Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whipping Tom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whipping Tom

[edit]

Whipping Tom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 8 January 2025, 22:09 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone emailed me about this a couple of weeks ago and it looked interesting enough to have a bit of a rewrite. It's another of London's 'footnotes to footnotes of history', which carries some interest for its odd and interesting (if not downright bizarre) content. This has been through a rewrite recently, mostly with additions of new sources published since it was originally written and has had a very fruitful PR too. Any further constructive comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from MS

[edit]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I had my say at the article's PR and on rereading for FAC all I can find to bleat about is that "It is not known who 'Skiping Ione' represents" should have "whom" instead of "who". And in the alt-text "holdsdown" should be two words. That's my lot. Glad you've got the miraculous Photo Workshop magicians on the case. Supporting. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your work at PR on this; I've amended your two new quibbles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
  • I think we have a bit of a MOS:LEAD problem with the first body text section. The first bit of the body text really needs to (re-)introduce the fundamentals: who was "Whipping Tom" and what was he accused of doing? This happens in the second section instead.
  • In the 1672 section, we have a single secondary source cited (Jones), and every statement of fact couched as his interpretation/suggestion. Is that the full extent of the first Tom's imprint on modern writing?
    Sort of, although the same information (interpretation/suggestion) is repeated in several sources. Pretty much all the modern sources are basing their info on the one line in the 1681 broadsheet and there is no other information that has been found (there are one or two who repeat the 'earlier attacker' info, but without directly connecting it to the broadsheet). - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it comes up in multiple sources, why do we couch it as purely Jones's conclusion? That makes it sound like it's just one person's speculation rather than the communis opinio. We could do something like "Following a suggestion made by Jones in 2010, the broadsheet is considered to refer to a second attacker ..." if we feel it's particularly important to keep his name in there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't say 'following Jones', as he wasn't the first. There are several that we know precede him, but it's not clear who considered it first (well, we do: the author of the broadsheet, but it's not clear after that). - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, what's the rationale behind including his name at all, if it's a generally-held point of view (so it doesn't matter who, specifically, believes it) and isn't particularly Jones's idea? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it to be an opinion, rather than a hard fact. I may be wrong in taking that position, but that was my thinking, and as it's an opinion, I'm always happier if there's an inline attribution. If you don't see it as an opinion, I can take it out and see if anyone complains? - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to keep it as that, I think we need to include all (or at least a large number) of the people who hold it as an opinion. At the moment, we're presenting it as specifically Jones's opinion, but if I've read you correctly, there's nothing in the sources to justify that.
    On the other hand, if anyone has said "it is widely believed..." or similar, we can say that and cite it. Strictly speaking, WP:SYNTH frowns upon using the fact that multiple people say something to write "multiple people say...", but then I've seen that with footnotes to the effect of "for examples, see X, Y and Z", and wouldn't personally get too upset about it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've gone with that way now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's really awkward to do that introductory work here, one option might be to fold the 1672 Tom's section into the one on the 1681, couched as something like "it is possible that another attacker, active around 1672, was also active..." -- after all, as far as I can see, there's no solid reason to say that the two Toms were definitely different people ("it's just the one Tom, actually...").
    While you're quite right to say that there is no solid reason, none of the modern sources have suggested that it could have been the same person. My guess was that the writer of the broadsheet knew it was not the same person (the previous one was dead or it's a different area, or a different modus operandi, etc).
    Let me have a think about this one: I would prefer to keep the chronological run through, bit I can't add any more info about the 1672 attacks because there just isn't any, so this may have to be the way to get the full details of the activity in the top section of the body. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's now been moved. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, UC. I'll get back to you about merging the sections - it's likely I'll go down that route, but need to think it through first. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One query/quibble above. I'll give the rest of the article a look too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historian Sarah Toulalan observes that the description of the attack is ambiguous: he "laid so hard up-on her backside" could be either construed as spanking or sodomy: this bit really sticks out to me. There's quite a big difference between the two: if we're saying here that there's a serious chance that we're talking about a rapist, I think we need to make a bigger deal of that, particularly in the lead. On the other hand, if the suggestion is that the term could be used to refer to sodomy, but probably doesn't in this context (indeed, it's difficult to marry that with "laying her across his knee"), we need to make that clear. At the moment it seems like we've dropped a grenade and then left it metaphorically ticking.
  • On the same note: if the original wording was "lay'd", why do we have "laid" in the quote then have to explain it with a footnote?
    I've updated the spelling for every quote from the primary sources (it's the usual 17th and 18th century method of random spelling), and it would have looked odd to just have one example with the original, while the others are in modern English. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, so why do we have the footnote for this word specifically? Is it because of the double-meaning of "lay"? I think that needs a Wiktionary link (or even spelling out) if so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Partly because of 'lay', but partly because this is one of the few points in which an alternative meaning has been gleaned from the source. At all other points the source is taken at face value by all other sources: this is the only point where an alternative is suggested, so I felt an additional clarity on the actual text was useful. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He attacked a large number of women, and some of his victims were left badly injured by the attacks: can we go into some detail here, without being gratuitous? We currently have He would approach unaccompanied women in alleys and courtyards at the east side of the city, bend them over his knee, lift their dress and spank them on the buttocks before fleeing in the lead, which makes this sound like an upsetting and humiliating act but with a flavour of "Carry On" lightness and silliness and little physical harm done: linking to an earlier point, "there was a man in London who used to smack women on the bottom" gives a very differently impression to "there was a rapist in London who used to leave women seriously injured." The tone/tenor of the lead and body don't quite seem in sync here.
  • small courtyards around Fleet Street, Strand, Fetter Lane ...: the Strand?
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say explicitly in the lead, but not the body, that the 1681 attacks took place in central (then west?) London (we give the specific places, but not their overall geography). The map of London has been pushed down into the 1712 section, but seems to belong with the 1681 material.
    It could go into either section, as it has the locations of both main episodes. I took the practical view that the 1680s already has two images, while the 1712 one had none. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think putting it earlier would be useful, especially as it explicitly mentions the 1681 Tom but not the 1712 one. On another, more boring note, I don't think Hackney has moved, so "showing the location of Hackney" is better than "showing where Hackney was" (emphasis mine). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although most sources describe there being two assailants, a letter in 1681 from Lady Anne Stowe to Catherine Manners, Duchess of Rutland, describes "a company of men, they say fifty or more, which are called Whipping Tom: has anyone commented on that? Are we talking about copycats here?
    There is nothing else about it that can be gleaned from the source it is in, and no-one else even mentions it. She may well have two stories mixed up, but there really is nothing else that can be taken from the source that brings any clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of direct citations of the 1740 source at the start of the 1712 section, which worry me under WP:PRIMARY. I'd be happier if a secondary source were (also) cited to confirm that making a face-value read of the 1740 document is sensible (it could be fake, or have important context, or there could be differences of language that need to be considered).
  • He was arrested after seventy women had been attacked; his indictment was composed of:: this is pretty opaque if you don't know what an "indictment" is (literally rather than metaphorically), and it's not a particularly common word.
    I've linked it. Is that enough, do you think, or would you suggest rewording? - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He claimed that his plan was to attack a hundred women before Christmas, cease the attacks during the Twelve Days of Christmas, then resume the attacks in the New Year: would it be worth amending "Christmas Day (25 December)" per WP:POPE?
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legal scholar Christopher Hamerton observes that the reason Whipping Tom's history gained notoriety at a time when sexualised violence was common was due to "their very deviance that provided the engaging factor: I don't think we can do observes here: this is a subjective statement. More generally, the syntax is tricky here.
    "considers"? (Made a couple of other minor tweaks to improve the flow too). - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Works well. I still think this paragraph could do with some love for prose, but I'll need to have a look at what the sources are actually saying to be able to give a sensible suggestion as to how. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • later serious attacks ... in the 1780s by Lascar seamen: I know nothing about this, but I can't help but wonder whether there's a different angle to this one: it sounds uncomfortably like the age-old hysteria about (dark-skinned) men "coming over here" and threatening the innocence of "our" women.
    He doesn't go into further detail on this one, but as he was writing last year, I'm not sure that's what he's saying. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't look like it: I wonder if he's conflating different things (accounts of real sexual assault vs. racialised and sexualised stereotypes) together. However, if the general point is "sexual assault was in the Zeitgeist and people were eager to get agitated about stories of it), I'm not sure it's a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamerton also considers that there were some who saw Whipping Tom as a moral crusader, providing a form of social justice against dissolute women: We haven't given any hint, so far, that the victims could be seen as "dissolute". Is some context needed as to how a woman out walking alone at night would be perceived, at least some people?

Support from Crisco

[edit]
  • Agree with UC - these are three criminals (four?) who shared the same nickname. A little bit of a recap and definition would not be out of place.
  • The legal scholar Christopher Hamerton observes that the reason Whipping Tom's history gained notoriety at a time when sexualised violence was common was due to "their very deviance that provided the engaging factor". - Segueing from this, it might be worth having a bit of a run down on sexual assault in 17th-century London. It would help us understand Hamerton's observation, as well as contextualize the attacks in their social milieu.
    • I've added a bit from Hamerton; unfortunately while he is referring to both Tom's, he only gives examples from the 1700s, so I've moved the paragraph to the later entry. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks sharp to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Whipping_Tom/archive1&oldid=1268246015"