Talk:Joseph Merrick/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Merrick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and this appears to be a clean, tidy, well presented, well written and comprehensive article. I'll take a closer look and give some initial comments within the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reading through I've come upon one slight quibble: the article says, "written by someone close to the Merrick family" while the source says, "based on a knowledge of the Merrick family circumstances" - which is a minor difference in terminology. Nothing significant that is going to hold up this GA, but I wondered if the wording in the article should reflect more closely what the source says without infringing on copyright. SilkTork *^YES! 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A very good point, thanks for spotting that. I've moved the bit about the Chronicle article into the notes section, and as I was having trouble paraphrasing the source, I've quoted what they said. Let me know what you think.--BelovedFreak 09:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• The sourcing of File:Joseph Merrick skeleton.jpg is not very clear. It would be useful to know who took the photograph. SilkTork *^YES! 11:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I put in a link. It seems it is a stock photo of the museum. SilkTork *^YES! 11:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Listed

This is a very well written article. The prose is clear, readable and attractive throughout, holding the interest, and presenting the information in a clear manner. The organisation of the material is well done, the lead standing alone, and the main body expanding on the lead in a logical manner. The article meets all the requirements of the GA criteria quite easily.

The article is well illustrated, though there may be some extra thought given to the presentation of the images, especially with the quote boxes. The main ways of presenting some material is either alternating right, left, or all down the right. Currently there is a bit of a mix.

Though relying mainly on one source, I feel the article does make use of other available sources where appropriate, and the main source does appear to be the most authoritative on the subject.

The article is broad and comprehensive, though - for future development - perhaps more space could be given to the critical and popular response to the dramatic works on Merrick, and - if such material is available - how these works made Merrick more known. I suspect most people would only have become aware of Merrick through either the plays or the film.

This is a very good article. Informative, accessible and enjoyable. SilkTork *^YES! 11:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank who wrote this article. --187.40.240.183 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people wrote it, that is how Wikipedia works. People contribute what they can to build great articles; some write entire sections, some just fix a typo or two while others arrange the layout and structure. Every little bit helps. That being said, I'd like to acknowlege the major contribution made by User:Belovedfreak who did much of the work to bring it up to its present "good article" status and did battle with childish vandals while doing it too. I do agree, this is an excellent piece of work! Roger (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! I'm glad you enjoyed reading it 187.40.240.183, it's really good to get feedback from readers. Roger is right on both counts, I've put some work into it lately, but it's also the result of collaboration along the way. As well as people adding or fixing bits here or there, I had a lot of help from people giving advice, copyediting the prose and reviewing the article as a whole. It is lovely to hear positive feedback though and it might just motivate me to get around to improving it further! :) --BelovedFreak 10:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Removal

As I pointed out on my talk page, we have Infoboxes here for a reason: to use them. Most FA biographies have Infoboxes in the articles, and for some strange reason this one doesn't (I understand it's only a GA). FA is the ultimate goal for any article here, and having an Infobox in this article isn't detrimental, IMHO, in the slightest. It did have one briefly, but my change was reverted as having no "value". Why is there no Infobox for this article? Doc talk 17:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be offended by the quick revert, I was proceeding along the lines of WP:BRD (you were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing... :) ). Basically, I disagree that the infobox adds any value to the article. I don't know the statistics for how many FA biographies have infoboxes, so I don't know if "most" is correct. Many biographies do have them, and they can be very useful, particularly when they are a specific "type" of biography. They help summarise all the relevant bits of information, some of which may not be present in the lead. In Michael Jordan for example, you've got a lot of info in the infobox that wouldn't be easy to pick out otherwise. Likewise John McCain. They also help to standardise the appearance of articles of the same type, like actors, or footballers. This biography isn't one of a series, it's one of a kind, and there just isn't that much info that you could put into the box. You could add his occupation (a hawker), but that detail really has little bearing on why we know about him. You could add the names of his parents, but again, nothing would really be gained. You know immediately from the first sentence that he was also called the Elephant Man, his date of birth and date of death. The one thing I can see of value in the infobox is his age at death, but I don't think that alone is worth having the box.

Yes, FAC is the "ultimate goal" for this article, but infoboxes are certainly not a requirement for that. I don't know if you've read Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes? It's an essay, not a guideline or anything, but it might be helpful to see that not everyone loves them. --BelovedFreak 17:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See also User talk:Dwiakigle#Joseph Merrick infobox, but more importantly perhaps, the comments at the bottom of that user's talkpage.--BelovedFreak 17:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken. I don't go around adding Infoboxes to a bunch of articles simply because they don't have them (and I've never been blocked for anything, so I'm unsure what the comments at the bottom of that user's talk page have anything to do with me or this particular article). And again, under point #3 of "On revert" - "We don't need this. Thanks anyways" is not an acceptable reason to exclude this (yet again, I see). How an Infobox is needed at, say, the Seaneen Molloy stub and not here piques my curiosity as well.[1] Is there anything in that Infobox that isn't basically in the first sentence? I would encourage any of the 113 other editors who watch this page to chime in here. I think the Infobox is not unwarranted in or detrimental to this article, and would very much like to see it back there. Doc talk 17:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, forget WP:BRD, maybe I shouldn't have reverted you and should have started the discussion here first, so sorry about that. Thankyou for directing me to that point of WP:OWN, but I assure you that "we don't need it, thanks anyway" is not my attitude here. (At least not in my head - things sometimes get put across in the wrong way in the written form). As I say, I probably shouldn't have reverted before discussing as I can see that it gives the impression that I only want my changes accepted. Yes, I have the most edits on this article, do you want me to apologise for that? I put a lot of work into the article last year and, with the help of some good editors copyediting, and reviewing the article, I got it to GA. I have stepped back for several months as I was finding it hard to see what needed improving, but it is definitely my intention to get it to FA standard. No, I'm not asking for a round of applause, just trying to explain. In the meantime, it's on my watchlist, so I've often been the first person to revert vandalism or additions of unsourced trivia. So, yeah. I've racked up a few edits.

I directed you to those comments on the other person's talkpage not to suggest you are going around acting against consensus, or anything of that sort, nor was it some kind of veiled threat - I hope you didn't think that. It's just that your first comments gave the impression that this is the first time you've come across someone not wanting an infobox in a biography article. I just wanted to point you in the direction of some other people that also think they shouldn't always be used and to try to make you aware (if you weren't already, which you didn't seem to be) that quite a lot of editors feel very strongly about the issue.

With the article on Seaneen Molloy, 1) I didn't add the infobox, just cleaned it up a bit, 2) Although borderine in usefulness, I personally think that infoboxes can be helpful in articles about writers. 3) The article is a stub, I was merely trying to get it to look ok because when I first saw it it looked like a potential deletion candidate. There are different priorities (for me anyway) working with stubs and when trying to get an article to GA/FA.

I too would welcome other opinions here. Let's give it some time and if none are forthcoming, perhaps ping relevant wikiprojects? --BelovedFreak 18:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a very reasonable editor, and that's always good :> I have no problem waiting for other opinions as there is no deadline around here. I would ask in the meantime for one thing: according to this source (which I would assume is more reliable than the "Unknown" source designation of the lead photograph), the image is circa 1890, not absolutely 1890. Unless we know for certain that it was in 1890 (and not, say, late 1889), I feel that the caption of the lead image should read "c.1890" to be more accurate. What say you? Doc talk 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. It may be we can find better information somewhere. For example, I'm sure the photo is included in some of the books I have, so they may be more specific. I don't have access to them tonight, but I will have a look as soon as I can. (And after all, if it is 1890, c. 1890 is still accurate!) --BelovedFreak 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I'll add the ".c", and we'll see what others think about the Infobox. And I really meant no offense by pointing you to WP:OWN. I, like many, can get a bit "snippy" when reverted, and I sometimes I go into "investigative" mode on editors who revert me. I've dealt with some pretty "hard case" editors, and you are clearly not acting in an inappropriate manner here. Cheers :> Doc talk 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. It doesn't do any harm to be reminded of these things. I get pretty attached to articles that I've invested a lot of time into and feel a bit protective I suppose, and that can border on "ownership", so don't worry about it! I actually hadn't read that point in WP:OWN you directed me to, I was genuinely going the WP:BRD route, but perhaps it's better to hold off when one is a little more invested in the article to start with.--BelovedFreak 18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a very good article (I especially like the attention to inline citations) and you certainly deserve commendation for that. Jeez, if all editors were as understanding as you we wouldn't need WQA, blocks or bans! Good show, mate :> Doc talk 18:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah don't make me blush! Thanks.. Actually I just need a good kick up the backside to get it to FAC!--BelovedFreak 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the Infobox. It's a convenient summary of basic information about Merrick. Some readers may just want a quick check of when he was born and died, which can be easily found in the Infobox without reading the article. It does no harm to the article or layout since the image would appear in the same place as the Infobox, and the Infobox uses little additional space.CuriousEric^Talk 19:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The age of Merrick when he died being quickly readable was the original reason I added it - I really hate doing "quick math" to figure out how old someone was ;> If editors were to achieve consensus for inclusion of an Infobox, I believe his signature (scanned from this) could also be added, as is the case for many GA/FA articles. It would also add a quick visual confirmation for those who learned of his story as "John Merrick" from the brilliant and touching 1980 film that his name was actually Joseph (something I learned from this article and was surprised to see). I agree with BelovedFreak that there's not a whole lot you could/should put in an Infobox for Merrick (occupation, etc.), and I see there are many FA articles without Infoboxes at all (William Calcraft, Tom Crean (explorer) - and that's just the "C's"). Whatever is in the best interest of the article will help get it to FAC where it belongs. And we do want them to read it, of course ;> Doc talk 05:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@CuriousEric I hope we're encouraging readers to actually read the articles we write! And, you do realise that his birth and death dates are immediately after his name? :) Doc9871, that's an interesting point about his signature, I hadn't considered that. It's true that many readers will come to the article expecting his name to be John. If the infobox does end up being added, I hope that we can keep the info in it to a minimum. I would suggest not including his occupation or parents, although perhaps the places of birth/death might be relevant. what do you think?--BelovedFreak 13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I also hope we encourage readers to read complete articles. I read this one and thought it was well written, and learned a few things that weren't mentioned in the 1980 film. In hindsight my recommendation for the infobox based on mentioning the birth/death years wasn't very convincing. My eye is initially drawn to images in articles, and listing those years along with their locations is a convenient summary IMHO. CuriousEric^Talk 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@BelovedFreak: Yes, I would think the occupation/parents types of parameters would be unnecessary, but birth/death places and dates (the dates would serve mainly to include his age at death) and the signature would be helpful. Out of all the possible parameters[2] only the most very basic would be appropriate. CuriousEric I have always found to be a very helpful and constructive editor, especially with The Doors article and its related articles and images (though if the Infobox were included, I would hope this wouldn't qualify Merrick for the dreaded 27 Club category even as a non-musician ;>) Cheers :> Doc talk 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. This hasn't attracted much interest, has it? We could drop a note at relevant Wikiprojects, but at this point I'm inclined to just add the infobox and see how it sits. (So I have!) I'm still not completely convinced and although 2 people by no means makes a consensus, it is twice as many as one person! And you do make a reasonable point about including his signature. I've added his birth & death dates and places. I don't think we should add "John Merrick" as an aka since he wasn't known as that (as far as we know) when he was alive. I'm not sure about adding "the Elephant Man", although I'm more inclined not to. What do you think? (Hadn't heard of the 27 Club by the way - that's a bit spooky!) --BelovedFreak 23:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to leaving "The Elephant Man" out of the infobox - and thanks for trying the infobox! I've never done the signature scanning before, but I'll look into it (do you know anyone that can do it, BTW?). I think that would be the only other thing that would be of significant value in the infobox. I'll see what I can do about it (may take some software downloads), and Cheers :>

P.S. Oh, and he "27 Club" is what I call a "coincidence". One way it all supposedly started was that Jim Morrison (after learning of Janis Joplin's death; Jimi Hendrix had died less than a month before she did) said to some friends something along the lines of, "You're drinking with number 3". This supposedly "portended" his own death (didn't happen for another nine months), and those three in particular are believed to be "cosmically linked" by some. Brian Jones' death (two years to the day before Morrison) also affected Jim, prompting him to read a poem "Ode to Brian Jones in L.A." during at least one concert. When you add artists like Kurt Cobain into the mix (who died 24 years after the last of the original "27 Club") is where it all goes wrong, IMHO. ;> Doc talk 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede too detailed

In reading the lede, it left almost nothing to the article; therefore I templated the article. I realize that ledes are supposed to be able to stand on their own, but this lede could stand in place of the article. There are too many details, including (but not limited to) his manager robbing him in Belgium and details of his death, that could be trimmed to only a mention and leave the details to the article. This trimming would not lead to a "tease", as per WP:LEDE, and it would allow the lede to be appropriately concise. Specifically, I am referring to the section Relative_emphasis, which states "...in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." IMO, too much emphasis is given in the lede. In other words, whoever wrote the lede did too good of a job; the article needs to contain some of the more detailed aspects of the lede. Thoughts? Agree, disagree, somewhere in the middle? --64.85.221.85 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Kind of disagree, but am open to persuasion. I take it from the above that you think some aspects in the lead are given too much emphasis in relation to the emphasis they are given in the main body of the article? Could you be more specific about which bits, other than Belgium and his death? I must say, I'm not sure that too much should be trimmed from his death in the lead, it's a detail that is a little vague, due to the two possible causes of death, and it's hard to make that more concise. I also think it's important to keep the bit about him supposedly "wanting to be like others", as it's quite important (I feel) to the story. Would you say that it's mostly the information in the second and third paragraphs that you see a problem with? I could see some of that being trimmed a little without problems. It's difficult though because, although in The Elephant Man his story is dominated by his time in the London Hospital, in real life, the other aspects of his early and working life were quite important too.

I am biased though, I wrote the lede originally and, believe me, it was much longer. I got somewhat carried away, and it was chopped down, so I can't help feeling that now it's "just right". :) Bear in mind there are 8 sections of prose, most of which are fairly substantial, so I don't think the four paragraphs we have in the lede are too bad. Anyway, as I say, if you could perhaps be a bit more specific in terms of what you would like to see cut from the lede... --BelovedFreak 16:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Is there any reason to be concerned about this article relying heavily on a single source, Howell & Ford, for most of its content? Obviously we don't want to fiddle too much with a Good Article, but I'm thinking that perhaps a more "equitable" spread of citations from a wider variety of sources might be just what this article needs to lift it to Featured Article status. Roger (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a problem. I'm in the middle of reading a couple more books - Articulating the Elephant Man by Graham & Oehlschlaeger, and re reading the Ashley Montagu one. One problem though is that really, the Howell & Ford book is the best source on his life. Montagu relied heavily on Treves' account, and got quite a lot wrong, and other sources either rely on Treves & Montagu, or Howell & Ford. I don't want to end up spreading the citations between Howell & Ford and less reliable sources just for the sake of making us less reliant on H&F, if that makes sense! I have a few more sources I want to add, but mostly in the "legacy" section. I'm really not sure what to do about the biographical section sources. Any suggestions? --BelovedFreak 10:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If Howell & Ford is demonstrably more reliable than other sources then so be it, we go with the best available information. I wonder if the "Legacy" section of the article should be edited to emphasise the merits and failings of the varuious biographies (with cites from critics) might help to "justify" relying on H&F? The section discusses the literature and film about Merrick anyway. Roger (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the legacy section (perhaps renamed?) is where most work needs to be done, at least to start with. There is certainly stuff to be added discusing Lynch's portrayal of him as well as those of Treves and Montagu. There may even be enough to warrant a spinout article eg. Depictions of Joseph Merrick, something like that. I think that could be viable without becoming just a long list of cultural references. I'll try to see if I can find anything that would justify such heavy use of Howell & Ford. --BelovedFreak 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

Ok, clearly, the image needs to be replaced. I removed this one for two reasons. Firstly, it's not licensed properly, its licensed as if the uploader created it, so that needs to be fixed. Additionally, we need to decide whether we want the original (black and white) or the version that has been recoloured by User:B5b6y. It's probably worth uploading the black and white one too, even if we go with the colour version. Anyone have any preference? I'd personally prefer the black and white, but I don't feel very strongly about it, if others prefer the colour.--BelovedFreak 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The black and white versus colour thing means nothing to me - I say go with whichever is easiest or more appropriate to source. The pose in the removed coloured photo is appropriate, though. I'd rather something similar to that was used rather than moving one of the article's other images upwards, as there's a clinical feel to them which paints Merrick as a specimen more than a man. Given the time frame in question, surely most of the relevant images would be in the public domain anyway? GRAPPLE X 23:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It has to be properly sourced, and the B&W one is probably easier to find and more practical. I think the image that was there before was fine and just needed some source tweaking: and it should be put on WP:Commons. Doc talk 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely that the ones further down the page are less appropriate for infobox use. The black&white/colour images are basically the same image. The choice between the B&W or recoloured is more aesthetic I guess, possibly not a big deal. The source information and licensing needs to be right for FAC. As I mentioned on my talkpage, I'm not exactly sure why the image was removed from Commons, but I think it was because it was missing any information about a source. Presumably it always was, but someone over there just noticed and got around to deleting it. There should be no problem with using it, as long as we get the details right. I've just tried to upload the image to commons, but I'm still unsure what license to use. I'm getting too tired now, so I shall try again in the morning.--BelovedFreak 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for advice over at Commons.--BelovedFreak 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The "colourised" version is quite frankly hideous IMHO. To my mind it is also a "lie" - an old photo should be shown "as is". Roger (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Doc for finally sorting this out! I got a few different suggestions at Comomns, but think it is ok now. Much nicer to have the picture back!--BelovedFreak 09:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the image may have to be deleted from Commons. It's been complicated trying to work out the right license to use, you can see the Commons help desk discussion here. I am in touch with the archivist at the Royal London Hospital Archives and have just discovered that the image was published in Ashley Montagu's book in 1971, both here and in the US, which I hadn't realised. I can't work out any way that we can use this as a free image. --BelovedFreak 09:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it pass "Fair use" as the only known conventional portait, i.e. not a medical image, of Merrick? Alternatively does the archivist perhaps have the authority to release it to WP with some kind of "limited use" licence? I'm not familiar with the different licence types that are acceptable on WP. Roger (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly fair use, I'm not sure. I don't think any kind of "limited use" would work, I think it either has to be free to use so we can license it under CC-BY-SA, or used as fair use. The whole thing makes my head hurt. :) I've uploaded a couple of others to Commons (see Commons:Category:Joseph Merrick); two are head & shoulders shots that although not as good as the carte de visite (they're still medical pictures, and he has no clothes on) they are better than the full length medical ones, in my opinion. --BelovedFreak 11:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Joseph Merrick carte de visite photo, c. 1889.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Joseph Merrick carte de visite photo, c. 1889.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FA?

hello,

I must say that this article is really great; I remember when I first read it, it was rather a start article. But now I think it is even better than a good article. I just thought you could bring this to WP:FAC. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been my plan for a while to get it there, unfortunately "real life" and procrastination have got in the way. There are a few more sources that need to be used yet for comprehensiveness, and then probably a trip to PR. Thanks for the vote of confidence though (and the reminder to get on with it!). :) --BelovedFreak 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The opera Joseph Merrick dit Elephant Man

This article lacks a reference to composer Laurent Petitgirard's opera Joseph Merrick dit Elephant Man which is clearly worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. It's been staged with great success and is preserved on a very good Naxos DVD, as well as a CD recording. I was about to add it when I saw the warning to refrain from adding anything without discussing it here first, so, please, let me know if you all feel that this is a worthy addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almavivatmm (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson to be included?

It's an infamous rumor that existed for decades that Jackson attempted to buy the remains of Merrick, a story that was reported by many British and American tabloid media outlets and Jackson himself adressed in his Oprah interview and his Leave Me Alone music video. I've found two reliable sources to cite the domineering rumors if they're to be considered for inclusion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5644026/Michael-Jackson-how-he-came-to-be-known-as-Wacko-Jacko.html http://www.virginmedia.com/music/features/michael-jackson-myths.php?page=5 Mc8755 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I had thought that MJ did have some or all of the Merrick bones. Flight Risk (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's a rumor but one so prevalent many did believe he had bought and stored them at his ranch in California. Considering nobody is replying to this, I'm going to insert one line referring to the rumor with the sources I listed above. Mc8755 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This stuff is better at the Michael Jackson article, not here. It has nothing to do with Merrick as such, if MJ really had owned Merrick's skeleton it would be worth including here, but as it is just a load of tabloid-created nonsense it should not be here. Roger (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A short sentence indicating that this was a widespread, common rumour – properly referenced to reliable sources – would undoubtedly add value to the article. For instance, there may be readers who come to this article under the impression that Jackson really did own the skeleton; if we state clearly that this is an erroneous yet popular rumour, it will aid them in their understanding of the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I recall in the 1980s a report in The Guardian that Michael Jackson was offering to buy the skeleton but no mention his offer was accepted, so I assume the bones never came into Jackson's possession. Worthy of investigation.Cloptonson (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Appearance on current season of "Ripper Street"?

Given mention of the play & film (and discussion here on this page of the opera), should his appearance and critical role on the current season of "Ripper Street" be mentioned?JamesG5 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)