This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just saw this page... I have a few concerns that I will take care of at some point but I thought I'd give a heads up first.
First one is it seems like the entire Jack the Ripper section is basically a fork file of the Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories article. I can't see duplicating discussion of the same information in such depth in two different places, especially as the information doesn't seem to match. It seems to me that the section here should be brought down to a summary and with a link to the appropriate section on the other article.
Also, as a general rule, "urban myths" is not an accurate term. They are urban legends. Myths, when used in a folkloric sense (as the term "urban legends" is intended to, means supernatural tales of gods and creation and so forth, which is lacking in this article. The name should be fixed to read legends, with all references in it being changed to either legend or a more accurate word (rumour, tale, whatever).
Also, Jack the Ripper should not be italicized, not sure where the idea to do otherwise came from. There are other words that also seem to be italicized for no apparent reason.
Also... there are a number of claims in the section that are not sourced and appear to be inaccurate:
Now, I can obviously go in and fix a lot of this myself, and some other things that I didn't mention, but considering the name of the article is wrong and there's a question about where all this Ripper info should be located, I thouht I'd post before jumping in to make changes. I also think that this whole article may be better split off into separate articles discussing each major legend/rumour (not myth) instead of trying to cram them all into one. DreamGuy 01:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Is there still a merge question here? It seems that the article are sufficiently different to removed the merge tag? K erowyn 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The merge tag is regularly removed for that reason. Unfortunately the merge tag is DreamGuy's "pet" and whenever it is removed he goes ballistic, accuses users of censorship, and reinserts it with a stream of abuse. If anyone else sees that damn tag in again, please remove it. DreamGuy has had his game-playing for long enough. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
According to this page his parents divorced because of his mother's adultery, but according to the articles on his mom and dad it was his father who was cheating. Does anyone know which is true? Tocharianne 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What evidence is there that anti-Irish sentiment existed amongst the European aristocracy? Amongst the British aristocracy, certainly yes but exiled Irish chiefs were well established in Catholic continental nations such as France, Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal. Descendents of the Irish served as Prime Ministers of Spain and Austria and a President of France. They were well-established and respected in European armies.
How about we add the ridiculous legends of Prince Harry's supposed paternity and al Fayed's (and similar) conspiracy theories regarding the death of Diana? D B D 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So, seems to me this article is written in a way that somewhat suggests bias against the allegations. Now I do not have terribly strong feelings one way or the other on the subject, but it seems well within the realm of possibility, people do indeed have affairs, they do not admit them and they are not known of. Math is that that is more likely than a mutation that causes hemophilia to suddenly develop late in life, so presenting it as being less likely than the mutation is clear bias, more so when there had been accusations of infidelity. The chances of the mutation are pretty remote, and that is not really mentioned. The sources used to suggest that hemophiliacs had a low average life span are not terribly relevant on two grounds. One, they merely state that the average life span was 11 years of age before the 1960s, nothing at all to do with the Victorian age or with the aristocracy or Queen Victoria her self. Using that as a source to support this article borders on being original research itself as I cannot see a source making that argument on behalf of proving legitimacy, but rather some Wikipedian's use the source to make their own argument to prove legitimacy. The general average life span was only 35, and yet clearly a lot of people survived past 35, including most of the people in this article (Charlotte and some of William IV's children bring the average closer). Very clearly, hemophiliacs did in fact survive, most modern living hemophiliacs are the descendent of hemophiliacs from the Victorian age, that is how genetic diseases work. 216.154.62.174 ( talk) 20:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- - -
The agree with the concern on bias and believe the article presently fails to offer all pertinent facts in an objective manner. Consider how the article only references John Conroy as a potential illegitmate father. A genuine analysis would include consideration of alternative fathers. Additionally, the genetics discussion is far too limited given the additional research now available and there is no discussion of physical attributes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.161.75 ( talk) 14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This reads like a synthesis tending toward an original conclusion. The reference linked for the proposition that "life expectancy was 11 years or younger" is for severe hemophilia A; the disease in question is hemophilia B of any severity. (The reference from the same source referring to hemophilia B suggests—if I understand the factor IX statistics correctly—that 50% of hemophilia B is severe. Even if the 11 year figure is nevertheless accurate for all types of hemophilia, it does not exclude or significantly cast doubt upon the possibility that a sufferer of mild hemophilia B could live to reproductive age in the 1800s.) We seem to also need a citation for the proposition that Conroy "was healthy". What shall we do about this? TheFeds 18:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The likeliest source of Queen Victoria's hemophiliac gene would be her father. But not necessarily her legal and presumed father, the duke of Kent. The inference that can of course be drawn is that she is possibly not descended paternally from the royal family [...], but rather only maternally from that of the tiny and inconsequential duchy of Coburg. [...] [Leopold of Cobourg's] family's blood strain might, ironically, be the only royal blood strain from which Queen Victoria's children are descended.
— Victoria's Daughters pp. 43–44
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just saw this page... I have a few concerns that I will take care of at some point but I thought I'd give a heads up first.
First one is it seems like the entire Jack the Ripper section is basically a fork file of the Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories article. I can't see duplicating discussion of the same information in such depth in two different places, especially as the information doesn't seem to match. It seems to me that the section here should be brought down to a summary and with a link to the appropriate section on the other article.
Also, as a general rule, "urban myths" is not an accurate term. They are urban legends. Myths, when used in a folkloric sense (as the term "urban legends" is intended to, means supernatural tales of gods and creation and so forth, which is lacking in this article. The name should be fixed to read legends, with all references in it being changed to either legend or a more accurate word (rumour, tale, whatever).
Also, Jack the Ripper should not be italicized, not sure where the idea to do otherwise came from. There are other words that also seem to be italicized for no apparent reason.
Also... there are a number of claims in the section that are not sourced and appear to be inaccurate:
Now, I can obviously go in and fix a lot of this myself, and some other things that I didn't mention, but considering the name of the article is wrong and there's a question about where all this Ripper info should be located, I thouht I'd post before jumping in to make changes. I also think that this whole article may be better split off into separate articles discussing each major legend/rumour (not myth) instead of trying to cram them all into one. DreamGuy 01:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Is there still a merge question here? It seems that the article are sufficiently different to removed the merge tag? K erowyn 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The merge tag is regularly removed for that reason. Unfortunately the merge tag is DreamGuy's "pet" and whenever it is removed he goes ballistic, accuses users of censorship, and reinserts it with a stream of abuse. If anyone else sees that damn tag in again, please remove it. DreamGuy has had his game-playing for long enough. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
According to this page his parents divorced because of his mother's adultery, but according to the articles on his mom and dad it was his father who was cheating. Does anyone know which is true? Tocharianne 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What evidence is there that anti-Irish sentiment existed amongst the European aristocracy? Amongst the British aristocracy, certainly yes but exiled Irish chiefs were well established in Catholic continental nations such as France, Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal. Descendents of the Irish served as Prime Ministers of Spain and Austria and a President of France. They were well-established and respected in European armies.
How about we add the ridiculous legends of Prince Harry's supposed paternity and al Fayed's (and similar) conspiracy theories regarding the death of Diana? D B D 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So, seems to me this article is written in a way that somewhat suggests bias against the allegations. Now I do not have terribly strong feelings one way or the other on the subject, but it seems well within the realm of possibility, people do indeed have affairs, they do not admit them and they are not known of. Math is that that is more likely than a mutation that causes hemophilia to suddenly develop late in life, so presenting it as being less likely than the mutation is clear bias, more so when there had been accusations of infidelity. The chances of the mutation are pretty remote, and that is not really mentioned. The sources used to suggest that hemophiliacs had a low average life span are not terribly relevant on two grounds. One, they merely state that the average life span was 11 years of age before the 1960s, nothing at all to do with the Victorian age or with the aristocracy or Queen Victoria her self. Using that as a source to support this article borders on being original research itself as I cannot see a source making that argument on behalf of proving legitimacy, but rather some Wikipedian's use the source to make their own argument to prove legitimacy. The general average life span was only 35, and yet clearly a lot of people survived past 35, including most of the people in this article (Charlotte and some of William IV's children bring the average closer). Very clearly, hemophiliacs did in fact survive, most modern living hemophiliacs are the descendent of hemophiliacs from the Victorian age, that is how genetic diseases work. 216.154.62.174 ( talk) 20:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- - -
The agree with the concern on bias and believe the article presently fails to offer all pertinent facts in an objective manner. Consider how the article only references John Conroy as a potential illegitmate father. A genuine analysis would include consideration of alternative fathers. Additionally, the genetics discussion is far too limited given the additional research now available and there is no discussion of physical attributes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.161.75 ( talk) 14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This reads like a synthesis tending toward an original conclusion. The reference linked for the proposition that "life expectancy was 11 years or younger" is for severe hemophilia A; the disease in question is hemophilia B of any severity. (The reference from the same source referring to hemophilia B suggests—if I understand the factor IX statistics correctly—that 50% of hemophilia B is severe. Even if the 11 year figure is nevertheless accurate for all types of hemophilia, it does not exclude or significantly cast doubt upon the possibility that a sufferer of mild hemophilia B could live to reproductive age in the 1800s.) We seem to also need a citation for the proposition that Conroy "was healthy". What shall we do about this? TheFeds 18:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The likeliest source of Queen Victoria's hemophiliac gene would be her father. But not necessarily her legal and presumed father, the duke of Kent. The inference that can of course be drawn is that she is possibly not descended paternally from the royal family [...], but rather only maternally from that of the tiny and inconsequential duchy of Coburg. [...] [Leopold of Cobourg's] family's blood strain might, ironically, be the only royal blood strain from which Queen Victoria's children are descended.
— Victoria's Daughters pp. 43–44