Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive2

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

The article was not promoted by DrKiernan 12:24, 19 March 2010 [1].

---

Montague Druitt

Montague Druitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive3

I am nominating this for featured article because since the last nomination the article has been expanded by 50% to include even more homosexuality, conspiracy theory and cricket. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links or dead external links; alt text fine. Ucucha 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I am leaning towardsSupport for this engaging and comprehensive account, but I have a few issues all issues listed below resolved to my satisfaction. (I have also made a few editing tweaks). Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues resolved

• Overuse of commas: Sentences like "Montague had six brothers and sisters, including an elder brother William, who entered the law, and a younger brother Edward, who joined the Royal Engineers" seem over-punctuated, in this case with at least one too many commas.
• Family and education: Second para, why has he become "Montague John"? Surely, "Druitt" would be appropriate from now on?
• Career: Are two monetary equivalents in the same paragraph really necessary? We get the idea from the updated value of £500.
• Link "codicil"?
• Cricket:
  • Since cricket was a pastime not a career, I think the details of Druitt's cricketing career are somewhat excessive and could be cut down somewhat. This is not, basically, an article about a cricketer. The point that he played the game to a good standard, alongside well-known players, could be established in maybe half this amount of prose.
  • Perhaps the list of players (Webbe, Crowdy etc) should be introduced as "...included first-class cricketers A.J. Webbe (etc)"
• Death: again, two current values close together is probably unwarranted. Whatever Measuringworth.com may claim, estimating the current values of Victorian sums is a very inexact science; one spends money on so many different things today. Perhaps the updated value of Druitt's estate at the end of the section is of valid interest, but I think I'd leave out the earlier two.
• There is some very awkward citation placing at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the Death section, with citations sandwiching a bracket, thus: [13]).[67] Would it be possible to rearrange these?
• Conspiracy theories
  • More overpunctuation? "Druitt was a favoured suspect throughout the 1960s, until the advent of the 1970s conspiracy theories, such as those promoted by Stephen Knight in his 1976 book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. Look for other possible instances.
  • I got a bit lost in he main paragraph of the Conspiracy section, perhaps due to an overload of names. The paragraph needs a bit more direction, perhaps with a sentence inserted after the first, along the lines: "Conspiracy theorists have attempted to link Druitt with these suspects, through a network of mutual acquaintances and possible connections."
• Images
  • Druitt: According to UK copyright law, "the duration [of the copyright] will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available (my emphasis). I take this to mean 70 years from the date of first publication. Do we know when this was? And does this stipulation affect US copyright, which is the most relevant factor here?
  • Sims image: source information needs full publication details.

These seem relatively straightfoward fixes, and I look forward to supporting the article soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for another comprehensive review and improvements to the prose.

• Commas removed.[2]
• "John" removed. I'd prefer to keep Montague in this sentence to distinguish from the other Druitts in the previous sentence.
• I think having only one equivalent looks funny, as if it's been missed out by accident on the second instance. However, I've put the two closest equivalents together.[3]
• I've shortened the cricket section a bit but the key reason the previous nomination failed was because of concerns over comprehensiveness, so I would rather not cut material.
• "first-class cricketers" added.
• Reference moved.
• Comma removed.
• Sentence added.
• The public domain rationale is explained on the image page. Images first published more than 70 years after creation are in the public domain. This image was created in around 1879 and was first published after 1965.

• Are you sure about this? This link to the UK Copyright law factsheet (to which the Druitt image is also linked) says: "If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available." Thus the 70 years after creation is qualified if the image has been published, which this clearly has. If the image was first published in 1965 it enters the public domain in 2036. Please tell me if you think I am misinterpreting, but I can't see how the above clause can be read in any other way. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The picture is believed to have been created around 1879 and must have been created before December 1888. So, as an unpublished anonymous image the UK copyright would expire 70 years from creation: around 1 January 1950 for the supposed date of creation and by 1 January 1959 by the very latest. Consequently, at the time of first publication, which was after Cullen's book in 1965, it was already in the public domain in the United Kingdom. As it was then published in the United States in or before 1987 without a copyright registration and the copyright in its home country was already expired, it is also public domain in the States. DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I bow to your superior knowledge. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Details for Sims image added.[4] DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Very interesting article, and I'll be inclined to support it once these are looked at and the one photo is okayed. Only found a handful or so of nit-picky things to point out.

• In a few instances, there is a reference inside parentheses. Not sure what the MoS says, but I think it should be outside. (Oddly enough, one instance later does have this).
• Jack the Ripper suspect: "During September, three more women were found dead with their throat cut". Pretty sure "throat" should be plural since it describes three women.
• Comma after "pathologist Thomas Bond".
• Conspiracy theories: Little repetition in the following bit toward the end: "Reginald Acland, the brother of Gull's son-in-law, had legal chambers adjacent to Druitt's. Druitt...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those errors.

• Moved.[5]
• Corrected.
• Corrected.
• Removed a couple of Druitts,[6] and rearranged [7]. DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 29 (Blackheath ..) lacks a publisher. Note that I brought this up at the LAST FAC.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Amended.[8] DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Disappointed to find so much to fix at the top; but I think this one is worthy.

• "Outside of"? Remove one word. Comma after "including".
• "and he was playing cricket miles away from the crime scenes on the same weekends that some of the women were killed"—remove two redundant words. And does a cricket match last 24/7 through an entire weekend? How could it otherwise be an alibi?
• I see increasingly the linking of UK counties after the more specific link. Please don't.
• Possible to brighten the pic of Winchester College?
• "He was very active in the school's debating society, and his interest in debate may have spawned his desire to become a barrister." It's the "and" as connector that is problematic (and the "debate" should be "debating", yes?). "His interest in debating, which may have spawned his desire to become a barrister, was shown by his active involvement in the school's debating society."
• No comma necessary after "republicanism".
• The commas do make it clear after you read it twice, but why not make it easier for the readers: "Two years after graduation, on 17 May 1882, Druitt was admitted to the Inner Temple, one of the qualifying bodies for English barristers." -> "On 17 May 1882, two years after graduation, Druitt was admitted to the Inner Temple, one of the qualifying bodies for English barristers."
• "Codicil" is probably a candidate for a link to Wiktionary. I generally discourage such links, but here, do many people know what it means? Also, what is a "special pleader"?
• I hope the claim that only one in eight barristers could make a living from the law is authoritative. I see that it's a third-party reference, which is usually avoided where possible. However, I see it's actually quoted by two separate sources. Tony (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the careful reading. Copy-edit changes: [9]; Removed "provided alibis for Druitt by examining where and when he was playing cricket" and added "could have travelled by train between his cricket engagements and London".[10] DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm concerned that, as with the last FAC, a case is being made that Druitt was not involved rather than just telling the story. For example, the lead doesn't mention that Chief Constable Sir Melville Macnaghten actually named Druitt as the murderer. It just refers to "private suggestions," and even though I believe Macnaghten didn't work on the investigation, would it not make sense to name him in the lead as the person with the suspicions? Discussing Druitt's alleged involvement in a section called "conspiracy theories" poisons the well somewhat—do reliable sources refer to the suspicions about Druitt as conspiracy theory? Also, the two sections about the Ripper issue should probably be subsections.

  Where the article says, "There is no real evidence against Druitt,[111] and most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect[112]," what do the sources cited actually say on that point, and are there any similarly reliable sources who say otherwise? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Macnaghten did not name Druitt as the murderer. He named him as the most likely of three suspects. It would be POV to mention Macnaghten's thoughts on one of his suspects in the lead but not, for example, Abberline's refutation of those suspicions. All this would lengthen the lead unnecessarily.
• The term conspiracy theory is used within the field extensively, see Casebook for examples.
• They say, for example, there is "no direct evidence against him" (Leighton) and "Hundreds of books have been written...One actually indicted him...It is now seen as flawed" (Leighton). The article reflects the balance of sources, accurately reports prevailing opinion, includes contrary viewpoints where they exist, and does not contain any original research. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that when I read it, I feel the writer is trying to persuade me of something, rather than simply educate me. I think if you could do something to remove that feeling it would help a lot. For example, you write "most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" and you cite Leighton, pp. 149–162 (that needs a more specific cite); Woods and Baddeley, pp. 126, 246. Can you quote here what they say that supports that part of the sentence, and perhaps add those quotes to the footnote?

As for the lead, it's quite short, so it could take another sentence or two. I think it's important to make clear that the suspicions were more than just "private suggestions," which makes it sound as though it was nothing more than casual gossip.

Also, you didn't address two points: (1) is there a reason for not having the two Ripper sections as subsections? and (2) to call one of the sections that discusses his involvement "conspiracy theories," there would need to be multiple reliable sources that described the allegations against him in those terms, and none who disagreed. Even then it would be better to have a neutral header.SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Leighton examines other authors' works in those 12 pages and shows that the majority of authors do not support the thesis. So, I see no need to restrict the page range further. I have returned Woods and Baddeley to the library, but from memory they say what I have written: it is only loosely paraphrased if not a near copy. I have already quoted part of Leighton.

Yes, it is casual gossip. That is why it is inappropriate to make out that it is something more than that.

I have no opinion currently on whether they should be sub-sections. I have taken out some of the uses of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists"[11] but, as I've already said, the term is in very wide circulation throughout the field. Just do a search for "conspiracy theory" and "jack the ripper". I am not aware of any source that explicitly says "this is not a conspiracy theory". DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources use "conspiracy theory" in relation to Druitt? And which authorities today do consider him to be a likely suspect? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vanderlinden (ref. 109) says in his review of Montague Druitt: Portrait of a Contender: "Leighton has taken every crackpot supposition and distortion of fact ever written in connection with the Ripper Royal Conspiracy theory...". I identified the sources that consider Druitt likely at the last FAR Spallek, Cullen, Farson, Howells, Skinner and Wilding. DrKiernan (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded this image of the MacNaghten memorandum in case you have any interest in using it. I found it as I was reading around about this on Google books, so I thought I might as well grab it. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that when I read the article I feel the writer is trying to persuade me of something. I've never interacted with you apart from over this FAC and the previous one on the same article, and I have no knowledge of Ripperology and no POV about it, so I can't see anything that might be colouring my judgment here. But I do come away with a strong feeling that I'm being advised what to think. Rather than saying things like "no authoritative scholar believes that x," would it not be better to lay out who is saying what, and let the reader reach the conclusions for herself?

The only significant difference that I can see between this version and the previous one at FAC is that you added a "conspiracy theory" section, which seems to make the POV even stronger with a header that poisons the well. The section is written in quite a confusing way, and I'd like to see quotations being properly attributed, rather than things like "considered 'outrageous fantasies' by reviewers" and "reviewers considered it an 'exercise in ingenuity rather than … fact'" which makes it appear that several reviewers are using the same expressions.

I think you need to provide in-text attribution for this paragraph (and anything that implies the same):

The conspiracy theories and the accusations against Druitt also draw on cultural perceptions of a decadent aristocracy, and depict an upper-class murderer or murderers preying on lower-class victims.[112] As Druitt and other aristocratic Ripper suspects were wealthy, there is more biographical material on them than on the residents of the Whitechapel slums.[112] Consequently, it is easier for writers to concoct solutions based on a wealthy culprit rather than one based on a Whitechapel resident.[112] There is no real evidence against Druitt,[112][113] and most authorities do not consider him a likely suspect.[114]

And I mean in-text attribution of the kind, "X writes that most authorities do not consider him a likely suspect," because without that, you're the one who's judging which sources count as authorities. I think you also need to name the people who think Druitt was involved, and tell us what they say exactly, without cutting it short and saying that reviewers think it's nonsense. By all means do tell us who says it's nonsense (with names), but you first of all need to lay out the theories in a disinterested way. Bear in mind that the only reason Druitt is notable is that he was a suspect—he's otherwise just a schoolteacher who committed suicide—so an article about him has to explain (fairly) how his notability came about, and whether anyone still clings to the suspicions.

Also, I'm not sure you've specifically addressed Dreamguy's points in the last FAC. Dreamguy is very knowledgeable in this area; if I were writing an article about this I would take his views seriously. He wrote that you were presenting some claims as though they were facts, and that some of the sources you use are fringe, whereas other reliable authors aren't cited. He wrote of the authorities sentence: "... footnoting some book by some not very well known or respected authors to try to back up the claim that "most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" is pretty POV-y. Woods and Baddeley do not speak for the entire field, and most authors and researchers do not consider them anywhere near the top writers in the field. That's not to say that they are wildly out of touch on this particular statement, necessarily, but any sort of presentation about what a majority of anyone says in this field needs very solid sourcing, and that does not cut it."

He also wrote: "One of the most well respected modern researchers on Druitt is conspicuously absent. Andrew J. Spallek's articles in the Ripper periodicals should be used as a source above about half of the books being cited. Spallek uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, for example." You replied to Dreamguy that you don't rate Spallek highly, but the point is: do others? And in this new version you still don't make much use of him, and none at all with in-text attribution, even though he's the author of a recent article about this very issue: "Montague John Druitt: Still Our Best Suspect," in Ripper Notes: Suspects & Witnesses, issue 23, July 2005. I've not seen that article, but is it not the kind of source that should be mined in an article about Druitt? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does that.

It is called the conspiracy theory. That is its name. I am not responsible for what the sources call it, but I can ensure that the article uses the same language and terms that are employed by reliable sources. The number of sources that say it is an outrageous fantasy is vast. Trying to list them all at the beginning of each sentence is unnecessary when the overwhelming consensus in the field supports the sentence.

DreamGuy is a troublesome vandal who removes information from reliable sources in an attempt to slant articles to his own POV.[12][13][14] There is nothing wrong with Woods and Baddeley. The only fringe sources are the ones like Wilding or Howells or Fairclough, who repeat the worst of the conspiracists' fantasies. The contention that Professor Sir Christopher Frayling is somehow unreliable is patently absurd.

I have used Spallek in the article (ref 22). There are no sources commenting on his reliability. There are DreamGuy's and my personal opinions only. I can find nowhere in his writings any mention of uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, other than the notorious and totally discredited Dutton nonsense from McCormick's undoubtedly fictional work. DrKiernan (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about it being a conspiracy theory and outrageous fantasy. The point is that that's not a neutral header. In writing about the shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah, which some sources say was a hoax but the vast majority say was genuine, we can't call a section "Not a hoax." As for Dreamguy, I've never known him to act as a vandal; I think that must be too strong a description, though I don't know what happened. It's true that he's been blocked a lot for too much reverting, but he does know a lot about this subject. And given that Spallek has written a recent article specifically about this issue, it seems obtuse not to mine it for information, even it's about the "side" of the argument you think is nonsense. Is it not better to lay it all out, along with any counter-arguments (with in-text attribution), and let the reader decide how nonsensical it is? Otherwise you're saying to the reader, "No, trust me, it's too silly for you to be told about." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found the Spallek article (here on Google books if others can see it), and I can understand why you'd be reluctant to use it too much: he's not a professional historian and it's written quite speculatively. But I'm seeing a few things I don't think are in your article, including that Druitt's family suspected him too (Spallek, p. 9). Apologies if you've included that but I missed it. Also, your article says Druitt had no known connection to Whitechapel, but he rented chambers at King's Bench Walk, within walking distance of Whitechapel, something you mention but pass over ("His chambers were an hour's walk from Whitechapel"). You state as fact that it would take an hour, but others disagree (I disagree about that too, especially at night), so it would need in-text attribution along with an opposing view. Spallek also mentions, citing Leighton, that there is doubt Druitt was even a teacher in any real sense, but may have been employed more as someone to watch over the boys at night. I wonder whether that's worth mentioning too. Also, I got a little confused about you saying he lived in Kent. He had chambers in the City; accommodation from the school at Eliot Place in south-east London; he played cricket for Dorset, and he was buried in Wimborne, Dorset, so where does Kent fit in? Is your point that Eliot Place was at that time regarded as Kent? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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