comment on evidence (of whatever type) in the lead that dismisses the claim should be balanced by including an important part from the other POV (Stowell/Spiering/Gorman etc) to make it more neutral. However, I thought that would be too unwieldy, and best left to the sections themselves. MartinRe 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what's important = all the qualified experts in the field and not just some guy out of nowhere adding his opinions on the matter. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the NPOV policy if you think adding info from highly disreputable sources is "balancing" anything. The policy clearly says that there is no such thing as "equal time" and that we present things per the sources and only give time to the views of dissenting views in proportion to their credibility in the field. Come on here, the guy has an alibi for the murders, not mentioning that in the lead is highly prejudicial and lsants coverage. DreamGuy 14:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read NPOV, and I don't think implying that I didn't or that I have a "fundamental misunderstanding" is very civil. I am aware that minor views should get minor insertions, but this artilce is about conspiracy theories, which have their believers and non-believers. However, as far as I could see, referring to just evidence against without any reference to the other side (however minor) in the summary appears one sided, and I believe it better to leave the debate in the sections itself. MartinRe 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the undue weight section of NPOV, regarding majority viewpoint, the following could be better cited/worded to avoid sounding like weasal words

• "Eddy was reportedly" - reported by whom?
• "claims, many of which have been criticised as inaccurate:" (crtisised by whom?)
• "dismissed as fantasy by the vast majority of historians." (citations?)

That said, I came here just to give a third opinion, and I stand by my orignal suggestion (with the above additions regarding citation/weasal words) Have fun. MartinRe 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another 3rd opinion: Instead of 'There is strong evidence that the Prince was elsewhere at the times of the murders and there is no evidence that he was implicated in any other way.', how about starting from the lack of evidence *for* the royal ripper theory? something like: 'There is no evidence to support the idea that the Prince was responsible for the Ripper murders, and he was reported to be out of London at the time of some of the killings.' That's a much compressed version of what the body of the article goes on to say. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Jtdrl really needs to stop removing the merge from tag at the top of the article. The Royalty and urban legends article itself is a mess of unrelated rumors that clearly need to be split up into separate articles, and since this is the article about Prince Eddy and the Ripper murder, that section really needs to be merged into this article. It's all nice that he took the time to write his little article, but for him to oppose much-needed edits on it simply out of egotism and to write nasty and deceptive edit comments when he removes the tag is simply unacceptable. Victrix 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these articles need to be merged with the note that this article is much clearer than the segment in the royal legends article. Kiki 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland Street Scandal

James Pope Hennessy, Queen Mary's official biographer, spoke to many people then still living who actually knew Prince Eddy (see his posthumously published book of interviews), so his statement that Eddy's private life was 'dissipated' must be taken as gospel (as too must his statements with regard to Eddy's intellectual slowness). Hennessy knew what he was writing about, and indeed, died at the hands of rough trade. His close friend James Lees Milne, who was bisexual, and with whom one can presume he would have shared the more unpublishable results of his findings, wrote the first frank biography of Lord Esher, the grey eminence of the Edwardian royal court who was pederastic, and who kept a folder of letters from parties about the scandal. Both Lees Milne, and later Theo Aronson used it for their respective books which touched on the scandal. To suggest that Andrew Cook's thinly argued book settles the case with regard to PAV's possible involvement in Cleveland Street is utterly ridiculous. Engleham 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

article states: "Stowell claimed that his sources for the article were accounts written in private by Sir William Withey Gull. The article was published shortly before Stowell's own death on November 8, 1970. His papers were reportedly burned by his family. It has been suggested that Stowell could have served directly or indirectly as Jullian's source.

"Stowell's article attracted enough attention to place Prince Albert among the most notable Ripper suspects. However, almost all of Stowell's claims were soon demonstrated to be untrue:

"Gull died on January 29, 1890, and so could not have been Stowell's source concerning Prince Albert's death."

Why not? Gull's death in 1890 is 80 years *earlier* than Stowell's death in 1970. It is perfectly possible for someone who died *before* you to be your source for something.Almaward 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• You've misread the article. Prince Albert died in 1892, Gull died in 1890. Hence, Gull could not have been Stowell's source concerning Prince Albert's death. DrKiernan 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't wash - Prince Albert being a contemporary of Gull doesn't meant that Gull didn't have knowledge that Stowell could have used later. The article says that Gull could not have been Stowell's source simply because of when Gull died, but that simply doesn't make sense.Almaward 05:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You aren't reading what is being claimed:Gull died in 1890. Eddie died in 1892, therefore Gull cannot be a source concerning Eddie's death. It would be like claiming that John Kennedy's private papers give details about the murder of Robert Kennedy. Revmagpie (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that nonsense again. It was deemed silly last time someone brought it up, it's still silly now. And, in this article, this is what it's called, so it can't be changed. DreamGuy 00:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutral presentation principles require you to cite who (and perhaps how many people) call it X but you can't use a non-neutral adjective in an article's title. zen master T 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out here for historical purposes in case this comes up again that Zen-master's ideas about what Wikipedia principles require were incorrect, and his proposal was not only strongly rejected but outright deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a proposal like that at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, but it's been rejected, so it's a moot point. There's nothing pejorative about the term "conspiracy theory" anyways. It's a theory about an alleged conspiracy. --clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think that 'Conspiracy Theory' is pejorative-it is (almost) always used to imply the conspiracy theorist is wrong, and so is used to imply disapproval. I'd support a renaming of the article, which is certainly possible btw.FelixFelix ^talk 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing and Weasel words

As plenty of others have observed before, this article is full of weasel words and unsubstantiated assertions. Stephen Knight's theory is certainly full of holes, but (not least because it's so well known) it deserves a better refutation than this. Also I took out a factually incorrect passage about Gull's strokes rendering him unable to perform 'the operation' on Annie Crook. Although Gull did suffer with several strokes (the first in 1887), there is no documentation that they disabled him. I think that there's plenty of work to do here.FelixFelix ^talk 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose Changes

The article is written with obvious disapproval of the royal theories of the Ripper murders, which is understandable, as they're all full of holes and frankly a bit silly. But it reads very un-encyclopaedically, being full of unsubstantiated refutations, some of which are factually incorrect and come across as a bit desperate. I'd like to propose the following changes;

• Change the article name, for example how about 'Jack the Ripper; Theories of Royal involvement' (a bit clunky, I know) or something similar? As pointed out above, many editors disagree with article title with 'conspiracy theory' in them, which is a pejorative.
• It's not very clear from the text exactly what the theories involve, only Knight's is spelled out, although partially and it's almost completely obscured by not terribly intelligible refutations following almost every sentence. I'd suggest a point by point detailing of the main parts of each theory, perhaps followed by a separate 'criticism section' which ought to be properly referenced.

I really don't think that anybody's going to come away from a more neutrally worded and properly cited article thinking that PAV or Gull actually did it, unless they're of a mind to already, in which case the kind of 'take it from me, I know' style that the article is written in now will only sound like a bit of a cover up.FelixFelix ^talk 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about a rename (the 9/11 conspiracy theories article underwent a similar discussion, which went nowhere), but a more neutral rewrite would be a good idea. The article should present the theories in a manner that lets the readers draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia isn't in the business of deciding what theories are correct or not. --clpo13_(talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've separated the rebuttals from the story itself, and placed them in a separate paragraph. 14:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC) User:DrKiernan using a public IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.30.16 (talk)

I don't know much about all this, but to accuse someone of a horrid crime isn't best to prove the guy did it, rather then to concoct an unlikely theory and then try to make un proving it the game?- Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.128 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Walter Sickert

Why are Jean Overton Fuller and Patricia Cornwell's book discussed here when they have nothing to do with Royal conspiracy theories about Jack the Ripper? I think the article's been allowed to get a little sidetracked at that point.Revmagpie (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think mentioning that Sickert's alleged involvement in the conspiracy has evolved into him being a sole suspect in two books is worthwhile so people can check out the other articles on the topic, but it doesn't have to be detailed like it was. So something between what it was and what it is now would be preferable. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the detail of the books can be left out. I am happy with the way it is now, but am open to suggestions if someone has another idea. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "fantasies" may be a bit harsh. Well, no, not exactly, as I think it's spot on, but there must be some more scholarly way of saying it that doesn't sound so rude. I'm drawing blanks on what that would be though. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Baron says "[Joseph Gorman] concocted the story, elaborated by the writer Stephen Knight and others, that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. That suggestion is fantasy." Similarly, Matthew Sturgis ends his article: "The notion that Sickert was Jack the Ripper is pure fiction."

The weight of scholarly opinion is very strongly against these theories. Ultimately, I think we've been too fair to the unscholarly opinion of the conspiracy theorists. By trying to balance both sides fairly, the article has become confusing [2] or boring [3] for new readers. I think the line between reality and fantasy in the article needs to be much clearer, even when that leads to accusations of POV [4].

Having said that, I'm always open to any suggestions for re-wording or further improvement of the article. I think we hold very similar if not identical views on the article's subject matter. DrKiernan (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a featured article

Issues: "focuses too much on Albert Victor"; "Seriously redundant with the Jack the Ripper suspects article"; How did this get on the front page? -unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.170.139 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Asked myself the same question. There are way better articles who deserve to be on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.94.28 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.112.80 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the worst featured article I can remember reading. The title does not reflect the contents in addition to the comments above Dalekmikey (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Take it off the front page and put another one up. 82.30.246.119 (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The inconsistency between the title and the content, in particular, is quite glaring. Debate 木 10:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It is completely disheartening to anyone who has failed an FAC to see drivel like this succeed. This article represents, at best, an B-class effort and should not have been moved forward. It is a clear failure of the system. • Freechild'sup? 12:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Just came here to make exactly the same point myself and found I was in good company. The title of the article is completely inappropriate as it concentrates purely on one suspect! I'm dumfounded that this made it as a featured article.86.156.31.23 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Take it to WP:FAR 58.110.151.64 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is 'Jullian'?

In the section titled 'Prince Albert Victor as a suspect' the first sentence starts 'Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source, as ...' but I cannot see any reference in the article as to who this 'Jullian' is.

That sentence ends with 'in Jullian's book.[3][4]'.

  * [3] links to a reference to Evans, Stewart P. (October 2002).
 "On the Origins of the Royal Conspiracy Theory".
  * [4] links to a reference to Cook, pp.8–9 (Cook, Andrew (2006).
 Prince Eddy: The King Britain Never Had).

Reference 3 is to an online source and if I scan that I can see some information about Jullian. However there should be some explanation of who Jullian is and why he is being mentioned actually in the article. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work

I await nominations for 9/11_conspiracy_theories and Masonic_conspiracy_theories

Stowell

The writing of the section below is misuse of information that is really quite disgraceful and doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. It is the worst type of journalise, that leads the reader on towards a certain opinion, which the reader later discovers is false!

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, a biographer loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book.[13][14] In 1970, Stowell published an article that claimed Albert Victor had contracted syphilis during a visit to the West Indies, that it had driven him insane, and that in this state of mind he had perpetrated the five "canonical" Jack the Ripper murders. Stowell wrote that following a double murder on 30 September 1888, Albert Victor was restrained by his own family in an institution in the south of England, but later escaped to commit a final murder on 9 November before ultimately dying of syphilis. Stowell said his information came from the private notes of Sir William Gull, a reputable physician who had treated members of the Royal Family.[15] Stowell knew Gull's son-in-law, Theodore Dyke Acland, and was an executor of Acland's estate.[16]

Stowell's claims were swiftly dismissed. Stowell had claimed that Albert Victor was incarcerated in a mental institution, when he was actually serving in the British army, making regular public appearances, and visiting friends at country houses.[17] Newspaper reports, Queen Victoria's diary, family letters, and official documents prove that Albert Victor was attending functions in public, or meeting foreign royalty, or hundreds of miles from London at the time of each of the five canonical murders.[18] On 31 August 1888, when Mary Ann Nichols was killed in Bucks Row in London, Albert Victor was at Danby Lodge, the home of Viscount Downe in Grosmont, North Yorkshire.[19] Albert Victor travelled from Danby Lodge to the Cavalry Barracks in York on 7 September, and was still in Yorkshire on 8 September when Annie Chapman was killed in Hanbury Street, London. On 30 September 1888, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed at 1:00 and 1:45 a.m. respectively, at times when Albert Victor was over 500 miles (over 800 km) from London. On the 29th, he was shooting in Glen Muick, Scotland, with Prince Henry of Battenberg among others, and in the afternoon he attended a recital given by Emma Albani.[20] On the morning of the 30th, he attended a church service at Balmoral, the royal retreat in Scotland, with his grandmother Queen Victoria, other family members, visiting German royalty and the estate staff. Afterwards, Albert Victor had lunch with the Queen.[21] On 9 November, Mary Jane Kelly was killed in Miller's Court in London, but Albert Victor was at Sandringham House, the Norfolk country home of his parents, the Prince and Princess of Wales. That morning, he went shooting with his father and the house guests, including Baron Rothschild, Lord Lansdowne and other members of the British and foreign nobility. In the afternoon there was a party to celebrate the Prince of Wales's forty-seventh birthday.[22]

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.[23] All three doctors who were attending Albert Victor at his death in 1892 concurred that he had died of pneumonia. The first symptoms of madness that arise from syphilitic infection tend to occur about fifteen years from first exposure. Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to have been infected at the age of nine in about 1873, six years before he visited the West Indies. While the timescale of disease progression is never absolute, it is highly improbable that Albert Victor had syphilis.[24]

Rather than name Albert Victor in the article directly, Stowell described his suspect in a roundabout way in an attempt to either disguise his identity or create a mystery. 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,[25] the day after Stowell's own death from natural causes. The same week, Stowell's son reported that he had burned his father's papers, saying "I read just sufficient to make certain that there was nothing of importance."[26]

• What is my complaint? To say that Stowell published an article that claimed Albert Victor ... had perpetrated the five "canonical" Jack the Ripper murders is a gross and deliberate mis-statement of fact that Stowell himself refuted, as stated further down in the article. Stowell did not (in writing) name his subject.

I haven't looked down the history of this article to find out who the editor was that misused the facts to this degree. But it certainly doesn't deserve a gold star in the corner. I'm most surprised that some other critical mind else hasn't picked up on this.

Stowell's obituary says: He was interested in criminology, and in an article published in The Criminologist said that for fifty years he had kept to himself certain evidence as to the identity of the notorious killer Jack the Ripper, which seemed to point to a man of noble family, for fear of involving as witnesses some close friends who were still alive. reference T.E.A. STOWELL, C.B.E, M.D., F.R.C.S.

Amandajm (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How old is this theory?

My grandmother, who lived in Australia all her life and died shortly before Stowell's article was published, was perfectly familiar with, and in complete support of the theory that Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper. It was clear that the subject and the suspicion was widely discussed among her generation. It may, perhaps, date from the time of his "untimely death". Probably quoting her own mother, she said that he was the family favourite, but that no-one else could stand him, and that "everyone" thought that Princess Mary was lucky to have married his younger brother instead.

The existence of the rumour for many years before it was suggested in Jullian's publication is supported at this blog [5] which states:

I refer to the article by Andrew Cook on the Duke of Clarence (November 2005). He claims the story of 'Eddy' and Jack the Ripper was 'created' by Dr Thomas Stowell. This is absurd, as the idea of the connection between the Duke and the Ripper was widespread when I was young in the 1930s. Dr Cook has to rely on printed material, I suppose, but there must be many people like me who have memories of the story before the article in the Criminologist.

Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are claims that people believed the Duke of Clarence was involved in the Ripper murders or connected somehow before Stowell, but there are no reliable sources to back it up. All that have ever been found are people who claim that they knew it back then, but there are no published sources from that time which show this to be true. Considering how unreliable such reports are in general, both from hoaxes and bad memories, we cannot trust in such undocumented claims. DreamGuy (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper referencing

Would someone with access to all these books and article kindly date the article that Stowell published. 1970 really isn't good enough for a FA article! Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

False claim

Stowell's article claimed that Albert Victor had contracted syphilis during a visit to the West Indies, that it had driven him insane, and that in this state of mind he had perpetrated the five "canonical" Jack the Ripper murders. Stowell wrote that following a double murder on 30 September 1888, Albert Victor was restrained by his own family in an institution in the south of England,.

Stowell's article claimed that his suspect had contracted syphillis etc. If you keep insisting on stating that Stowell made these claims specifically about Prince Albert Victor, then you are misinforming your wikipedia readers, and deliberately and persistently misstating what Stowell stated was not true.

Why are you doing this? It is this sort of loose treatment of facts by media that can result in the innocent being gaoled along with the guilty.

I have noticed that you also removed the reference to Stowell's full name, honours and distinguished history. I cannot understand why, since so much of the argument is based on his article. Why delete relevant info?

I notice also that buried in the references is the date of the article referred to. That date is important. It needs to be stated in the body of the article, not just the references.

With regards to the syphilis, with Stowell's particular history, he would have been fully aware of the course of syphilis. To say that this statement is PR is like saying that one ought not state that a bricklayer knows how to lay bricks, or an electrician doesn't know how to change a fuse wire.

I suggest that you revert all your edits, think about what you ought and ought not state as fact, and then change just those few things that might really make the article stronger and more factual. Like including, within the text, the date of Stowell's article. Amandajm (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All fifteen sources listed in the references section are agreed that Stowell meant Albert Victor.

Solution You must state that the sources (name some of them specifically) believe that Stowell was referring to Prince Albert Victor.

At FAC and PR, it was pointed out that details about Stowell's life are extraneous and unnecessary. You could always put them in a new article Thomas Eldon Alexander Stowell.

Reply Obviously your reviewers were not on the ball. If they had have been, they would never have passed this with serious misstatement of facts. Of course Stowell's details are relevant. The reader needs to know that even though Stowell is not a generally well-known person, his position was one of knowledge and responsibility. The credibility of the person making the claim is valid, and must be included. If Stowell was a writer of "penny dreadfuls" then his theory could merely be passed off as an article designed to sell stories. This was not the case.

It is in the body of the article: "In 1970, Stowell published an article in The Criminologist".

I know of no source refuting Rumbelow's analysis on syphilitic progression.

? I don't understand this point. The analysis of syphilitic progression is not in question. The matter in question is your statement that Stowell said Albert Victor had syphilis. He didn't. He said his suspect had syphilis. My comment was that Stowell himself would have been perfectly well aware of the progressive stages of syphilis.

Comment. if indeed all the writers of the books cited agree that Stowell's suspect was Prince Albert Victor, then you need to state why Stowell's subject was believed to be him, by all these people. If you don't state this, then you are doing your readers out of important information.

Amandajm (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward VII

Who was Jullian? What was the name of the Book? or doesn't it matter?

Referring to an english king in the introduction to an important section as "Prince Albert Victor's father" is not on. The man was King Edward VII. Your readers need to know exactly who he was, regardless of whether he was king at the time of his son's death. Jullian didn't write a biography of him as "Prince Albert Victor's father". He wrote a biography called "Edouard VII". He was a French author. It came out in English in about 1967. These facts are significant, and not stated. If you think that you need to clarify for your audience that Edward was not king at the time, then do so. But do so with a direct statement, not by the ommission of pertinent data. Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It explicitly states "author Philippe Jullian" in the article.

Reviewers at PR and FAC constantly reiterated that the article was confusing. Using "the prince" instead of Albert Victor, or "Edward VII" for his father, 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. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

• You need to name Jullian's book. Saying that he wrote a book about "Prince Albert Victor's father" is simply not good enough. It's fine to define that he was the prince's father.
• In referring to Albert Victor, you need to call him "Prince Albert Victor" at the beginning of each paragraph that is about him. After that, you can call him "the Prince" (with a capital letter) within the same paragraph.
• Let me reiterrate: You cannot say that "Stowell said this and that about Albert Victor....". Stowell himself denied that he was referring to the Prince. To put it quite bluntly, if Stowell was still alive, he could take you to court for insisting that he said things that he didn't say (regardless of how those things have been interpretted by others).
• Your insistence on reverting the carefully and precisely worded introductory sentence indicates that your grip on precise, encyclopedic and legal language is not good. Your introduction states what the theories do. As an encyclopedic entry, the introductory sentence must state what the subject of the entry is, or (in the plural case) are. What they are is "those conspiracy theories which......".

Amandajm (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)