Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Goulston Street Graffito

Ignoring the above, here's the deal: the reliable sources on this topic call the writing "The Goulston Street Graffito" overwhelmingly. The article needs to reflect that instead of minimizing the mention or taking it out completely. This is the same thing with what happened with the terms "Ripperologist" and "canonical five" that Arcayne wanted removed because he didn't want the experts (whom he considers universally to be cranks and scammers) to have their views included. We eventually dug up enough sources to prove what I was saying all along to the other editors, and then we just ignored Arcayne from then on. So what we need to determine how to solve this dilemma, is what evidence other editors require and what format they need to see it in.

What do you non-Arayne people need to see before you will agree that the section heading about "writing on the wall" and the references in it get returned to how they were for the last several years: "Goulston Street Graffito". If you acknowledge the existence of experts and that experts use terms to describe things, you must acknowledge the possibility the reliable sources can be provided to show this, which I think I more than adequately provided by Arcayne kept deleting them left and right. So, please, tell me what I need to show the rest of you to get you to agree to go along with the terms the experts use? How many sources, what do they have to say, how do you want to confirm it? DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, simply find a reliable source that explicitly says that a number of authors use the term. Not ignoring the above, the idea that there are authors that use the term is addressed, and lists examples, using the term "such as". The proposal addresses that the previous citations didn't actually state that a number of authors do use the term, instead simply noting some who do. That's synthesis, as we are bringing different citations to prove a point not expressly delivered by those sources. Some authors use the term, and some do not. We cannot simple say "authors use" any more than we can say "most" or "many" for that reason. Again, the above proposal addresses the problem.

Additionally, we have already arrived at a consensus that notes that Goulston Street Graffito is: a) not an accessible term to the casual reader (for whom we write, not fans), and b) an grammatically incorrect usage of the term "graffito" (as noted by at least three dictionary sources; graffito is for ancient writing, not contemporary).

While we all appreciate what the years-ago version used to look like (and are fully aware of your preference for that version), the article hasn't even been a Good Article in almost six years of fairly continuous editing, and it has been FAC, GAC and Peer Reviewed. The section above addresses a fair compromise that will remove one of the many stumbling blocks hindering this article - namely, the personality conflicts over personal preferences.

For my part, allow me to be clear: I do not dismiss the neologism "Ripperology" as a field of interest; I discount it as a field of expertise. It is an important distinction, one easily equatable with UFOlogists. While people within both fields of interest can be experts in, say, aeronautical engineering of forensic pathology, they are not "Ripperology" experts. Not all of them are cranks, scammers or freaks, but enough are to bear out the stereotypification.

Secondly, I try to look at the article in the same way that a casual reader will see it, not as a fan would. This is a principle borne out in Wikipedia through every Good Article in the wiki-en. If we refer to esoteric or unfamiliar concepts, we need to clarify them for the newcomer; that is the goal, right after reliable citation. Perhaps some editors are seeing this as a basic amateurish trying to be more of an aficionado. I unequivocally state that I am not immersed in the subject matter; there are contributors here who are well-versed in the material; I see my job as maintaining a layman view of the article; this has served as the basis of many of my objections to material being added.

Thirdly, and lastly, Wikipedia is supposed to work as a community of editors, not just one or two adding material and jostling over which view will prevail in the article. For my part, I have been a little too quick to dismiss folk introducing large amounts of material (or material already excluded for whatever reason) into the article as disdainful of discussion. Perhaps that has been an unfair characterization. I expect - actually, I demand discussion of material which significantly alters the article, so the article doesn't become a brag piece for a single person (or cadre) off-wiki; the article is a group effort, and I will work to prevent any sort of manhandling of the article in such a way.

This is where I am coming from. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question for DreamGuy - How important is this phrase to the study of the "Jack the Ripper" murders? Does this phrase communicate an idea in a unique way that other means of reference can't replicate? Is there gravitas or intelligence that is conveyed by this phrase that is missing from other phrases? I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why is this specific phrase so important that it now consumes the entirety of the contributing editors on this page, and why is any other phrase that refers to this writing simply unacceptable to you? Other than the alliteration what does the use of this specific phrase bring to the article? I truly would like to know why this specific phrase is more important than the entire rest of the article. Is it simply that other writers have used the phrase? I don't find that a compelling argument for what is essentially a catchphrase. The article on Lou Gehrig's Disease only mentions that phrase once even though several experts refer to it as such. Considering this subject is over 100 years old I'm sure there are phrases used by some "experts" that aren't even part of the English language anymore. What is the big idea? Why is this phrase that important? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer to Padillah's question "How important is this phrase to the study of the "Jack the Ripper" murders?" is given above by DreamGuy "the reliable sources on this topic call the writing 'The Goulston Street Graffito' overwhelmingly." If the latter statement is true, then there is IMO no reason not to use the term in the article and significant justification for using it.

What do people think of as 'the reliable sources on this topic'? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would this catchphrase be of any particular importance when the most cited[1] authors do perfectly well without it ? But of course, on the other hand, perhaps the "reliability" of the sources ought to be judged by their use of that phrase ? In that case, why not replace the references made to the work of Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, and Philip Sugden by that of a number of "overwhelmingly more knowledgeable" figures ? ΑΩ (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alpha Omega. (Great name.) I decline to be drawn into a discussion on the importance of this "catchphrase". I reiterate, what do people consider as reliable sources on the subject of Jack the Ripper? Can I take it from your comment, Alpha Omega, that you consider Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, and Philip Sugden to be high on the list of reliable sources? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If what you said were correct and citable, AlphaOmega, you'd have a point. But it's not. You've never provided any sources to back it up. On top of that, the absence of a term in a published book can have more to do with an editor deciding to remove jargon that in what the author actually says. I see nothing from those authors that they oppose the term, and most expert sources use the term (as my row of cites earlier plus more that were removed shows), so the term is definitely what the experts use.

Frankly, the only person in the field I am aware of who opposes the term is one Howard Brown, who has only written some minor pieces of work on this topic, and he is in the distinct minority. I also note that AlphaOmega's edits seem almost overwhelmingly to be to add claims made by Howard Brown to the article regarding D'Onston and his Juives belief, etc. AO's edits here almost certainly are trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions of some minor individual... And, as one of my earlier cites pointed out, even Brown's major article on the topic was published with a headline that used "Goulston Street Graffito", so his editors clearly felt the term was necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few months ago you seemed to take more or less for granted that I would be Howard Brown.[2] You're wrong. And I'll say your repeated suggestion here amounts to harassment. I am certainly not acting on behalf of Howard Brown. I am fairly well aware of who Howard Brown is, as you also would seem to be. I became aware of his website about a year ago. But at that point I already had been studying this case for about six years. My views, my opinions, are certainly my own, and they have not changed much over the last year or so.

And, like I've said before, Sugden, Evans and Rumbelow do not use that term in their major works about this case. That is not the same as to say they are "opposing" it. I would guess the situation here might be much the same as with the term 'Ripperology', as noted by Stewart Evans: "I guess we're stuck with it". As for myself I find there's reason to be critical of it, and I see little reason why more common words would not do just as well. ΑΩ (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Has no-one learned anything from the previous attempted outing? - please stop now, even guessing, it's just disruptive. Kbthompson (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to second KB's plea to stop the outing before it gets too far. I'm not interested in who's who. If Lyndon Johnson said "Call it GSG" I'd still be forced to ask "Why?" So far the only answer I've seen is "because everybody else does" and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Let's see if we can get more discussion... or less if it deserves less. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Wording

QUOTING the article:

"Six other Whitechapel murders were investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the time, two of which occurred before the 'canonical' five and four after. Some of these have been ascribed, by certain figures involved in the investigation or by later authors, to have been victims of Jack the Ripper."

This is badly worded, IMO. Murders cannot be "victims". I changed it to:

"Six other Whitechapel murders were investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the time, two of which occurred before the 'canonical' five and four after. Some of these have been attributed, by certain figures involved in the investigation or by later authors, to Jack the Ripper."

The phrase "certain figures" is very vague. Would it be accurate to say: "Some of these have been attributed, by investigators or by later authors, to Jack the Ripper."

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The case was closed??

The paragraph about Frances Coles ends with this sentence:

"After this eleventh and last "Whitechapel Murder" the case was closed."

I find this unconvincing. First of all, after the eleventh murder occurred, no-one (with the possible exception of the murderer) KNEW that it was the last murder.

Secondly, "the case was closed" suggests the police stopped trying to solve the eleven murders. Surely they continued for some time trying to solve them. ???

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is true in that Frances Coles was the last name entered into the Whitechapel Murder file and that no other murder victim names were entered into the file afterwards. I am not aware of any further police investigations after the collapse of the Sadleir case, though I may be wrong. I get the impression that the police really thought that Sadleir was the Ripper and did not change their minds afterwards, even when he was found not guilty of the murder of Coles. Colin4C (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Whitechapel murder file was eventually closed with no other known additions that survived to modern times (a great deal of the file was thrown out and pilfered by police for souvenirs over the years, what we have is just an accident of being saved before it was about to be discarded as well), but the case most certainly was not closed. William Grant Grainger, for example, was investigated for stabbing a woman in the stomach many years later and they brought in Joseph Lawende (main witness in the Eddowes murder) to try to identify him as the person he saw with Eddowes outside Mitre Square minutes before her murder. All that can really be said is that no other entires in this file survive, not that the case was closed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Natural Causes!!!

Quoting the article:

"Annie Millwood, born c. 1850, reportedly the victim of an attack on February 25, 1888. She was admitted to hospital with "numerous stabs in the legs and lower part of the body." She was discharged from hospital but died from apparently natural causes on March 31, 1888."

Really? It strains credibility to say that someone who was stabbed numerous times died five weeks later of apparently natural causes.

Who gave the opinion that she died of "apparently natural causes"? I think this incredible "diagnosis" should be attributed to someone, or else not included here at all. (I realize a reference is given. I don't have access to it.) Wanderer57 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Being stabbed in the leg is not necessarily fatal...Being stabbed in the 'lower part of the body' can be serious, though maybe this is a euphemism for being 'stabbed in the bottom'. If that is the case, then this is not necessarily fatal, bearing in mind also that Victorian women, through lack of excercise and general laziness, did have quite large posteriors. Colin4C (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a euphemism for the backside, I think it's a euphemism for the "front side". And the Frontside has several important arteries running through it. The closeness of death to such a violent attack does cause one to question. Yes, it could happen but you gotta wonder if it actually did. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a doctor in the house??? Colin4C (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural causes could include sepsis from the wounds - or indeed, the treatment. As far as the hospital was concerned she had survived her wounds. Obviously they had performance statistics even then ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to track down and quote the original testimony (doctor report, inquest, press report if that's all we have) or cite another reliable source instead of just wasting our time hypothesizing here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question I posted, there is comment on this topic here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Apparently Natural Causes?. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By definition - under English Law, an inquest would not be held for a death by natural causes. Deaths of the poor were rarely reported in the press - and for much the same reason, the poor were rarely attended by a doctor in the late 1880s. (The reasons for the terminally pedantic, too little money, too few doctors for a population that had expanded 250% in the previous 20 years, and the death age was not actually unusual for a demographic living in grinding poverty). There may be a hospital admission report, but before the Ripper hysteria, would it necessarily be that detailed, or out of the ordinary. Obviously, some details eventually made it to the police blotter. Kbthompson (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that according to the latest medical opinion 'Ripper hysteria' is not necessarily fatal, though straight-jackets are sometimes needed when the patient starts frothing at the mouth and seeing red. Colin4C (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Straitjackets) Wanderer57 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you correcting Colin's spelling or suggesting a personal prescription? ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing out what I think is the usual spelling. However, based on Google searches, the tide seems to be running strongly in the other direction. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of levity - but could people making a joke - or spell checking a joke - please at least make the effort to make a substantive point in relation to the article. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair point. I'll go back to a couple of earlier comments.

"Natural causes could include sepsis from the wounds." It seems to me sepsis from earlier stabbing wounds does not count as a natural cause of death. However, as Kbthompson pointed out, the death of a woman in a poor section of the city may have passed with no medical attention whatsoever.

As suggested earlier by DreamGuy, it would be a good idea to track down and quote the original testimony (doctor report, inquest, press report if that's all we have). What record exists related to the death of Annie Millwood? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Begg says that the coroner Wynne E Baxter attributed her death to "sudden effusion into the pericardium from the rupture of the left pulmonary artery through ulceration" and that jury then returned a verdict of death through natural causes. As for the stabbing it seems that she reported that she had been stabbed by a mystery man using a clasp knife, though nobody else saw this person. One theory is that she was stabbed by the same person who inflicted similar wounds on Martha Tabram - though Begg thinks they may have been self-inflicted. She was admitted to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary, got better and was released back into a main Workhouse ward. 10 days later she was chatting to the Workhouse messenger (one Richard Sage), who went away for 3 minutes and returned to find her lying on the ground. He then called for a doctor, who pronounced her dead...RIP. (Jack the Ripper: the Facts (2006): 25-26). Colin4C (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

dates per WP:MOSDATE

People might be interested in reading the latest deus ex-machina about date linking ... WP:MOSDATE. Executive summary, full dates will now appear unlinked - be prepared to (a) standardise pages, and (b) defend your local date preference.

I would suggest, that date links be removed any time you edit a section. There is however, a script that will eventually get here. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Last Jack the Ripper film

I have restored correct information about what was the last Jack the Ripper film. Please no not restore factually incorrect information. Colin4C (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Movie "appearances"

OK, first off, I believe the appropriate course of action when someone reverts your edit is to take it to talk. That being said how can you possibly think that trivia about trivia is supported here? To think we need to keep a record of when a fictional account of an ostensibly fictional character appears is beyond trivia. This is the very definition of fan cruft. Does this stuff need to be removed to a list of some sort? If any character could support a "List of fictional references" it's JTR. The mention of him being portrayed in movies is one thing. Trivia about the movies he's portrayed in is quite another. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This statement you have restored "While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell" is not true. Please do not not foist untruths onto the wikipedia. The last film in which the Ripper appeared is 'Shanghai Knights' in 2003, two years after 'From Hell'. Truth being so 'trivial' you prefer untruths?Colin4C (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To represent the movie "Shanghai Nights" as being a movie with Jack the Ripper in it is the ultimate act of fandom. Movies about Jack the Ripper are trivia, Movies where Jack the Ripper got bumped into are cruft. I can support movies about Jack the Ripper but movies where he get's kicked are just too much. They are petty and demean the article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you I think the entire section needs to go. We're talking about Jack the Ripper and the best you've got is getting bumped into? Give me a break. This has the makings of a "List of portrayals regarding Jack the Ripper" or some such. Heck this is trivia for the movie "Shanghai Nights" wich makes it worthless to note in this article. Of all the things we have to work on in this article you want to argue about getting bumped into? Cuft. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement you have restored "While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell" is not true. It is incorrect. It is a lie. Please do not foist untruths onto the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement you have entered "Jack's most recent movie appearance appears to be in Shanghai Knights (2003)..." is trivial in the highest regard and completely inconsequential to the article. Please do not add trivia to WP. Now, what guideline are you going to cite? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think it doesn't matter if the information in the wikipedia is true or not if one particular editor has no interest or knowledge about it and thinks it is trivial? Colin4C (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think trivia doesn't belong in Wikipedia. What part of "That appearance doesn't mean squat" are you not getting? Do you honestly intend to put every single reference to Jack the Ripper in this article for the sake of "completeness"? You must be joking. What other movies are you going to put in here? I'm sure there are movies with characters named "Jack" you could find a way of squeezing in. How about an unwieldy reference to Rupert Giles being nicknamed "Ripper" when he was a teen? I'm sure there are three people left that don't know that one. It's trivia and we don't support trivia here. I can't think of a more lucid or concise way of saying it. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<TexasAndroid walks past, casually whistling and reading WP:3RR, which is fast being approached.> - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Technically he's past it. This would be his third revert of the same content,~~ I tried to change it up and throw a compromise in there that didn't call it "...his latest apearance..." but didn't feel the need to mention him getting bumped into on a bridge. Colin4 has simply reverted for the sake of including as much trivia as possible (about an already fictitious character). I have never reported a 3RR before, and this is really blatant... Where do I go from here? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to give the warning first, and then see if that's enough to stop the warring, rather than launching with the block. That said, if you feel the need to get another admin's opinion on this, WP:3RRN is the place to go. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you continually restored UNTRUE information. Colin4C (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you didn't quite get to the 3rd revert. I almost jumped the gun there. Glad I checked. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You restored UNTRUE information:

While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer."

I restored TRUE information:

"The most recent film in which the Ripper is a major protagonist is From Hell (2001) based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer. In a subsidiary role, Jack's most recent movie appearance appears to be in Shanghai Knights (2003) in which Fann Wong's character "Chon Lin" kicks him off a bridge into a river."

Therefore you have the moral highground. Makes sense....Who cares what the truth is...its only the wikipedia... (IRONY) Colin4C (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "restore" untrue information, I edited out trivia. Besides, is there a more recent movie in which Jack the Ripper is a major protagonist? Are you trying to say that Jack the Ripper is the major protagonist in "Shanghai Nights"? Then what I have put forth is true: the most recent movie in which the Ripper is a major protagonist is From Hell. What part of that is untrue? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you will see that you reverted to this UNTRUE statement twice:

"While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer."

You only changed after I told you, you were wrong. Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutly right - and that is why you bring conflicts like this to Talk right away. If you would have brought up this particular distinction before I would have tried the rephrase I did and we would have avoided all this animosity. Talking is always better, especially when you are right. ;) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's done is done. Noone actually breached 3RR, noone got blocked, and we have a version that is now standing, for a few minutes at least. Continuing to harp on arguments that Padillah has already moved past with his rewrite will not really get this thing moved anywhere. Trying to move this forward....

Colin. Other than the absence of the reference to your movie, do you have any remaining complaints with Padillah's latest wording? If not, then can the discussion please focus on that one remaining issue. If you *do* have remaining problems with Padillah's rewritten version, please let us know what those issue(s) are.

As for Padillah, it was only with your latest rewrite that you incorporated Colin's "Major protagonist" text. Before that your text was just "appeared in", which does fit Colin's film. He's still complaining about your earlier edits. But continuing to argue about versions that are no longer (I think) under debate.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help TA, I'm finally seeing what he's on about. I hope this rewrite works for him. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Padillah is getting so worked up about the supposed 'triviality' of 'Shanghai Knights'. I didn't mention it because I am a fan nut movie trivia buff but because it is, as far as I know, as a matter of fact, the last film in which Jack the Ripper appears. I thought that therefore, in that respect, it was worthy of record. If a film is released tommorow about JTR then that film in turn will be the last in which JTR appears and for that reason IMHO worthy of record here - and 'Shanghai Knights' can be cast into deserved or undeserved oblivion...'Triviality' is in the eye of the beholder but facts are facts and more important IMHO than subjective feelings about whether or not something is 'trivial'. Colin4C (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, that's an argument you'll have to take up with them. I am not arguing that his appearance in film is not noteworthy, I am arguing that a trivial (and, for what it's worth, apocryphal since JTR wasn't active until 1888) reference should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. As I mentioned above, we can't be expected to note every little thing regarding the subject, and in fact, that makes for a very boring and random article. But my question still stands: Do you accept the rewrite I've suggested? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at what you wrote:

"One of the more recent films in which the Ripper is a major antagonist is From Hell (2001) based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer."

It is more accurate to say (as I said) that 'From Hell' is the the latest film (not 'one of the more recent films') in which the Ripper is a major antagonist and that 'Shanghai Knights' is the latest film in which the Ripper has role, making his exit from screen stardom in the way I have detailed: viz being kicked him off a bridge into a river by a Chinese tourist. The information is not random, as you allege, but completely logical. It details the last appearance of the Ripper on screen - not one appearance selected at random. In the Sweeney Todd article a similar mention of the last screen appearence (the Depp movie) is made of that chap. Triviality is subjective as is what is boring. IMHO labelling something 'non-notable' is a great insight into a wikipedia editor's personal mindset and cultural preconceptions and values but less useful as a criterion of what is in fact notable or interesting to other people. You are the only editor here who has labelled the info I gave as trivial... Colin4C (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any particular significance in a film being the "most recent" film with a JTR character. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Modern Perspective"

When I read the "Modern Perspective" section, I was expecting to read about what modern criminal profiles etc thought of Jack, instead the section simply states that modern forensic techniques etc. did not exist at the time. This is similar to going to an article about a dinosaur and saying "they didn't live in houses, because houses hadn't been invented". Isn't the information in this section somewhat obvious? I say it should either be removed, or rewrittin with actual analysis of Jack. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As per lack of objections, removed. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)

I've just come to this article from "On this day" on the front page, and found another article called The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). This is a bad name: per MOS:NAME it should be Whitechapel murders, possibly with capital M. More importantly, the content of that article is an almost complete duplicate of parts of this one. It consists of these sections:

Whitechapel 1888-91: similar to Jack the Ripper#Background
The victims: similar to Jack the Ripper#Victims but (1) arranged chronologically instead of canonical vs. other. (2) includes only victims in the Metropolitan Police Ripper files, i.e. excluding Jack the Ripper#Other alleged Ripper victims
Investigation timeline: similar to Jack the Ripper#Investigation, but as a timeline rather than a narrative.

The article appears to have nothing relating to Jack the Ripper#Suspects or Jack the Ripper#Media. Nearly all the citations are from one book: Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, which is also a major source in this article, but one of several. Basically the article is a synopsis of that book, presenting the Ripper murders as a police case. This is a WP:POVFORK. I concur, different article [Stanton70]

These complaints have been raised before on Talk:The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), and there was a merge or completely rework request in May. One proposal was to turn it into a timeline article, which might be justifiable. As I read it, those opposing the merge wanted to separate the historical facts of the crimes from the media hype and mythology of the Jack the Ripper character. The debate then, as I read it, agreed that there was a lot of overlap between the two articles and that work was needed to make them more separate. I don't agree that the subjects are sufficiently distinct to make such a separation practical; but in any case, no such work has been done since the debate concluded. My contention is that as things stand the second article adds nothing. If you think it potentially could add something you have an obligation to bring it up to scratch (perhaps in your User: space) before presenting it in the article space. jnestorius^(talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After a very long discussion the overwhelming concensus of long-time editors here was that the two articles are distinct. Only one editor disagreed or 'complained' as you put it. 'Jack the Ripper' is mostly a media construct whilst the Whitechapel Murders really did happen. To confuse the two is to jump on the 'Jack the Ripper' hype/entertainment bandwagon which I don't think the wikipedia, as a serious encyclopedia, should be part of. Your statement that "Nearly all the citations are from one book: Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates" and that "Basically the article is a synopsis of that book, presenting the Ripper murders as a police case. This is a WP:POVFORK." is factually incorrect speculation and deliberately misleading. I invite you to go back and count how many sources are used in that article. The Whitechapel Murders are the primary, factual, datum. Most of the rest is just the spin and hot air of media savvy 'Ripperologist' cranks. Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Against merge the reason there is a separate article is that 11 murders were committed in Whitechapel between 1888-1891. It is documented fact and a cursory glance at the metropolitan police website shows that they themselves regard it as an important historical sequence. Within that sequence there were five murders which are the Canonical Five attributed to JtR - the reason why an additional article was required was that six murders in the sequence were inadequately covered here, and a number of editors agreed that both a timeline of the eleven, and coverage of the police investigation was worthwhile. It is separate, as six of the murders were not attributed to the subject of this page; this page is essentially about what is known about a particular murderer(s) (hence the title), rather than calling it Whitechapel Murders, incorporating Jack the Ripper - although there might be an argument for incorporating his activities into the Whitechapel murder article - since he (they) is just one of a particularly nasty bunch of people. However, that said, he is considered infamous enough to have his own article - which should concentrate on just 'him', and the investigation and brouhaha surrounding the ripper hysteria.

Agree rename -> "Whitechapel Murders (1888-1891)" per WP:MoS. I wouldn't be inclined to drop the dates, as there may be other sequences, or individual murders in a different timeframe that should not be included.

There is currently no such other article. If there ever is, it will probably result in a hatnote on this article something like "this article is about the 1888-1891 murders, for the 1957 murders see Whitechapel Murders (1957)". The common name does not have dates. Prematurely disambiguating is bad. jnestorius^(talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1966, actually - see George Cornell. Kbthompson (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the bad name of that other article is because Colin first tried to put his opinion that there is no canonical five into the main article, then when he didn't have consensus and it was removed he made a fork file to make that argument at Whitechapel murders, and then that got deleted and redirected and then eventually locked with people telling him he simply could not do that because it ws the same topic. The current name, with the dates, was just his sneaky way of coming up with a new article with the same POV fork info on a title that wasn't locked. The only reason it still survives at all is he made some friends with other people who express outright hostility to the published conclusions of well respected Ripper authors and they gang vote everything. Look at the tone of their comments here... it's amazing. All these people who think they know more than the experts, saying Jack the Ripper never existed, etc. These people aren't even trying to pretend to follow Wikipedia policies anymore. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree work needs to be done on both articles to enhance their unique characteristics. Kbthompson (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - Colin is and Kevin are right, and their reasons are pretty much that which I would argue, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There were far more than 11 murders of marginal women in Victorian slums; most of them will never have a Wikipedia article. What links the canonical five and the other six is Jack the Ripper . Other than that, the six non-Ripper victims are no more notable than the countless victims never ascribed to him. Wanting to ringfence the historical facts from the spin and hot air and brouhaha of the Ripper is the essence of a POVFORK. The historical facts belong in this article: taking them out of this article wrecks this article, and copying them elsewhere while keeping them here is redundant.

The other article is also perhaps unique among Wikipedia articles dealing with crimes (compare e.g. any of Category:Unsolved murders) in that it makes almost mention of media action or possible suspects (only Pizer and Sadler). This indicates to me that the other article is also an unnatural half-story that should not have an independent existence.

With respect, if longtime editors have agreed among themselves that the two concepts are distinct, then they have done a very poor job of making this clear to longtime readers. Will you agree at least that, at present, almost all the material in the other article is contained in this one, albeit in a different order? If so, please outline what changes you intend making in the next few weeks to better separate the two articles. Saying this article "should concentrate on just 'him'" is rather vague: what are you going to remove from here? jnestorius^(talk) 19:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are also many Victorian murders that are documented within wikipedia, as they were early cases of the Metropolitan police; or - like these - were considered pretty macabre, even by the standards of the day.

Oh, yes, the metropolitan police: "What has to be understood is the fact that the 'Ripper' murders and the 'Whitechapel murders' are not the same thing, although the latter does include the 'Ripper' murders." - of course, they do have an axe to grind, but they're not amateurs at the business.

{As above) You have whole hearted agreement (from me) that both articles need to be improved to concentrate on the particular subject of their topics - there is inevitable overlap, but the subject of this article is a particular murderer. If the two were to be merged, it is normal to merge the smaller topic (ie this one) into the larger - you would then have a rather large article and lost the object of this topic; the subset of murders, attributed to the ripper.

To be fair to long term editors, I would commend you to the archives of this article, where every change is argued to the n-th degree - to death, as it were. For myself, I would welcome suggestions as to how to improve the articles, and indeed achieve that separation of content. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice the Met does not have separate pages for the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders; while asserting the two are separate it discusses both in a single page called "The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper". I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot do likewise. As to the size of the combined article: since almost all the info in the other one is already in this one, the combined article will be little larger than this one. jnestorius^(talk) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm still against merging them. The Whitechapel murders' file is essentially fact; while Jack the Ripper is 'socially constructed' - mainly from the press, but with some support from police evidence, as to the existence of such an individual. Much of this article, is of necessity, conjecture - and about the later continuance in popular culture. The non-canonical murders are essentially clutter here, but have a historical significance for the period. Kbthompson (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The eleven Whitechapel Murders as well as being real and documented in police files etc had greater social significance in terms of London history than the parlour game of Hunt the Ripper. Whole streets (Flower and Dean Street) were demolished and social concern was manifested in the East End. The Ripper by contrast is a mostly a media construct (owing a lot to Jekyll and Hyde) and the supposed 'canonical victims of Jack the Ripper' are mostly a construct in the brains of contemporary Ripperologists, they do not have official or legal or compelling evidential existence. The eleven murders caused terror on the streets of Whitechapel at the time, with some of the later 'uncanonical' murders actually creating more terror than the 'canonical' ones. As for doing more work on articles, one is not encouraged to do so by being given lectures by editors who sole occupation is criticising other editors work, wikilawyering, general negativity and misrepresentation and who never contribute anything constructive themselves to wikipedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:POT calling the kettle black again... You disagree with experts, and we should care, why? We don't. Go write a book if you want to dispute the canonical five, and when you get people to respect you as an expert on the topic then you can get yor opinion mentioned as your opinion as one of several opinions of Ripper experts. Until then you're wasting everyone's time trying to make your personal beliefs take over the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Against One is about the murders, the other about the person (or persons) who committed them. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment ... and only some of those murders ... there appears to be an emerging consensus here, not to merge - however, the proposer also issued a challenge to improve the respective articles and focus them. So, how about it? Kbthompson (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge. I feel we would be taking two steps back if we were to merge them. It was progress to get the other article and keep it. Would like to see other improvements and hear other suggestions however. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge for the reasons stated repeatedly in previous discussions! --Jack1956 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree to long overdue merge -- It was a POV fork from the very beginning, and will never be anything but. Colin's longwinded posts above show exactly what his intent was in making it: WP:SOAPboxing his own WP:ORiginal research/opinions to compete with what the experts say. And, frankly, I get the feeling some of these editors only exist here to be pulled out of a hat whenever any vote comes up, as they never make any actual contributions here and seem to have no knowledge about or even an interest in the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note how tolerant the admins are of Dreamguy's personal abuse of me and unfounded allegations. The only person who has been found to consistently violate the wikipedia guidelines he is so fond of quoting is him. He has a block log which far exeeds in number all the Whitechapel murders put together. I have never been blocked, not even once. Draw your own conclusions. Colin4C (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a big boy and expected to take it on the nose, offering the other check and politely proffering suggestions on how to take the article forward. Try not rising to the bait, it really will extend your lifespan, and he will get bored and stop attacking you. As, to blocks, if you're feeling left out ...? All parties really should address the content.

That said, some of these editors only exist here to be pulled out of a hat; needs to be addressed. That would be those same editors who have been driven away from making a contribution to the article space by constant contention and put downs.

As a point of fact, it's not a vote, DG. It's developing a consensus in a collaborative workspace. The emphasis there is on collaborative, it's not a competition, and there's not some winner takes all - or, even, the last one standing when everyone else is bored to death. Do try making some substantive points on why Jack the Ripper - who is attributed with five murders - is the same as eleven murders. My formative years were spent as a mathematician, your own WP:POV doesn't add up; and doesn't appear to agree with the Met. Kbthompson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. It's a bunch of people who don't even try to act like they know anything about the topic trying to run off the people who do. Arcayne and Colin's actions have been nothing but pure obstructionism, and most of the other editors havbe contributed nothing to this article except rubber stamping their statements.

It's not supposed to be a vote, no, but that's clearly how you and others are trying to treat it. It's supposed to be a discussion about how to follow Wikipedia policies and improve the articles on the topic. That hasn't been happening for well over a year now, thanks to people like simply ignoring policy when it's inconvenient for their own personal reasons. The two articles discuss the exact same topic, as the experts on the topic describe that topic. Math skills aren't as important as basic reasoning. Jack is not attributed five murders, the prevailing theory is that he had at least those five murders, but also perhaps some of the rest of the 11 as well. It's all the same topic. Show me an expert, reliable source that treats the Whitechapel Murders as completely different topic from the Ripper murders, and then show me that the majority of them say that, THEN you have a point. Until then you're just ignoring a pretty blatant fork file and thumbing your nose at the experts who have studied the topic out of sheer stubbornness and a desire to promote the POV of complete amateurs on the net who took over the article to advance their own personal opinions. DreamGuy (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DG, the prevailing argument isn't about the number of murders (sorry Kb), it's about the existence of Jack the Ripper. There is nothing that establishes the identity of Jak the Ripper much less how many of which murder he committed. And, due to the enormous amounts of information we have on this quasi-fictional character and the fact that he has grown beyond the "confines" of these murders, we should separate him from the facts of the murders. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous argument ever made. Jack the Ripper existed. Read a book. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to do this but... In making sure I didn't say something magnanimously stupid I went looking for Area 51, and found it. In there it mentions the UFO stuff, but to a lesser degree. I also went looking for other stories to bolster my position... and couldn't find any. I am then forced to question why JtR isn't simply mentioned in the Whitechapple article and the bulk of the speculation done away with? We are not supposed to speculate here so is it better to state that other people speculate? Aren't we just speculating by proxy? Is there another article we could look to to see how they settled this contradiction? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We did agree before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one and that this should be a subsidiary...Colin4C (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The eleven Whitechapel murders are a precise historical datum, most of the rest, including the supposed 'canonical five' is speculation. We should hold on to the definate facts in this case not get lost in a maze of speculative figures as to how many people the Ripper might have killed: maybe it was four...maybe it was five...maybe it was ten...maybe it was twenty...maybe he emigrated to the USA and killed twenty more...who knows...The Whitechapel murders, by contrast, were real, were documented by the police and all occured in or near a specific location (Whitechapel) 1888-92. With or without the Ripper they are historically significant. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a venue for Ripperologist cranks to spout their absurd theories. If you want to do that go to the Ten Bells with like-minded fantasists and do not bore us with it. Colin4C (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by such comments, Colin. It almost sounds like you're abandoning "Jack the Ripper" as a lost-cause hopeless magnet for cranks, and heading off to craft "Whitechapel Murders" into a dispassionate scholarly historical article. That's not really what you're saying, is it? Saying the Whitechapel murders would have been significant without the Ripper is like saying World War 2 would have been significant even if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia. Just as it would have been a completely different war, so it would have been a completely different 6-murders-in-Whitechapel. (I know "6-murders" assumes the Ripper did 5 and none of the others were copycats, but the point holds regardless, unless you believe there was no Ripper and eleven different murderers.)

The Jack the Ripper article can, should, and does say that there were 11 murders in the police file, that there is no consensus about how many were the work of a single serial killer, that many theories have been put forward, that many of these are utterly discredited, that the Ripper hype was fuelled by the press of the period and kept going by subsequent popular treatments. I don't see a need for a separate article to make these points; what points are to be made in "Whitechapel Murders" that cannot reasonably be made in "Jack the Ripper"? Of course, parts can be refactored out, as has been done already with the suspects; but the Whitechapel Murders article is not a single section refactored, it cuts across whole swathes of the article. As has been suggested already, it could work trimmed and renamed as a timeline of the investigation.

There are many articles which discuss both the uncontested historical elements of a topic and the mythical aggregations; e.g Nostradamus, Bonnie and Clyde, Saint Patrick, Spanish Inquisition. What makes this case different from those?

I am making these comments not as an editor but as a reader. I know no more about Jack the Ripper than the average person: that is to say, I'm the kind of person who will read these articles seeking to learn from it rather than seeking to critique them or find errors. While reading "Jack the Ripper" I noticed the far-from-prominent wikilink to "Whitechapel Murders" and clicked through, and I was confused by the article I found there. To my eyes, it reads like a partial repetition of the main article. It could be deleted and no reader would miss it (though of course five or ten regular editors would). Clearly a group of you believe there is an important point to be made which would be lost by deleting "Whitechapel Murders". I am stating in all sincerity, having read both articles and all the Talk pages, I have no idea what that point is. I don't believe I am terribly stupid, so at a minimum, you will need to express your points more clearly. You have expended a lot of effort creating a page which, I believe, few readers will benefit from reading.

Finally, since nobody has yet offered suggested improvements, let me offer a suggestion: a matrix of victims and experts, flagging which expert believes which victims were definitely/probably/possibly/definitely not murdered by the Ripper. jnestorius^(talk) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Saying the Whitechapel murders would have been significant without the Ripper is like saying World War 2 would have been significant even if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia."

Eh? Come again? I don't think that has the effect that you were after...but I do appreciate your efforts. Your last idea about the matrix sounds good. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what does Colin4C's sentence mean: "With or without the Ripper they are historically significant." Does "without the Ripper" mean, "even if there had been no panic at the time", or does it mean, "even if it had all been forgotten and blown over afterwards", or does it mean "even if there had been no serial killer in Whitechapel in 1888". jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"There are many articles which discuss both the uncontested historical elements of a topic and the mythical aggregations; e.g Nostradamus, Bonnie and Clyde, Saint Patrick, Spanish Inquisition. What makes this case different from those?"

I'll say there could be a significant difference. In the first three cases, the articles have simply been named after the persons in question - Michel de Nostredame, Bonnie Parker & and Clyde Barrow, and the latter of "the two St. Patricks". As for the Spanish Inquisition it was, originally, merely a descriptive phrase, pretty much as would be The Whitechapel Murders Investigation

The name of an article is not relevant. MOS:NAME handles that. What is important is the content. Deciding whether information should be in a single article or split between two articles is a separate question to deciding what name to give an article. We could have had Saint Patrick (historical figure) and Saint Patrick (mythical figure) but we don't. What is different about the concepts (as opposed to their names)? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is another article about the "other St. Patrick", the reason being that "many of the traditions later attached to Saint Patrick originally concerned Palladius". So, there's not merely the question of separating historical fact from myth, but also of disentangling one historical figure from another. And that could perhaps be compared to the possible fact that the Whitechapel Murders were, most likely, committed by more than one murderer. The question then would perhaps be if the least relevant murders do warrant another separate article, or if there should be one article about each of these cases. Either way, I would agree that from the naming conventions (choosing the most easily recognizable), it would seem fairly inescapable that the main article ought to be called 'Jack the Ripper'. ΑΩ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The crimes of "Jack the Ripper" are so inextricably intertwined with the Whitechapel Murders that often one is mistaken for the other. The reason for this is that the police files on the so-called Whitechapel Murders began with the murder of Emma Smith on 3/4 April 1888, and did not finish until the murder of Frances Coles on 13 February 1891. In all, eleven murders are included in these files and, in the opinion of the authors, as few as three or as many as six may have been the work of a common hand, that of the criminal now known to history as "Jack the Ripper". A full and true picture cannot be obtained without looking at the whole series of murders and the relevant facts that have survived the passage of time to reach in the twenty-first century. Herein may lie the vital clue as to the identity of this mysterious killer - or it may not. (Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook, p. 3.)

If their intertwining is inextricable why are you trying to extricate them? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I am. But I do think it could be right to downplay the less relevant cases, and expand the parts about the cases most commonly attributed to "Jack the Ripper", and that would seem most important for the understanding of the serial murder case. Perhaps that could be done by placing some of the info about the Whitechapel Murders into a separate article. ΑΩ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The main problem encountered in any serious study of the Whitechapel Murders and the subject of "Jack the Ripper" is the plethora of myth and misrepresentation that surrounds the case. Although some of this obfuscation can be traced back to its contemporary origins, most of it has gradually developed, feeding on itself over the years in books and other media so that any new student of the crimes understandably begins their study with preconceived ideas, either conscious or subconscious, on the matter. (Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook, p. 1.)

I'd say the 'Jack the Ripper' name may, in itself, tend to perpetuate the preconceived ideas of myth. And please note the double quotes... applied to that questionable name. I'll say that they are, quite literally, clear signs of critical consciousness. I would guess a similar willingness, and ability, to keep a critical distance could have made a merging of these two articles possible. ΑΩ (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So if "Jack the Ripper" appears in quotes in this article then you would countenance a merger? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure what would be the best solution. I do however find it odd that so much weight has been put, in this article, on the victims that would seem least likely to have been killed by "Jack the Ripper", in particular as this article makes no mention of any of the witnesses that may in fact have seen him. It seems to me that the "canonical" victims section ought perhaps to be expanded, with at least some further information about the particulars of each case. On the other hand, some of the information about the "other victims" could possibly be placed into an article about the Whitechapel Murders file. ΑΩ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As one ' of these editors [who] only exist here to be pulled out of a hat' [despite having started 10 JtR related articles] and being 'not a real editor' [despite having started 144 articles and contributed to hundreds more], I feel that my contribution to this discussion is perfectly valid DG, and that opinion is that the Whitechapel Murders article is entirely encyclopedic and an important contribution to the topic. If you take out the canonical Ripper murders you would still have an article here, as I have said in previous discussions. --Jack1956 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying this article would be complete even with no mention of the canonical murders? That's absurd. jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the Whitechapel Murders article. --Jack1956 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not quite as absurd, but still weird. I thought from earlier comments by others that the "Whitechapel Murders" article was supposed to be about the police investigation into the 11 murders around Whitechapel. Removing 5 of those would leave that article with a big hole in the middle. Do you mean removing them just from "The victims, or would you also remove the relevant bulletpoints alluding to them from Investigation timeline? And, conversely, should the other 6 victims be removed from the "Jack the Ripper" page? That would certainly reduce the overlap between the two articles, but it would render both of them almost unreadable. jnestorius^(talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We agreed before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one and that a subsidiary articles should be devoted to such vague entities as 'Jack the Ripper', 'The Torso Killer' etc etc. The 'canonical five' is not a fact - it's just speculation. The Whitechapel Murders article by contrast is rigorously factual. Also overlap between articles is only a crime if you are an anally fixated bureaucrat. Entities in the real world do overlap. See also Venn diagram for a mathematical expression of this idea. The Ripper killed an unknown number of people. Some in Whitechapel and some maybe out of Whitechapel, some maybe in other countries. Nobody knows. Is it really so traumatic to admit that we just don't know and stop feeling compelled to invent unproven 'canonical five' etc factoids to cover our ignorance? The Whitechapel Murders by contrast were eleven murders which really did happen in real Whitechapel and nearby between the real dates 1888-91. The real police documented these real murders in a real file entitled 'The Whitechapel Murders'. This is a real, tangible document which it is possible to inspect, read, touch etc. The business of the wikipedia is record such realities and not get lost in a wilderness of unproven factoids and dubious notions and speculations. It would have been helpful if the Ripper had pinned his name and address and phone number on all the murders which he committed, but he didn't, therefore we are left in ignorance and should not pretend to know things that we don't know. Ripper killings = X. Whitechapel Murders = 11. The Ripper presumably committed some of the Whitechapel Murders and was possibly responsible for an unknown number of unsolved murders elsewhere. To equate 'The Whitechapel Murders' with 'The Ripper Murders' is just plain incorrect, unless you don't care about truth at all and want the wikipedia to be part of the all singing and dancing (see the opera 'Lulu' in which the Ripper sings) Ripper entertainment option as sponsored by the masons and the royal family and Ripperologist con artists and spin merchants everywhere. Colin4C (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"We agreed before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one" No, no we didn't. Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. The problem here is that Colin wrote that other article as a content fork file based upon his anti-Jck the Ripper theory when he couldn't get consensus to change this article to give his own opinions on the topic, and now he's continuing to try to toss out expert opinion on the topic and replace it with his own. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"We agreed before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one" -- In what sense is "Whitechapel Murders" the main article? There is no Category:Whitechapel Murders; the article is currently only in one category. It is however in {{Jack the Ripper}}, listed under "other", so presumably it should at least be in Category:Jack the Ripper. If you want to rearrange the categories and series templates to make "Whitechapel Murders" the main article, that might be possible, but as things stand it's the "main" article only in the minds of a few editors, not in Wikipedia.

"The Whitechapel Murders article by contrast is rigorously factual." -- Are you saying that the "Jack the Ripper" article contains untruths? If so, then please remove them from the article, they have no place in Wikipedia. However, stating that some people believe X is not the same as stating X. There is no requirement to remove all statements of opinion from an article, as seems to an extent to have been done in "Whitechapel Murders"; there is a requirement to flag such statements as being opinion rather than presenting them as undisputed fact.

"To equate 'The Whitechapel Murders' with 'The Ripper Murders' is just plain incorrect" -- I agree. But discussing two different though related things in one article is not the same as stating that they are one and the same thing. Indeed, pretty much all the sources used in the "Whitechapel Murders" article have the words "Jack the Ripper" in their titles. It is easier to make the difference explicit by stating it in clear prose than to leave the difference implicit by having separate articles.

Would you agree, at least, that "Whitechapel Murders" is at present a very poor article? In your efforts to keep it "rigorously factual" you have reduced it to a pair of lists. "1890: June 21st - Sir Edward Bradford replaces Monro as Commissioner." -- so what? Why should the reader care? Mentioning where Mary Kelly was buried is important in Mary Jane Kelly, but why in the timeline? And so on. These dry facts devoid of context or interpretation make the article read like a murder-mystery game: are these the clues from which the reader is supposed to deduce the murderers' identities? jnestorius^(talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmhm, that is something that seems to have escaped the best efforts of the Metropolitan Police, so it would be rather a good game. I think you're missing the point - the Whitechapel Murders happened - they remain historical fact. Jack the Ripper is socially constructed. There is little actual evidence for someone named 'Jack' - see the Yorkshire Ripper for a comparison of the media hysteria created over fake letters (and tapes). Personally, I think both are worthy of an article, but if you'd like all the JtR stuff changed to be within the superset of murders, then I'd certainly give that some thought. I'm happy to concede that the articles, as they stand, are both deficient and do not stand up to that basic dichotomy of reality and fiction. What you're essentially deifying here is a fable of a monster who did unspeakable acts to women - maybe I should join Reclaim the night in consigning the fiction to deserved anonymity - but then again, people remain interested in Jack the Ripper - and maybe they should be made aware that he was just an insignificant abuser amongst many, many others. BTW: I lived in Leeds during that period, and organised safety buses for women from the University. So, there's just a possibility my feelings about serial killers are a little tainted. Kbthompson (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point, and quite dramatically. You are certainly entitled to your theories on social constructs and whatnot, but this article, as I have to repeat for the umpteenth time, covers what reliable sources have to say, not what individual authors thought up. There was a serial killer at that time. Jack the Ripper is the name historians and criminologists use for that serial killer. We can't use the real name, as he has not been identified (and if he had we'd probably still use Jack the Ripper by Wikipedia's article naming rules). Saying that there's no evidence for someone actually named "Jack" is completely off topic and pointless. It's an absurd straw man argument. We are here to describe the historical character by the only name we know him by and the things he was most known for, which are the murders, and then to give encyclopedic information on the topics that tie in with that. Your whole fable argument is horribly misguided. The article already dispenses with the fiction to focus on the history. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Break

A couple of things are getting forgotten here. The big one being - The is no Jack the Ripper. Not in the context of reality we are trying to use. The closest that we can come is saying that "most people believe between 3 and 6 of the murders were committed by one man". That's the best we've got. We can't even say how many murders were committed by this guy, how can we argue for his existence? That being said there are articles on Frankenstein's monster and Count Dracula (separate from Vlad Tepes) so to make a character article about Jack the Ripper is well within our means. I even think making one based on the Vlad Tepes article (or Count Dracula) would be a good starting point. They both address the fictionalization of a real figure, which is, I believe, what we have here - the fictionalization of a real figure. We just don't know who the real figure is. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there was a Jack the Ripper, per the conclusions of a great number of expert reliable sources. We can't name this Otherwise unidentified killer of prostitutes in London's East End between August and November of 1888 and possibly other times as well. The article with the title of Jack the Ripper must be about the real historical figure and not the fictional version. We already have a separate article for fictional refs, and that should not take over the main article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'real historical figure' is mostly a construct of Ripperologist mythologising and hype. Some of the Whitechapel murders were presumably committed by a single unknown serial killer, though there seems to have been another serial killer, the so-called Torso Killer, in on the act in Whitechapel and beyond and we still can't rule out the possibility that some of the murders were committed by a gang. If Ripperologists have the great detective skills they credit themselves with why don't they apply themselves to current unsolved serial crimes? I was reading about some city in Mexico where a wave of serial killings of women has gone on unchecked for years without anybody having the slightest clue as to who is doing it or if there is more than one killer or gangs of killers. If Ripperologists could solve such murders happening here and now rather than in 1888, I would give them credit for being great detectives, but they can't and aren't. They are idle dilettantes who are full of pretence but no real knowledge or insight. Lets stick to the facts please, such as the factual Whitechapel murder victims, who are not products of speculation but real people who really were murdered at specified times and particular locations and the records of whom are preserved in the historical archives. This may be boring, but this is an encyclopedia - not Fantasy Island. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"The article with the title of Jack the Ripper must be about the real historical figure and not the fictional version." Do you realize that's like saying the article on Count Dracula must be about the historic figure, not the fictional one? Jack the Ripper is only the name because of two letters that are now believed to be sent by some journalist. How can there possibly be a "historic" reference to a person that's never been confirmed to exist? There are people that have studied these cases for years that cannot confirm the existence of a single entity having committed a specific number of killings. With that much being that vague how can you speak of an "Historical figure"? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent proposal

Okay, here's a proposal to at least stop the discussion going round in circles:

One root article named either Jack the Ripper or Whitechapel murders — parking the question of the name for the moment; in either case, both terms would be mentioned in bold in the intro. The article would have the following sections, some of which would be subarticles:

Background: based on The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)#Whitechapel 1888-91 and Jack the Ripper#Background
List of alleged victims of Jack the Ripper: the main article summary should give a short description of the circumstances of the 11 casefile murders, and mention that there are other unofficial alleged victims. The subarticle would be based on The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)#The victims and Jack the Ripper#Victims, taking more care to say which authority grouped which victim with which killer.
Whitechapel murders investigation: I suggest beginning with a summary of the important points of the case; then the The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)#Investigation timeline as a section; then more detail from Jack the Ripper#Investigation: "Writing on the wall", "An early instance of criminal profiling", and possibly "Letters to the police", although the letters each have an article already.
Jack the Ripper suspects: It might be worth stating more vigorously in the summary how much (little) credence is attached to any of the preferred suspect-theories. Also, since it's mentioned in the popular culture section, the royal-conspiracy should be mentioned in the summary (in language that avoids elevating it to a higher status than the others theories)
Jack the Ripper in popular culture: As well as Jack the Ripper fiction, Jack the Ripper#Media, Jack the Ripper#Jack the Ripper in popular culture, this is where Colin4C et al can let rip about media constructs, crackpots, etc. (with good citations of course).

jnestorius^(talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be the first to admit that the structure of the both articles is deficient. Within any putative JtR article, there should be an explanation of both the letters and the subsequent media hysteria that created Jack.

The (further) problem has always been that this article doesn't know whether it is about Jack, or the murders. Teasing out that conflation would go some way to restoring some sanity to the article. Kbthompson (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ripper mania is not as easy to cure as some might fondly imagine. Cold baths and beating with sticks might be worth a try for some editors, mentioning no names...Colin4C (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A better cure would be if certain editors stopped confusing Wikipedia (an encyclopedia presenting informed reliable expert conclusions on a topic) with a blog (where they can rant about whatever personal beliefs they have and attack all those nasty people who actually know what they re talking about and are recognized for their expertise). DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Jack AND the murders. It's the same topic. That's how we treat most serial killers in this encyclopedia, and that's how this one has to be treated as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, DG, 'Jack' is the author of the letters, and the subsequent media hysteria. You say it's about Jack and the murders, but really you only want to discuss some of the murders. There don't seem to be that many established historians, or criminologists, amongst the "experts" on the subject. I don't necessarily agree with Jnestorius on everything, but that person is making genuine attempts to improve the article. The advantage with most other serial killers is that they were caught, and so the wikipedia article is somewhat easier to write with the benefit of hindsight. Just get on with trying to achieve a consensus and improving the article. Kbthompson (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do you one better KB, 'Jack' may or may not be the author of some, if not all, of the letters and a wholly media-created construct whose only basis in reality is his signature.

@DG, the reason we can write other serial killer articles that way is because we can tell that they are, in fact, serial killings performed by the same person and belong to a distinct group. Can you provide such proof for these killings? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

In the section on the Ripper in popular culture, it suggests From Hell is based on absurd and bizarre theories - surely that's bad form? They might well be absurd and bizarre, I don't know enough about the topic, but it's hardly encyclopaedic to say so with no references. The film also features a truly dreadful Cockernee accent from the great Mr Depp, but that's by the by. Pitt the elder (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular section got "clarified" into oblivion some time back and had managed to remain unnoticed until now, thanks.

Wikipedia 0.7 release

Just wanted to leave a note to inform anyone who wasn't aware. This article is one of the 30,000+ chosen to be part of the Wikipedia 0.7 release, as one related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force. In looking over the articles chosen, it was noted that this page has what seems to be a core group of editors who work on it. The Editorial Team for version 0.7 has set an October 20 deadline for any clean-up, polish, etc. If there is an earlier version of the article besides the present one that you would rather they use, please make note of that at the project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7 or at the serial killer task force talk page. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) all written by ben hughes aged 13

What is Wikipedia 0.7? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Editors here may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories, a discussion about whether Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories should be promoted to featured status. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Murder count contradicting?

So, I was looking on the image

from the article, and it has 7 murder locations marked. Yet, the table at the top of the article says Jack the Rippers victim count is "5+ ?".

Is it just me, or should the victim count start at 7?-Cam^T^|C 11:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all "7" is (logically) comprehended in "5+?" and, secondly, as a matter of fact, the map marks the murder sites of notional "canonical five" victims of JTR as revealed (without proof) to the (unholy) Church of Ripperology, plus Emma Smith (Osborne Street) and Martha Tabram (George Yard) who were excommunicated from the list of acceptible victims by the Ripperologist fraternity. As nobody (even Ripperologists in their unwisdom) knows how many murders JTR commited "5+?" is (notionally) "the best we can do"...Colin4C (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok (now) it makes sense. :P -Cam^T^|C 12:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybrick

One of the most common theories is that a resident, James Maybrick was in fact the Ripper. Although not proved, there is convincing evidence in a book called Jack the Ripper by Paul Begg.BlondeDoctor (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which version of Begg's book you are referring to, but I can safely say that Mr. Begg has never argued that Maybrick was the Ripper.Revmagpie (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack-the-Ripper.org?

This link was removed, claiming that it failed WP:EL. I was wondering if some elaboration about how it fails EL could be provided 'ere it be added back in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With no elaboration by the editor removing the link, I have re-added the link yet again. If I am not mistaken, this is a repeat of a similar removal by the editor over the past year. It stays in until a new consensus is established as to the EL value of the linked site. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the fact that it's a spam site for a company that sells tours and DVDs, and that the owner of that company was the one who put it here, isn't enough for some people. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, watch the misleading edit comments. When you added the link you claimed "discussion bears out differently" -- what discussion with supposed bearing out, exactly, are you referring to here? Nothing, really, just you deciding to put it back with no discussion. That's deceptive. You've done that in the past with edit comments too. I hope that was unintentional, though just how exactly you could have accidentally imagined a discussion here that never happened is a bit beyond me. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to cite that the owner of the site was the one who added it? Additionally, you note that the link shouldn't be allowed in the article because it sells stuff. I would point out that every other link there does as well, or links to sites selling related material. Do we exclude those as well?

And I apologize if you think the prior material was "deceptive". I refer, of course, to the prior discussions which you failed to take part in wherein the link was discussed - among a great many other things. I would refer you to the archives which you just recently re-ordered. I am sure you could find the relevant discussion. No worries, I will wait. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it was th owner who added it was already discussed on these talk pages, and the owner himself came here and admitted it. Maybe if you didn't archive the talk page so frequently for no practical purpose you'd remember.... but then you seem to like to get rid of all previous discussion and then do whatever you want even knowing it was discussed in the past and then pretend like it was never discussed yet.

And what on earth do you mean "every other link" there sells stuff? Haven't looked at the links I guess... but then that's funny because you removed a well respected group who studies the murders to restore the deletion by the editor who falsely claimed months back it was a commercial site. Sounds like you can't even keep which side you are arguing straight whenever you just blind revert the article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could cite where that was discussed that the owner added it, please do so. I do recall something of a conversation occurring about a website, but I do not recall which one it was. When you find the convo, please port it here, so we can be assured that we are indeed speaking of the same website. Additionally, you need to prove that the link you have been endeavoring to remove in fact fails to meet EL. Please consider that other editors (indeed, likely the rest of the Project) might share an interpretation of EL that differs substantially from your own. Thanks in advance.

And I will remind you that if you are unable to post comments without inherently attacking others, you might find that not posting at all protects your editing freedom. You do not need to be reminded that you are under civility parole. Please respect that, and is, and try to be more professional and civil. Please consider this a gentle reminder, and not a warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would remind you that you are the last person to try to lecture anyone on anything, as when you try to report me for civility patrol the arbitrators in question said your behavior was worse than anything you reported me for, and that the reports were calculated as an abuse of the system. You are well aware of this, as this was pointed out to you on WP:ANI n the last couple of days.

Most importantly, you do not WP:OWN this article, so you do not get to declare that any edit you make has to stay the way you want it unless people jump through whatever hoops you set up. And "Archiving" the talk page specifically so you can turn around and then claim that nothing was discussed on the talk page is clearly deceptive wikilawyering. Bottom line is that the links had a broad consensus of multiple editors supporting them, in the order that I had them, and they will stay that way based upon what a GROUP of editors said over what you say. That's just how Wikipedia works, and if you refuse to accept that, then that's your problem. DreamGuy (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please focus on the article discussion itself - insulting me and whatnot isn't going to do anything but probably get you blocked, so maybe you want to dial it back by several degrees. If I choose to remind you of that which you keep conveniently ignoring, then I am discussing how your behavior is affecting others who edit the article and the article itself. I am not saying you are wrong; I am saying that you need consensus for inclusion, especially when the info's position and whatnot is subject to interpretation. Your "expertise" as a Ripperologist has no weight here. At all. Please remember that.

Now, as has been asked a few times before, can you cite your assertions (please provide diffs, which I am fairly sure you can find even if the page discussion has been archived). You note a pre-existing consensus for your edit; whereas I am restoring it to that consensus which appeared to be in place before you altered the text. Please provide diffs that indicate a consensus for your edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Samson Kobral?

And why has this name been inserted in the place of Mary Ann Nichols?

David (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is that name? :) I think it was removed and Nichols name replaced several minutes before you wrote this...see this diff.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

jill the riper?

maybe there should be more info on the possibility "jack" was a "jackie"? Borkumer (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on Jack the Ripper suspects. Maybe the info would be more appropriate there. Adding it here, as the theory doesn't have much in the way of supporting evidence by citable sources, would constitute a problem of providing undue weight. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some commonsense should apply here. Lust killers, as jack the ripper undoubtedly was, are (at least approximately) universally male.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The theory of Jill the Ripper actually has a fair bit of supporting evidence, or at least puts up a very convincing argument. Check out Casebook.org's writings on the subject. Just because the vast majority of lust killers are male, does not mean that it's completely impossible for Jack the Ripper to be female. -- Nachturnal (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

=I've seen that this is actually a very popular theory. the fact that the victims were prostitutes and their wombs were ripped open with a surgical impliment very well supports the idea that the killer was actually a woman with nursing experiance that had either lost her child or is resentful that she can't obtain one.= dj lee

Martha Tabram rewrite

I'm receiving some resistance to the rewrite of Martha Tabram's entry in the "Other victims in the Whitechapel murder file" subheader. The previous version:

"Martha Tabram (name sometimes misspelled Tabran; maiden name, Martha White; alias, Emma Turner), killed 7 August 1888. She had a total of 39 stab wounds. Of the non-canonical Whitechapel murders, Tabram is named most often as another possible Ripper victim, because of the evident lack of obvious motive, the geographic and periodic proximity to the canonical attacks, and the attack's remarkable savagery. The main difficulty in including Tabram is that the killer used a somewhat different method (stabbing, rather than slashing the throat and then cutting); but it is now accepted that a serial killer's method can change, sometimes quite dramatically.[citation needed] Her body was found at George Yard Buildings, George Yard, Whitechapel.[9]"

allowed for awkward and weak language which drew attention to information that was uncited and quite likely speculative. I tried to substitute the following:

"Martha Tabram (sometimes spelled as Tabran; maiden name, Martha White; alias, Emma Turner), killed 7 August 1888. She had a total of 39 stab wounds. Of the non-canonical Whitechapel murders, Tabram is considered another possible Ripper victim for a variety of reasons. The geographic (George Yard Buildings, George Yard, Whitechapel.) and period proximity to the attacks considered likely to be those of the Ripper, and is compounded by the evident lack of obvious motive and the attack's noted savagery. However, the attack differs from those of the canonical ones in that the attack consisted of stabbing as opposed to slashing the throat and postmortem injuries. [9]"

and was immediately reverted from a familiar corner, despite the fact that my edit purges the uncited info, cleans up the language and better organizes the information. Perhaps others would like to weigh in on their opinions. After all, that's what the discussion page is for - discussing how to make the article better. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, your changes didn't match your edit comment, so that was misleading, but then it's also full of bad stuff. The main thing is that the tagged info was left by the other editor pending a source, as I left it, so you clearly do not have consensus to up and remove it completely. Secondly, Tabran is a misspelling, so that should be noted. The idea that those edits better organize the info is just your opinion, and certainly was not the opinion of the people who approved the old version. If you want to change it, get consensus here FIRST when you know that they are dsiputed. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are missing the point, DreamGuy: the "pending source" has gone unprovided for over a month. Replacing uncited statements with those either cited or not requiring citation is preferable in an encyclopedia. If you wish to seek it out, feel free. Secondly, you have not provided a source noting that one or the other in fact the actual spelling, so we are going to opt to remain neutral and note both. Lastly, you should seek to follow your own counsel; removing the external link when you have failed to find anything approaching consensus - and have removed it many times before. Please, follow your own advice, and try harder to seek a consensus for your own view. If you can make the herculean effort to remain civil while doing so, you might actually find fertile ground for your words of wisdom. If not, you are going to again find a somewhat rocky purchase. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you clearly don't get it... you can't just blind revert everything I do to this article over and over and over, without paying any attention to what I did or giving any sort of justification. Your whole edit history here over the past two years has been one goal: revert DreamGuy. That's it. It's not been to improve the article, it's not been to get consensus on the talk page for any edits you want to make, it's been to constantly revert every single last thing I do. I always explain my edits. You say "take to talk" EVEN WHEN it's been on talk and you're the only one saying no, or even when lots of people say yes but you "archived" the talk page to hide it. You got away with doing this to me here because some admins didn't want to bother look into it, but now you've progressed to blind reverting me on random articles you have no stake on and blind reverting other editors on other articles where you also do not have consensus. You don't get to get away with that anymore. You can't put highly POV statements back into this article just because I was the one to take them out. You don't get to put spelling errors back in this article just because I was the one who fixed them. This harassment needs to end. DreamGuy (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, thanks, my gf owes me $5, as I bet you couldn't get through a post without dropping the "blind-revert" phrase.

That aside, I think you might want to look at the changes a lot more closely:

"latter" is correct. I've made sure that that change remains in. It was a good, if minor, catch by you. Good job.
just because something has been archived doesn't mean it's been wiped from the face of the earth. I am sure that you - an experienced editor - can find a simple diff by looking at the archive and finding the diff in the history. Heck, even neophyte editors can do that. I don't see anything in the archives that support your claim of a consensus. Point it out. You've apparently got time to follow me to other articles; this should be a cinch.
Regarding the accusations of stalking you: first, you are wrong, and give yourself far too much credit (I really don't care about you one way or the other). Second, hello pot, meet kettle. If you wish to be left alone, stay away. Otherwise, your edits, as viewed by an apparently huge number of disapproving editors, are subject to overview. You are, in fact, on civility parole.
Point out those statements which you feel are "highly POV", and we can address them,. Of course, that would mean actually using the discussion page to do so, and not through (pardon the usage) blind-reverting out an edit without agf as to why it was done. I feel that reverting back in info that is uncited and arranged poorly in terms of both logic and grammar is unwarranted and likely indicative of ownership issues that we do not allow in Wikipedia. Again, work with fellow editors, and not in spite of them. You should know this by now, as you have been counseled about it by no less that a dozen editors and admins.
It didn;t escape notice that you once again are removing an external link that you personally do not like. Either provide citation as to why it is debbilishously bad, or find and develop a consensus for its removal. Indeed, you need to seek a consensus for those edits that have been met with controversy. For someone complaining about a lack of consensus for grammatical changes, its shooting yourself in the foot to make a non-consensus removal.

Now that I've addressed your comments, please feel free to discuss precisely what your issue with the aforenoted edits (unless the argument is solely that it was made by me, in which case, restrain yourself - discuss the edits, and not the editor). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

British Newspapers 1800-1900

These have just been released online - replacing access to the physical papers at Colingdale. Unfortunately, many are chargeable to recoup the cost of the project. However, some topics have been covered - including this one. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope you copied the session, since the link points to it as having expired. As it is a pay source, it could be included as an external link, so that folk wanting to explore further can do so on their own dime. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, check the time line at the bottom of the page to retrieve yer'own session. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a serial killer?

We're probably going to have to work Andrew Cook's theory in somehow [3][4][5]. Thought I'd better mention it here first. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The theory probably deserves a brief mention (I specify brief because the idea is considered WP:FRINGE at best), but it's also very important if we do mention it to not credit the wrong person. Andrew Cook did not originate that theory. The book The Killer Who Never Was: A Re-appraisal of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 by Peter Turnbull (1996) ISBN 1900540002 preceded him by more than a decade and was well known in the field (with mention in multiple other Ripper books). Other writers in the field have already tackled the topic to argue against it before Cook came along. Regular news coverage written buy non-expert journalists working off of press releases wouldn't know that, of course, but the reliable sources in the field more than adequately document it. I'd recommend something simple like "Some authors have argued that the killings were completely unrelated incidents, with later killings being copycats of earlier press reports, and that the news media and police were mistaken to conclude a serial killer was at work [ref Turnbull] [ref Cook]" Not sure if that'd go under victims or media or suspects. Basically every other source on the article and the text of the other parts of the article would serve as an adequate counterpoint (all the cites saying police and criminologists and authors call him a serial killer and link the various victims), but a search for "Ripper copycat evidence" or "Ripper Never Was" etc. on Google/Casebook/Google Books can find specific instances of authors arguing against the concept if a more direct rebuttal is sought. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what you've suggested is ideal. Maybe we could put it in the criminal profile section, immediately after the royal conspiracy bit? DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that works. I think it might also be appropriate in the "Other theories" section of List of Jack the Ripper suspects. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fred Best

I think this sentence should be rephrased to say "Kelvin Mckenzie has suggested...but the identification is not accepted by everyone." or similar. This would seem to more accurately reflect what is said in the source. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the source programme, I think we can say that the speculation about Fred Best is based on solid documentary evidence recently unearthed, but that the speculation concerning the Star's editor is just Kelvin's speculation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the claims of there being solid documentary evidence, or that it's recent, are just the standard over promotional press release nonsense common with authors selling books with nothing new to say. The idea that it was a journalist is more than a century old. The handwriting had already been compared decades ago, and the finger pointed at the same person Cook is currently pointing it. All Cook has that other books haven't had is a substantial public relations budget to get info to journalists who couldn't be bothered to as much as Google the topic before writing about it to see if the claims of being new information were accurate. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you haven't seen the documentary then, because Cook produced the documentary evidence, which you can read on screen, in the form of a letter from 1890 (from John J Brunner MP, a major Star shareholder, to the Star's new editor, Henry W. Massingham) which complains about the previous editor's low standards and his reliance on shady characters, one of whom he names as "Mr. Best" as misleading the Central News Agency over the Whitechapel muders. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But that does not support the claim you made in the article and would be giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to a publicity hound going over old territory. There already were documents more direct than that of police officers directly accusing Best of being involved in the letters. Some stockholder's vague claims are not particularly new, relevant or even interesting. You can't credit Cook for discovering a link through speculation that had already been discovered through more direct and better documented speculation in the past. Again, all Cook has going for him is good PR and journalists who don't know anything about what was already discovered by others about the case lapping it up out of ignorance and laziness. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain that more carefully, because it's not making much sense at the moment. Why can't can't we report the Fred Best claims? Being speculation is not a bar. Speculation can be reported here if it has appeared in the media -- which it has.

If the suspicions about Mr Best were already common knowledge why were't they already in the article?--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not all that notable, and if we started to list all the people various authors have argued wrote that letter (as we'd have to to meet WP:NPOV requirements, or at least all the major ones) it'd be a very long and trivial list. We might eventually put info on the topic somewhere, but it'd be better on the article about that specific letter, and I still don't know that Cook would be all that notable. If we do list him we can't falsely claim that he solved it, as that's just an opinion, and one not supported by other experts. Cook's other work on the Ripper isn't considered very reliable either, by the way. DreamGuy (talk)

Published authors are notable by definition. What you are doing is judging the sources, which is forbidden. BTW I never claimed Cook solved the matter, and of course other experts will have other opinions, and yes, they should, if notable, be mentioned as well.

You are correct that the material might be better inserted into the letters article, with just a precis appearing here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting a response; in the meantime I note that my changes have been reverted by two different editors who both insist I discuss the changes first. Well, come on, discuss them then.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You need the discussion to support you before you put the info back. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) (ec) For my part, I have reverted you because you didn't follow BRD, and I am an absolute bear about process and protocol. When you are reverted over a content issue, you aren't supposed to simply revert, thinking the person misapprehended your edit. You head to the article discussion page without reverting. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. If you are reverted, it means you don't have a consensus for including the info, and must seek it before re-adding the contentious material. Any other way is going to run you afoul of the various folk here and elsewhere. You have now worked yourself into a corner by reverting 3 times within 24 hours. One more revert send you into a corner with a dunce cap for a period of time. If naught else, the likely outcome of reverting should convince you that edit-warring is largely ineffective.

Now, that aside, I have issue with the various contentions of your reverted contribution. To begin with, as there is sizable evidence to suggest that the murders did not begin in 1888, we cannot state with certainty (read: incontrovertible citation) that they began in 1888.

Secondly, the information about Fred Best is - if you will pardon the pun - at best a case of recentism. At worst, it is (as previously noted) a matter of giving the theory undue weight. I am not sure what weight they should be given but then, that's the whole point of article discussion - to figure that bit out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re protocool, if reasons for reversion are given that are confused or invalid or non-existent, without follow-up discussion, then re-insertion of the material is quite within order, and is usual practice elsewhere on wikipedia. The onus is on the people who are not disucssing the changes to justify themselves.

Now, that aside, as you say, where does my material state that the murders started in 1888? (And what is the relevance, unless Fred Best is the murderer, which I don't think anyone is suggesting?)--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Without baseball-batting your logic, I will point out that you are quite simply incorrect in your assumptions, Michael. When you are reverted, it is you who needs to come here and make an argument for inclusion. Not us. You need to convince us that the info is worthy of insertion. I am sorry you disagree with the unfairness of it all, but that is the way it functions.

Additionally, your edit contends that the murders atarted in 1888. It was reverted partially because of that contention. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you confuse my edits with an IP who inserted 1888 into the article. If not, please explictly show me where the Fred Best/Dear Boss material contains a reference to 1888.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd actually looked at the article after your reverted it (as you clearly didn't, thus a textbook example of a "blind revert") you'd see that your edit did add back that start date of 1888 to the infobox code at the top of the page from the IP who added it and I reverted. And, frankly, "if reasons for reversion are given that are confused or invalid or non-existent, without follow-up discussion, then re-insertion of the material is quite within order, and is usual practice elsewhere on wikipedia" is just absolute nonsense, as the reasons were not confused or invalid and there was a follow-up discussion. That's not how things work here at all. You'd need to get other editors to agree with you, both that the reasons to revert you were invalid and that your version was good. You did neither. If you keep it up you will be blocked for edit warring. DreamGuy (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did spot the accompanying changes (which are in line with the mainstream views about 1888), but even so that can hardly be a justification for reverting out my material. Why not add a question mark to 1888 if that is so important to you? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So you did spot it and changed it anyway, and then when someone called you on it here you claimed you didn't know what they were talking about? Right. I think that'd be even worse than simply just missing it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not change it. Saw in passing and didn't think any more of it since it is the mainstream view. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that Tom Bullen is identified as a potential author of the letter in the next paragraph (see footnote 52). DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that. Perhaps the article should be more explicit about it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On top of the undue weight problems, etc. in the info Michael wants added, the wording of it is very POV. He tries to outright claim that the police didn't identify the author, but some of the police at the time did say that they had identified the author. Saying they didn't would be outright saying they were wrong, which is POV-pushing. The new text also basically outright endorses Cook's claims, when they have not been accepted by the rest of the field yet. We can't just present every new theory that comes along as if it solved something... especially considering Cook's poor track record in accuracy. The claims he made about Tumblety in a previous book (the one arguing the James Bond's "M" character was based upon a real police figure who caught Tumblety in France and was forced to let him go) have been shown to be inaccurate by later research, for example. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeated the claim that the police didn't identify the letter writer from a source linked from the article. Now if that is false, then it shouldn't be too hard to modify the material. As for Cook, perhaps he isn't reliable (most Jack the Ripper experts don't seem to be, alas), but the letter he claims to have unearthed was displayed on screen , complete, in the documentary that I cited, so we can check his interpretation of the letter against the letter itself.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a letter exists, but to say it's notable or that it means that the highly speculative conclusion Cook makes is correct would be reckless and POV-pushing. On top of that, the claim that it was Best who wrote the Dear Boss letter based upon supposed similarities in handwriting is rather absurd considering that the supposed "handwriting expert" is not trained in comparing forensic handwriting analysis but graphology, a known pseudoscience... a simple look at the documents in question show that a number of letters do not match and the ones that seem to only do so within the same level of lots of other Victorian era writers. There's pretty much nothing new to Cook's research except for some very minor things that don't rate mention in an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Being screened on a TV documentary sort of does make it notable. My edits did not mention graphology; so that's a red-herring. The significance of Fred Best, and the relevance to the Dear Boss letter, is that he is named in the letter. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Royal society for the protection of this page

Given the lastest batch of naugtyness I susgest a protection for this page.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Location of the graffito

Most sources say the Goulston Street graffito was found on the wall, not the door jamb. This was recently changed in the article to only mention the door jamb. When I tried to fix this it was reverted with the claim that that's all the source supported and that another source would be required to give any other option. I just looked up the book actually cited, and it clearly says "the exact location of the writing has been the subject of some contention", which in itself supports the fact that alternate locations have been given. The writer (I'd say writers, but Keith is mostly just a researcher who doesn't do the writing end of things, so the bulk of the content is Stewart's) concludes that it was on the door jamb, but that's not an established fact but his educated opinion. Considering most other sources say otherwise we should remain neutral on that controversy. And the fact that I personally lean toward believing Stewart is right doesn't mean that I think Wikipedia should pick a side. DreamGuy (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then use what the source says and put "The location of the Grafiti remains a controversy".Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I was hasty in removing "on the wall". This appears to come from Constable Halse's inquest testimony which is reported at casebook as saying the writing was on the dado. This contradicts Arnold's report that says it was at shoulder height and Warren's report which says it was on the brickwork jamb. Note that both suggested locations are "on the wall", as both the jamb and the dado were (and indeed are, in some sense, as the doorway still exists) made of black-painted brick. I don't mind giving both equal time, but would prefer to say either that the brick jamb is the location favoured by Ripperologists or use some ambiguous phrase which covers both eventualities such as "on the wall by the entranceway". DrKiernan (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can factually say a particular location is favored by Ripperologists as a whole. There are conflicting reports from police, not just the position but also the height off the ground and so forth. different books say different things and nobody really knows. It is not for us to interpret what the facts were based upon our reading. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Final paragraph of "Canonical five"

The final paragraph of the "Canonical five" section claims that each murder was different in some way, but then goes on to explain that the difference with Eddowes, that it was in the City rather than the metropolis, isn't really a difference, since it was only one street away from the metropolis. It then says that the difference for Chapman was that it was getting light, but in fact it was dark. So, the reader is told that the five are all different in some way but then the evidence presented in support of this contention is contradicted. For Nichols, it says that unlike the others she was killed in the open street, but they were all killed in the open except for Kelly.

If the objection to its removal is that the wording "in a secluded but public site" does not apply to Nichols or Kelly, then I suggest we revert back to my version, but with "generally" and "in a secluded but public site" removed. So, the final two paragraphs would become something like:

The "canonical five" murders were perpetrated at night, on or close to a weekend, and either at the end of a month or a week or so after. Except Stride, whose attack may have been interrupted, the mutilations became increasingly severe as the series of murders proceeded. Nichols was not missing any organs; Chapman's uterus was taken; Eddowes had her uterus and a kidney removed and her face mutilated; Kelly's body was eviscerated and her face hacked away, though only her heart was missing from the crime scene. DrKiernan (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your objections to the wording were not entirely accurate... open street is different from alley or backyard with no foot traffic, etc. "The "canonical five" murders were perpetrated at night, on or close to a weekend, and either at the end of a month or a week or so after." is accurate but, really, one you have all that hedge room in there with "close" to a weekend and so forth it's entirely meaningless. DreamGuy (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of John Gill

John Gill, a seven-year-old boy was found murdered in Manningham, Bradford, on 29 December 1888. His legs had been severed, his abdomen opened, his intestines drawn out, and his heart and one ear removed. The similarities with the murder of Mary Kelly led to press speculation that the Ripper had killed the boy. The boy's employer, milkman William Barrett, was twice arrested for Gill's murder but released for insufficient evidence. No-one else was ever prosecuted.^[1]

I've been considering whether or not to add the above paragraph to the "Other alleged victims" section. Any comments? DrKiernan (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone allege as such? Parrot of Doom 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The press speculation is mentioned by Evans and Skinner in the reference at the end of the paragraph. See transcripts of these reports here: [6][7] You can also find press cuttings with the opposing view: [8][9]. George Bagster Phillips was called to Bradford to examine the body, which he did on Wednesday 2 January 1889. Afterwards he announced to the press "his conviction that the Bradford murder had no connexion whatever with the series of fiendish crimes which have recently occurred in the East-end of London" (Times, 4 January 1889).

I do not especially mind if the paragraph is removed; I only added it for comprehensiveness. Nor do I mind if the opinion of Phillips and the other newspapers is added in some way, providing the paragraph is not too long. DrKiernan (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that only where official allegations have been made would the inclusion of those cases in that section be warranted. Newspaper speculation, is, as it has always been, mostly baseless. Parrot of Doom 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Jack the Ripper" is newspaper speculation. DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in any realistic sense. Police, historians, profilers and p[retty much any expert you would want to reference all say there was a killer who killed a significant number of these women and who is now referred to as "Jack the Ripper" out of convenience and not knowing his real name. The idea that it was all a press invention is nonsense. DreamGuy (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If we listed every potentially linked victim some newspaper reporter or author tried to link to the Ripper the list would be, no exaggeration, at least 30 times as long. We can only have the notable ones. DreamGuy (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Victims

Couldn't we add a question mark and put 5+? rather than eliminating the figure entirely as I see has just been done. The question mark would indicate the uncertainty there is in between the different estimates of those who have studied the subject. We are not dealing with questions of absolute truth here, but probabilities. Colin4C (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that. DrKiernan (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Have inserted "5+?" as victim figure. Colin4C (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GAN

I just noticed this article has been nominated for GAN. Me and User:Malleus Fatuorum were considering working on this article next, after we've finished wife selling (not in real life!) We have a fairly good track record for improving articles in short time, including Gunpowder Plot for instance.

Would you be prepared to hold off on the GAN, bearing this in mind? Inside a month or so of starting, this article could be at FAC, bypassing GAN completely. Parrot of Doom 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you wish to speed up the GAN, then please review the article, and fail it if necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to advise would-be instant improvers (if they are made of strong stuff...) to take a deep breath and look at some the Talk page archive...(don't try to read all of it if you value your sanity...). Colin4C (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the article may not be stable upon review. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The stability criterion only applies to changes as a result of an edit war or content dispute. DrKiernan (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok that's fair enough. This seems like a fairly busy page, I just didn't want to piss on anyone's chips :) Parrot of Doom 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you are "pissing on someone's chips". I would consider opposing any FAC nomination on procedural grounds.

Since I first edited this page in September 2008, the number of footnotes has risen from 42 to 134. Many of these footnotes include two or three references from different expert sources. The editors here have worked diligently to correct errors, argue for balance, work on the prose, and ensure that all the figures are public domain and have alt text. With time, I hoped this article would join the other Ripper -related articles I have shepherded through FAC.

By announcing that you're going to work towards FA on the talk page, you have satisfied the letter of the law with regard to "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." However, I would still consider opposing because swooping in on an improved article, dressing it up, and palming it off as your own work is not in the spirit of the FA-process, nor of collaborative editing. DrKiernan (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So you'd oppose an improved article on the basis that someone else might consider it their own work, and not actually because the article might be improved? That doesn't sound very constructive to me, but I suppose if that is your attitude, its public record now. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep this about the page please. My doubt about this page achiveing GAN (or any other character from Blakes 7) is the amount of random vandalism that keeps croping up. This page is far from stable.Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lost interest. I'll work somewhere where my contributions are welcome. Plenty of other articles to work on, where I won't have to deal with attitudes. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that I had said your views are not welcome, and if I have given that imprresion I appoligise. I just think that ther would be a lot of work involved in getting this page into anything lke a GA state. Not becasue of any inherant weakness in the page (or the editors) but becasue its a target for the LOL, thats funny crowd. You would forever be reverting "Jack the kipper was my auntie" type comments. I thought that you shoulod be made aware that this will be rathere more work then Nick Griffin.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you Steven so I'm sorry if it appears I was. It was actually the comment above, to which I was referring. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't shy away from a big task, but if I'm to encounter entrenched attitudes like those that DrKiernan appears to hold, I'll not bother. I do this to learn, not to fight about pointless things like ownership. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose improvements. If you want to help improve the article, then fine, but do it in concert with the other editors of the page. You can still review the article or work slowly with others here to achieve a balance acceptable to all parties working on the topic. I suggest if someone here wishes to nominate the article, then we should have an "open co-nomination", so that anyone who has worked on the article can choose to add their name to the list of nominators.

However, if you do return, please avoid words like "piss", "arsed" and "Fuck". They are not conducive to collaborative editing and contribute to an uncivil environment, making dispute resolution and agreement on the page more difficult. DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame really that you treated PoD and MF like this. The article needs serious work, for example some of the English and syntax is atrocious (e.g. two of the sentences in the lede are run-on and very awkward). You've just run off two of the best (copy)editors around. Aah well, an interesting article is going to suffer because of it. I hope you realise that there's more to article writing than adding references, it's a shame you can't see that. You won't have to worry though, you're safe. I could smell the dog piss as soon as I came in here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll use whatever language I feel is appropriate, thanks. Parrot of Doom 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan, what you have voiced is an unambiguous (and apparently unapologetic) breach of WP:OWN. This is not your article and it's completely inappropriate to treat it as such. Parrot of Doom, my apologies for the accusations. Please feel free to edit as you see fit knowing there are editors on this article that will respect your contributions. Padillah (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish you guys good luck with this. There's been so much published about Jack the Ripper that it's difficult to get the balance between fact and fiction right. I'm saddened that Parrot of Doom's offer was interpreted as an attempt to swoop in on an improved article, dress it up, and palm it off as our own work, but so be it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about attempts to improve this article that always ends in acrimony. Can I just say that I appreciate the work that DrK has been doing to improve the referencing of this article; and can I say that (in my experience) neither PoD or MF have a record of taking 'drive by' credit. My personal experience with this article is that the more experienced hands involved the better. I just hope that someone will finally move the article forward. It is one of the most highly traffic'd articles under wikiproject London - and an embarrassment that it never got to GA status, let alone FA. Good luck with your efforts, and if I can help, I will try. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is one of the best Wikipedia articles that I've read. With respect to the Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria, I find the article to be very well written, to have extensive citations, and to be very comprehensive (broad), while appropriately summarizing details and giving references to sources of further information. That is, in my opinion, this article qualifies for good article status.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We do our best...often in trying circumstances...And just to say that I agree with KB's view that Dr K is one of the more constructive editors here. Everybody who has contributed to this article in the last few years knows who the real self-approved "owner" is. Colin4C (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all know how much you and your buddy like to complain about ownership issues while at the same time denying any and all changes you disagree with and also insulting the work of all published authors on the topic, so that bit of bitterness is sure misplaced here. DreamGuy (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As MF and PoD aren't going to help on the article, then I think we should nominate it for FAC. It probably won't succeed, but it would give some pointers for further improvement, and we've already sent it through peer review and GAN. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points of confusion

I have done some copyediting to the article (sorry about losing a digit from 1,200 to make it 200 - it happened in a cut and paste) but have been defeated by a couple of sentences in the “Criminal profiling” section:

“After the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843 on the grounds of criminal insanity, physicians were increasingly involved in determining the mental state of defendants, as well as the investigation.”

What does “as well as the investigation” refer to?

"Psychologists accept these proposals as "thoughtful and intelligent", and suppose that the penetration of the victims with a knife and "leaving them on display in sexually degrading positions with the wounds exposed" indicates that the perpetrator derived sexual pleasure from the attacks."

Which psychologists? That’s a very sweeping statement and I’m sure not every psychologist would refer to them that way.

"Non-psychologists, however, often dismiss such hypotheses as insupportable supposition."

Again, a very sweeping statement that needs to be more precise – by definition, most of the people in the world are non-psychologists

"There is no evidence of any sexual activity with any the victims. Comparisons with the motives and actions of modern-day serial killers have led to suggestions that the Ripper could have been a deranged schizophrenic, like the "Yorkshire Ripper" Peter Sutcliffe, who heard voices instructing him to attack prostitutes."

It's not clear whether the sentence about “no sexual activity” is supposed to qualify the preceding sentence or the one after it. Richerman (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "After the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843 on the grounds of criminal insanity, physicians were increasingly involved in both determining the mental state of defendants and in the initial investigation." clearer?

The first quote is from David Canter. The second quote is from Robert D. Keppel's paper (co-written with three others). The other source cited in this sentence is Richard von Krafft-Ebing. The references are given at the end of the quotes/sentence.

The sources that find offender profiling dubious are Evans, Rumbelow, Woods and Baddeley.

The preceding one. DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what it's supposed to mean now, but the sentence doesn't make it clear what involvement they had in the investigation. The next sentence says that by the time of the Ripper murders they were involved in criminal profiling but that was forty odd years later - what were they doing in the 1840s and 50s? Also, I would say the sentence was back to front and that it should say that they were involved in both the inital investigation and in determining the mental state of defendants. The other way round is a bit like putting the cart before the horse as you have an investigation followed by a prosecution.

As for the second point, it should read "Non-psychologists, however, often dismiss such hypotheses as insupportable supposition as there is no evidence of any sexual activity with any the victims". with the references inserted at appropriate points in the sentence. I still don't like the term "non-psychologists" though - how about "some investigators" or something similar? Richerman (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think the first two sentences in the section can probably just be cut, can't they? So, we start off with "At the end of October, etc." That would then link the paragraph nicely with the end of the previous one that talks about the butchers and so on.

There's a problem with linking the lack of sexual activity too strongly with the preceding sentence as the "psychologists" also acknowledge that there was no evidence of sexual activity as such. It is their inference from Freudian interpretations of the knife, etc. The people who dismiss offender profiles do so because they think that profiling is too speculative. What about changing the part "Psychologists accept...any of the victims" to While there is no evidence of any sexual activity with any the victims,^[2]^[3] psychologists suppose that the penetration of the victims with a knife and "leaving them on display in sexually degrading positions with the wounds exposed" indicates that the perpetrator derived sexual pleasure from the attacks.^[2]^[4] This view is challenged by others who dismiss such hypotheses as insupportable supposition.^[5] DrKiernan (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got called away to have my tea :) Yes, I think both of those are good suggestions. Richerman (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've changed that now - just one other thing: Is there any reason why the citation in the following sentence couldn't be at the end? It's position just before a wikilink breaks up the sentence and make it hard to follow:

"Jack the Ripper features in hundreds of works of fiction and works which straddle the boundaries between both fact and fiction, including the Ripper letters and a hoax[127] Diary of Jack the Ripper." Richerman (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "readability" is a strong argument for moving it. The cite was placed there originally to support the use of the word "forged" or "hoax" in relation to the diary, but I think the possibility of anyone challenging that word now is very remote. DrKiernan (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why the cite has to go directly after the word "hoax" - if it goes after "hoax diary of Jack the Ripper" it still supports the concept that the diary is a hoax, so I'll move it. Richerman (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Emily Horsnail

A suspected victim of Jack the Ripper, the only claim to fame of the article is the connection to this one. Classic case of a merge. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose merging of material found only on internet forums. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested the merge only because I didn't think the original was notable on its own. If you're saying that the original doesn't share a real connection to the main, then would you support a delete? If so, I would invite you to AfD the article, or if enough people express the same idea I might do that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I've nominated it for a speedy delete. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Third quarter

Is this really correct? I understand the concerns over "late" and "autumn", but the killer was also, presumably, active in November when he killed Kelly, and Smith was attacked (admittedly by someone else) in April. In the second paragraph of the lead, the timespan of the terror is narrowed to "September and October 1888", so is it necessary to repeat the timespan in the first paragraph? Can we just use "1888" on its own in the first sentence? DrKiernan (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you picked up on this DrKiernan, I had the same feeling when I looked at it - also, "third quarter" has a modern business-speak feeling to it which seems a little out of place here. I think we should just say 1888 (linked as well!) as also there is at least some doubt about the canonical/non-canonical Ripper deaths in terms of how they spread beyond the Autumn of that year. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the Yorkshire Ripper

An excellent article. I only have one suggestion. It's mentioned that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes. We only have Sutcliffe's word for this, being part of plea that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found him guilty of murder so should this not be amended from an apparent fact (he heard voices) to a claim (he later claimed he had heard voices)? 83.244.221.116 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it should say, "he later claimed to hear voices". Would you like to make the change yourself? If so, have at it! --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole part needs to be rewritten, honestly. We can't say that someone compares the Ripper to a schizophrenic and use an example of someone who is arguably not even schizophrenic at all. On top of that, most serial killers are psychopathic instead of schizophrenic, and a number of sources say the Ripper was also. Marriott's not a good source for this sort of thing. Let the psychologists and profilers be the sources for that end of things. DreamGuy (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Miller's vs. Millers

I'm am 99.9999% certain that there was no apostrophe s in Millers Court. Obviously, this is now a debated issue in the article. There are a number of websites from the US that use the apostrophe. There are a number of UK websites that don't. There are some in the UK that use it. I'm inclined to believe the more reputable groups who don't. As far as one editor's comment in the edit summary that a London cop would know the name...well, just because they *say* the name of a street/walkway, that doesn't mean they know how to *spell it*. Anyone else? Comments? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was of course refering to the fact that the new source was the Metropolitan police, I suspect its resonable to assume they know how to spell the streets they police.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a reasonable assumption. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your saying that the police do not know how to spell the street name of a major murder? Your saying that they are not RS for a street name. May I ask what would be?Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the London Police of today weren't the ones who investigated the crimes (neither were those who edited the website) and Millers Court no longer exists, so your argument here falls pretty flat. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They have access to the origonal files (the Coroners report lists it as Millers Court for example).Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Yes, of course they have the "origonal" (sic) files. I sincerely doubt they pulled those files out of mothballs (or whatever museum they are now in) in order to build a website. Your argument is still falling flat, here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know this or is this just an assumption? If you cannot prove this then this is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you are 100% certain. The reliable sources say that it's with an apostrophe. Verifiability over truth here I'm afraid. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Verifiability over truth" - no kidding. There are many websites that verify the apostrophe wasn't used; exactly my point... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "websites", I said "reliable sources". So far you haven't presented any that support your assertion. Just your original research of having seen a sign. Where is the sign given that the court no longer exists? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It was in a London museum. But that's neither here nor there - stating I had seen it was really more of a humorous comment; I was not suggesting that having seen it makes it verifiable according to Wikipedia standards. The fact is that if you do a web search on Millers Court, you come up with a number of historical, reliable UK websites that support the no-apostrophe spelling. And that gives reasonable doubt that those references using the apostrophe are correct. I do believe that the apostrophe doesn't belong, but I'm not interested in whether or not I'm right. The issue I see here is that there are references on both sides and the challenge will be finding out which one is the correct spelling as of 1888. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets add to the confusion the Penny illustrated paper reporting on her death calls it Miller-Court. However the following sources call it Miller’s Court Jack the Ripper: summing up and verdict, The complete Jack the Ripper, The Lodger, Jack the Ripper: the 21st century investigation, and Jack the Ripper: letters from hell. The only source I have (there are still a couple I have not checked) that calls it Millers Court is Jack the Ripper: A Psychic Investigation, and I think we can all judge how reliable that would be.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Whitechapel Society is a historical group. Their usage of the name does not include the apostrophe. I consider them reliable. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well here the The Whitechapel Society (or at least the person writing this article calls it Miller’s court) [[10]] Here however they call it millers court [[11]], this does not install me with confidence that they check their facts.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What the Times of 10 November 1888 has to say, Miller's Court. Problom is that it would seem that it was not a formal street at this time (after all the Times says that the murder was at 26 Dorset street and that Miller's Court was a seperate part of that address).Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<shrug> The fact remains that there is more than one reference online that doesn't use the apostrophe. Whether *you personally* give the controllers/editors of any of those websites your personal stamp of approval doesn't matter. The Whitechapel Society is a historical group, just because you found a typo doesn't mean that what they put on their website isnt reliable or verifiable. In fact, I just heard back from the website's editor regarding the use or non-use of the apostrophe. His take on "Millers" is the same as mine (the sign over the entrance to the alleyway, indeed, did not use the apostrophe); he refers to using the apostrophe and not using it in contemporary sources and writings to be a "vexed subject". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When was the sign made?Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that we all have a life, and that time is precious? It's an apostrophe folks, in the scheme of things it's unimportant. Just be grateful that it's not being used as a Greengrocer's apostrophe and as such we can move on to things far more important... like getting the wheelie bin out for tomorrow's collection. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that anyone here has I life. I know I do, but everyone else who contributes to this article...? I would never presume to know.

Now, as far as the apostrophe is concerned - this *is* an encyclopedia after all, and encyclopedias are supposed to contain accurate information. If it's more accurate that the apostrophe not be there based on how Millers/Miller's was spelled in 1888 on the street sign, I say the article should reflect that. Again, the issue is: there are conflicting "verfiable" references out there. I don't think this needs an actual consensus vote, but it would be interesting to see what anyone else who contributes to the article has to say based on facts (and, of course, *how* they say it and why ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So far you have produced one source that contradicts itself, a piece of OR (I have seen the sign, whos provenance we do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that we are NEVER going to know for sure, so ultimately it comes down to numbers. The number of reliable sources that state the apostrophe vs the number of reliable sources that state no apostrophe. At the moment the apostrophe is winning. And that folks is all that is going to decide this. You can edit war as much as you like, you can whinge as much as you like but there is never going to be a definitive answer. So hands up all those who think that an unwinnable argument is the best way of spending your time? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actualy there might be, a map from the period (or within say 10 years). It will take work though, and at the moment the bulk of sources seem to say Miller's.Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I rarely use the word "never" (especially when there are internet archives in play). That being said, I really don't think you can possibly know for a fact whether we will ever know or not. Surely the information's out there somewhere, it just isn't easily accessible on the internet. What's more, I don't see it as one side is winning over another, after doing considerable net-searching, I see that it's pretty much even. But I'm not going to bother any further on this (at least today) and am certainly not interested in turning this into an argument. As far as edit warring and "whinge[ing]" (sic), no one's doing either. But, more importantly, let's keep comments on the edits and not degenerate into making comments and judgements about editors, okay? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A map of that era would only show what the cartographer would think it was. Spelling errors were very common in those days. After years of genealogy I can attest to that many times over unfortunately. Unless the document from the local town hall can be found with the official name on it then we're stuffed. Unless of course we can find out the provenance of the court and whether it was named after one miller (or Mr Miller) or after several. What was the court's original purpose? Was it home to a load of bakeries where everyone got their flour/bread? Or was it the gaff of a local 'gangsta' called Miller? So who wants to do the hours of research just to find out about this damn apostrophe? It's not as if it's that important to the flow of the prose. Also it's time to own up, who here is a member of the Apostrophe Protection Society? Come on now, cards on the table? ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How fascinating, that grown men (no women methinks) can spend hours and days arguing over an apostrophe. Ah well, keeps them off the streets. Incidentally, Slatersteven, I don't know how to raise this delicately, but you claim to be a college graduate, yet your spelling is, well, not quite orthopraxic: how so? PiCo (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I faied to graduate from Hogworts, hence the bad spelling. By the way I don't claim to be a college Grad, just eductated to that level (C&G).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you forget to make a constructive comment for the good of the article or was the purpose of your addition to the discussion just to lob personal attacks, lack of good faith, and incivility, PiCo? If it's the former, I invite you now to contribute something constructive about editing the article. If it's the latter, kindly keep it to yourself. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Gave me an excuse for a crap joke.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The court was, in fact, named after a man named Miller, not after millers in general. I believe it was discovered by researcher Adrian Phypers originally, but I don't recall which article he first published that in. I believe a couple of books have since published this as well, probably the ones focusing specifically on the locations, but I'd have to double check.

Names for streets, people, etc. for this era generally have show variations in spellings, which we find for names of victims, suspects and so forth in this case. But Miller's is both the most common and the one most accurate to the original source of the name, so it's good that's what we use in the article.

Being pedantic has its place, being being pedantic about something that's not correct is not a good thing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you know this to be so, it would be nice to see a reference you could cite to match up to this claim. So far, my contacts at the Whitechapel Society have not been able to find such a reference. Further, amongst those who are members and resident historians in that group, there are some who hold your position and those who don't with (from what I am being told) the "don'ts" being the majority. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? I am a member of the Whitechapel Society. Let me go down the list of published authors in that group who are known as the experts on the locations in the East End so we can see what they have to say about it. Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson use "Miller's Court" in their book, The London of Jack the Ripper: Then and Now. I unfortunately do not have a copy of John Bennett's book E1: A Journey Through Whitechapel and Spitalfields to see if he weighs in on the spelling (I'll get it eventually, just dropped the ball on it, which is especially embarrassing as he's a friend of mine). Fiona Rule (don't recall if she joined the society after she was a guest speaker) in her book The Worst Street in London also calls it Miller's Court and does specifically refer to the John Miller who originally owned the properties in that court and lent his name to it. You can read about it in her book on page 51. Now if you have contacted other members of the society who honestly think it is "Millers" you can tell them to read Fiona's book or track down Phyper's old articles. Or if you give me their names I can pass it along. DreamGuy (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really! ;-) Obviously you're one of those who don't fit into the other, "Millers" category. But...I am glad to finally have a good reference that proves it is Miller's and not Millers. Thanks for your input! Oh, and as far as giving names...my communication was through private email and I don't feel comfortable giving that info out. But I will be more than happy to pass the information above along to them. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The members of the society all have their own niche areas of interest so it wouldn't surprise me that some of them didn't know this. DreamGuy (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to add that Adrian Phypers was a researcher of great ability and high reputation. While I haven't seen the article DG refers to, I have no doubt that if Adrian wrote it, the research behind it was solid.Revmagpie (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Whitechapel a "slum"?

Would like to get some opinion about whether or not the current text should stay (largely impoverished districts) or should be changed to "slums" (as another editor is insisting on the grounds of "accuracy"). I believe "slums" is too strong a word as impoverished areas of cities aren't always considered slums. If "slum" is used, however, its seems that a reference should be provided for verifiability that the area was, indeed, considered a slum in 1888.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This Time magazine article here is probably the most respected source to use. A Google of "Whitechapel slums" shows this term to be all over the web, and I've certainly heard it many times before. Hope this helps :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Impoverished district" sounds like a euphemism for "slum." Is there any difference - is it possible for a slum not to be impoverished, or an impoverished urban area not to be a slum? To my eyes, the avoidance of the word "slum" looks an attempt to avoid 19th century reality. PiCo (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was good enough for Charles Dickens who had a tendency to describe London in detail and didn't pull any punches. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. "Playwright George Bernard Shaw once remarked that Jack the Ripper did more than any social reformer to draw attention to the intolerable conditions of Whitechapel's slums." I can't find the Shaw quote yet, but Time Magazine did. It was called a slum then, and it should be called a slum now (and it has existed in this way for some time on this article). Modern-day "shanty-towns" in impoverished developing nations that are now considered "slums" weren't what Whitechapel was then; who are we to re-write history? "Slumming it" before "slumming" was fashionable... Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Shaw quote is used in Whitechapel murders#Legacy

Annie Chapman was murdered at the back of a house like this one

I would say that there were slums in Whitechapel, but that Whitechapel was not a slum. The buildings in Goulston Street for example were "Model dwellings", and the quality of those buildings is one reason they have survived and the lodging houses have not. So, the victims were slum-dwellers but were they killed in slums? Not so sure. Mitre Square doesn't look like one, and Hanbury Street is marked as "Fairly comfortable. Good ordinary earnings." on Booth's map of poverty. Indeed the houses on the other side of the steet still exist (see picture). I don't think I would characterise Dutfield's Yard and Buck's Row as slums either. So, I'm not convinced that the area in which the killer was active was a slum, and prefer the more cautious wording. DrKiernan (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the entire Whitechapel district was a slum. My mistake, and we all agree that there were slums in Whitechapel... Doc9871 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition of slum here is "Densely populated area of substandard housing, usually in a city, characterized by unsanitary conditions and social disorganization. Rapid industrialization in 19th-century Europe was accompanied by rapid population growth and the concentration of working-class people in overcrowded, poorly built housing..." That seems to sum up the area where the prostitutes operated perfectly to me but, as already said, it wasn't all a slum Richerman (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The article uses the phrase "...the largely impoverished districts in and around Whitechapel..." Changing that to "the slums in and around Whitechapel" won't say that all Whitechapel was a slum. (Whether the murders took place in the "largely impoverished" bits I don't know, but I suspect they did).PiCo (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggested at the review that there should be some revision of the background para; and you can see a contemporary (1889) picture of Whitechapel here (Booth map at bottom of page). I suggested that if we can find one, we include a 'free' version of the Booth map. You'll note that many of the larger streets remain inhabited by 'middle-class and well to do families'. It is the courts, alleys and smaller backstreets that can be characterised as 'overcrowded', 'lower class' and 'semi-criminal' - basically people living close to the breadline. The evidence suggests that Whitechapel was a very mixed community - with the 'worst poor', the 'working poor' and a middle class that set up the vigilance committee; living in close proximity. You can also take a look at Old Nichol Street Rookery for contemporary conditions at the north end of Brick Lane. The problem is that the poor occupied the older houses, never built for multiple occupation; or with the supporting infrastructure like water and sewage.

There were a number of reasons for the overcrowding, including the building of central London railway stations, the docks and road building displacing people into the East End. This combined with massive Jewish immigration from eastern Europe. The census details (from A Vision of Britain) is mixed, and I suspect under-reported. It gives a 1901 population (for the civil parish of St Mary) of 32,564 - and 1891 of about 30,000. I suspect the enumerators were not as diligent as the Booth investigators at getting in amongst the criminal classes. Bill Fishman East End 1888 is a good resource for social conditions in the district. Overall, it was a district that contained slums, but was not wholly slums ...

The problem is to provide sufficient flavour of the situation without overloading the article with extraneous detail. Kbthompson (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on two maps of the same area in one article. I think it should be one or the other (or a combined one). DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I've uploaded a Booth map, but it has an ugly black line across it. DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why the change should have been made from "slum" to "largely impoverished". "...active in the largely impoverished districts in and around Whitechapel, London, in 1888" doesn't change the fact that they were slums; and please note the "in and around Whitechapel". The change doesn't refute any characterization of Whitechapel as a slum (since the district wasn't called an outright slum to begin with). To call the slums in Whitechapel by any other name smacks of "political correctness". Doc9871 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about keeping "largely impoverished" but saying "women prostitutes from the slums" in the next paragraph? DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a little better than avoiding the term outright. We know what the word "slum" means because of historical usage, and Whitechapel had slums, however "ugly" the term may sound today. I still think "largely impoverished" is "dressing it up", but whatever. C'est la vie, non? Doc9871 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're confused on the timeline of the edits, here Doc. "largely impoverished" has been there for some time, another editor changed it to "slum" yesterday. Having been to the area a number of times, seeing the architecture and having learned a little about the demographics there in 1888, I concur that the entire Whitechapel area was not a slum. Glad someone came up with the map - that proves it wasn't. The problem with the Time article you cited is that it is an American publication, not a UK one and wouldn't necessarily give the correct perspective contemporarily or historically. The proposed change by DrKiernan above is a good one and should make happy the editor who wanted to change it to across the board to "slums". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing I think is to realize that the entire Whitchapel district was not a slum, and the map is very cool indeed. That being said, there are plenty of modern-day UK sources that use the term "the slums of Whitechapel" (1, 2), and this contemporary account (an American newspaper but from a London correspondent) doesn't paint a very pretty picture of the slum areas of Whitechapel. I think DrKiernan's proposal is fine... Doc9871 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoax diary

Really? OK. I think most people know the Ripper Diary is a hoax, but to say that it is outright is violation of WP:NPOV. Like it or not, there are still reliable sources who say otherwise, and unfortunately one of its supporters is Dr. David Canter. Of course there's the publication of the diary itself and the book about the book, The Ripper Diary and a smattering of others. At best we can say it is "widely considered a hoax", which at least even the people who think it is real would have to admit is true. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You were the one that wrote "hoax": [12]. If you wish to alter the wording then you will need to provide a source and balance it against the others. I suggest discussing any alteration on talk before any changes. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I added "hoaxed" as a more accurate term than the term "forged", but both terms violate NPOV. And please don't play this game where you think you are allowed to make changes all you want but that any one else has to get approval first game that seems so popular here. I do not need to provide a source to reword a POV-pushing claim when the hoax wording is the one trying to make a statement of fact for which you do not provide adequate sources proving any such thing. For crying out loud, do you not understand even the basics behind WP:NPOV, WP:OWN and so forth? DreamGuy (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Legacy section

This section seems to be suffering bloat, with lots of new thoughts tossed in, many of which repeat earlier thoughts. For example, we already discussed his appearance in fiction, so why then later say again that he's in a lot of fiction? And, wow, the sources here are really missing the boat. Some guy in an essay in a book is claiming that it wasn't until the 1960s that the Ripper was depicted as wearing a top hat? Seriously? That was already happening here and there in 1888, and there are journals and books aplenty documenting it. It's also odd that the guy was comparing him to Dracula and Dr. Frankenstein when the much more pertinent figures of Mr. Hyde and werewolves/vampires were already being compared also in 1888. A theatrical production of Dr. Jekyll and Hyde was even playing in London at the time.

But, really, there has to be rhyme and reason to what's discussed there, and when they are mentioned it should be the best of the best, not just whichever ones get picked at random. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'm noticing a disturbing trend with the sources in this article. Some very general works by people not considered among the more authoritative authors on the topic spreading throughout the article. They are being added as sources for items for which we already have authoritative sources. They had been cited as sources to try to present their own mere opinions as facts. And, on top of that, sources that are widely considered more authoritative are either downplayed or absent.

Cook, Marriott, Eddleston, Rivett & Whitehead and Woods & Baddeley are not generally considered as authoritative sources. Some of those are worse than others. Woods & Baddeley seem way overrepresented for their reputation in the field, even after I've removed a bunch of references already because they were for very odd things.

We do have a fair number of references to Begg, Evans and Rumbelow, which is good. Sugden is widely considered the gold standard reference work and is almost criminally underrepresented as a source here. Odell was not mentioned at all until I just added him back (he used to be there more in the past). Fido appears underrepresented, especially when considering that he, Begg and Skinner wrote the main encyclopedia on the topic. Those are the famous, most well respected authors of the field, along with some others.

It also seems odd that Richard Jones added a link to his own website in external links, which some people edit warred to keep over the obvious self-promotional problems, but then we don't reference either of his books for anything, and those are actually pretty decent.

We're also missing out on a great number of other well respected works on various topics. Rule and Clack/Hutchinson, mentioned above, for example. We could also use a lot more journal articles and academic works.

I hope it's just that some active editors here don't have a very large collection of titles and cite whatever it is they own, but that wouldn't explain why some sources that used to be here disappeared for no apparent reason. DreamGuy (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have blindly deleted masses of referenced material in order to push your POV without obtaining any concensus. Please discuss your reasons on Talk page before making major changes to the article. Colin4C (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You blind reverted every single last edit I made with no explanation other than a spurious claim of POV-pushing. Can you provide any explanation for why you think each and every one of those changes should be summarily undone, or are you just playing your longstanding tactic of mass reverts of everything I do for harassment purposes yet again? It's especially odd when you say I blind reverted when I made edits by hand and explained every last one in my edit comments, while you hit a single button to make it all go away. All you've done is falsely accused me of doing the very action you yourself have very clearly done. DreamGuy (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed Odell [13] because he was being used to cite a statement which I could not find in his book. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you have completely ignored everything I said except my mention of Odell. The Odell book is there as a source for the use of the term "Ripperology", which if you got as far as even just the title of the book you'd see that it is, in fact, a quite excellent source for that. The actual date the term was created is mere trivia that probably doesn't even need to be there, but the Evans source is there for the specifics on that. Originally we had a very contrary editor (Colin4c's frequent blind revert game companion) who insisted that the term was not in use at all and we needed sources to back it up. Indeed the lead focuses more on the term than it's origin.

I also find it peculiar that the edit you point me to goes through and adds a whole lot of links to those poor quality sources I was talking about above in addition to what the edit summary actually mentions. DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Miriam Rivett is a cultural historian at Middlesex University. If you wish to remove references to her work because she is "a poor quality source" then you're going to have to provide more justification than your personal opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

She has not demonstrated any reason to believe she is a good source on *Jack the Ripper*. She's certainly not known as an expert on the topic in any way. Her only writing on the topic has been as a coauthor with another not well known author in the field in a book that made little to no impact on the field as it was intended as a brief overview to readers with no previous knowledge on the case. When citing sources you go for the experts, not the fluff works by outsiders. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, don't you guys ever stop to think what it means when I can answer questions like the Miller's Court versus Millers Court argument above by citing actual expert sources when you two apparently never even heard of any of these sources? Don't you ever stop to consider that having a demonstrated pattern of undoing any and all edits I ever make to the article is pretty much solid proof that you don't care about the quality of this article in the slightest? I mean, if you're adding a huge long list of footnotes to a book written by a person whose qualifications for writing about Jack the Ripper are that he calls himself an expert on occult and magic and who apparently couldn't hire an editor to fix the embarrassing errors throughout, and I'm mentioning books by respected experts in the field who could easily answer questions you ponder on this very page if you'd ever bother to read them. I mean, come on, at least make a half-hearted attempt to pretend to respect what Wikipedia is supposed to be here to accomplish... And if you have a serious interest in the Jack the Ripper case, read some of the well-respected books instead of the dreck that's out there. DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are such an expert about JTR and care about the wikipedia why haven't you improved the Mary Kelly article in all the years you've been here? All you seem to do is delete the hard work of other people. By their fruits ye shall know them...Colin4C (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have improved it... improvement also includes removing garbage content added by other people. I'm sorry that your contributions to Wikipedia in general are less than useful, but you should work to improve your contributions instead of just whining about others editing you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets discuse the page and not the lack of merits of other edds.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And why are you commenting about comments made over two months ago, DreamGuy? If you take issue with the way it was left, start a new section. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I came here for some well-sourced, encyclopedic material on Jack the Ripper from one of the so-called "best articles on Wikipedia" and found a morass of blatant POV assertions, all of which appear to be sourced to works by Cook and Mariott. The slant leant to the article from these bafflingly over-represented works edges on the spurious; an example of just one of dozens of such contributions:

The "Dear Boss" letter, dated 25 September, was postmarked 27 September 1888. It was received that day by the Central News Agency, and was forwarded to Scotland Yard on 29 September.[90] Initially it was considered a hoax, but when Eddowes was found three days after the letter's postmark with one ear partially cut off, the letter's promise to "clip the ladys (sic) ears off" gained attention.[91] However, Eddowes' ear appears to have been nicked by the killer incidentally during his attack, and the letter writer's threat to send the ears to the police was never carried out.[92] The name "Jack the Ripper" was first used in this letter by the signatory and gained worldwide notoriety after its publication.[93] Most of the letters that followed copied this letter's tone.[94] Some sources list another letter, dated 17 September 1888, as the first to use the name of Jack the Ripper, but most experts believe this was a modern fake inserted into police records in the 20th century, long after the killings took place.[95]

Look at this! Where is the balance of sources from all the highly-respected scholars who maintain, with good evidence, that the "Dear Boss" letter is genuine? Where are the other sources backing this claim that nicking the ears was accidental, a weighty assertation in and of itself? Why is this weaseling and misleading claim that subsequent letters "copied" its tone allowed to remain? Why are the multitude of scholars who contend the 17 September 1888 letter is legitimate dismissed anonymously with a single hand wave and reference to a single author?

A high-school essay would provide better balance and scholarly merit, and certainly a broader bibliography. --87.254.77.236 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Emily Ruth Chapman, murdered Saturday November 1, 1888. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.137.28 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you know so much about the subject and the available sources why don't you do something about it. Or is it just easier to criticise? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. There is no "multitude of scholars" who contend the 17 September 1888 is legitimate. There's only a couple of cranks and other people who are not respected at all in the field. Some sources consider the Dear Boss letter real, but, again, the claim that "all the highly-respected scholars who maintain, with good evidence" do so is just wishful thinking. If you claim otherwise, please provide sources to back it up. Of course you can't, because it's not true, and anyone who has read a good range of books on the topic would know that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that Jack The Ripper was real?

I have not actually understood this concept of Jack the ripper, because in the article which i have read it says that it was maybe a hoax given by the journalists. but that would mean Jack the ripper actually never existed. so let us take this concept as a reality. Does that mean the serial killer lives???

The murders are real. The Dear Boss letter is a hoax. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He would be at least 132 (he started young).Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.231.8.248, 16 May 2010

his name is james kelly 71.231.8.248 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is stated and sourced in the article that the perpetrator was unknown. Please provide a reliable source for this claim. Intelligentsium 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

TLC Special

Did anyone else watch this, and notice that they said the physician who examined the victims (Thomas Bond) said the killer must have had extensive anatomical knowledge, while this article says exactly the opposite? Somebody should tell them. Also, the source this article cites on Bond's opinion should be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The world's first delicated Jack The Ripper East End Tour Guide for the iPhone was released in June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the media following films, books etc the huge popularity, especially of overseas visitors to London and guided tours of Whitechapel, has now lead to the creation of the first iPhone App guide to The Ripper locations.

Scullionendean (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there an independent source that says this—that the popularity of the tours lead [sic] to the creation of the app? If not, then reject. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for sale as adspace. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

About the killer, or about the pseudonym?

Is this article about the killer, or about the pseudonym? The current first sentence says

"Jack the Ripper" is the best known pseudonym given to an unidentified serial killer active in the largely impoverished districts in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888.

How about

"Jack the Ripper", also contemporarily called "The Whitechapel Murderer" and "Leather Apron", was an unidentified serial killer active in the largely impoverished districts in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888.

It solves the use–mention problem, shortens the lead by one sentence (by removing the first para's last one) and we then wouldn't have to call JtR "the best known pseudonym" because it's implied from being listed first (and possibly from common knowledge as well). See also Halkett boat, for which I suggested a similar change and another editor made it. --an odd name 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "Jack the Ripper" is an identity or cultural construct rather than an actual person. It is not known for certain that there was a single serial killer responsible for all the murders. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe we address that by noting that its the "best known pseudonym 'given" - not the name used by the killer. As to addressing the possibility of acts by several being attributed to a single individual, we can easily fix that by stating:

"Jack the Ripper" is the best known pseudonym given to an unidentified serial killer (or killers) active in the largely impoverished districts in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888."

This fixes the problem of assumption nicely, I think. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a Pseudonym

"Jack the Ripper" is not an actual pseudonym. It is an appelation or a designation or even just a name. A person choses a pseudonym in order to hide his identity. But the "Jack the Ripper letter" from which the name originates is simply a hoax. The killer himself did not choose the name to hide his own identity. At best one might argue that it is a false pseudonym. In truth it is like the name of a hurricane or that of the Unabomber, an designation given to name a notable entity. If there is no good reason not to the word pseudonym should be changed to designation or some better term. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the logic in that, were it not for the fact that the letters noted in the article have the killer referring to him/herself as 'Jack'. Granted, the Ripper is a given apellation, and the letter might itself be a fanciful hoax, but since we cannot make that determination, we are stuck with it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Would a "pseudonym" and an "alias" be the same in this instance? What about a "nickname"? An editor recently made an interesting point on this on another infamous killer's page... Doc9871 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nickname is too colloquial and American English-specific. Pseudonym works best.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"A pseudonym is a fictitious name used by a person, or sometimes, a group."

Calling 'Jack the Ripper' a 'nickname' may seem too colloquial. But why not accept that it simply is the name by which the "unidentified serial killer or killers active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888" is most commonly known ? The use of the word 'pseudonym' may seem to suggest that the killer actually used that name. A claim for which no evidence exists. 'The Ripper' is, by the way, an epithet. ΑΩ (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, we'll split the difference and use the 'exact nomenclature for the name and rephrase as such:

"Jack the Ripper is the best-known anonym given to an unidentified serial killer or killers active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888."

This avoids the argument about whether the name became cemented in English culture before the letters (irregardless of the validity of such) or after, as it identifies the name precisely for what it is: an anonym. We could argue for hours and hours both sides of the matter, with little in the way of progress despite the obvious. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "anonym" is too obscure, and would prefer "name" if a change is thought necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obscure or not it is the correct nomenclature for the situation. There are articles on WP that use specialist nomenclature that few have ever heard (I'm looking at you String Theory) so I don't feel bad about using this to close the gap between "pseudonym" and "name". Padillah (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If its the correct and we can't agree on owt else then use it. It may be obscure but tehn wiki is supposed to inform.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous edit - Wikipedia is supposed to inform, not confuse. Anonym is an obscure word that most people won't understand and it's been linked to the article anonymity which has no mention of the word. I would suggest that the sentence should read "Jack the Ripper" is the most common name used for an unidentified serial killer or killers active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888." - that is easily understandable by anyone. The fact that a scientific article uses obscure terms is totally irrelevant - scientific terms have to be used in a scientific article. And all those terms should be either explained or linked to a relevant article anyway. I would point out that with one article I put up for FAR I was told to remove the word "exacerbate" because most 15 year-olds wouldn't understand it. Personally I didn't agree with that, but if that didn't get through I'm sure an obscure word like "anonym" wouldn't. Richerman (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am not married to the use of 'anonym', characterizing my good faith edit as "ridiculous" seems an awfully good way to get trout-slapped for being less than civil, Richerman. I'll consider it a momentary lapse in judgment, and move on.

I refuse to believe that we have to dumb down the encyclopedia for the lowest common denominator; I believe that we have Simple English Wikipedia for that sort of need. We do not aim our articles for any age group; we aim for the Common Man, and I refuse to believe that they are morons. You might have fought harder to keep exacerbate in that FAR article if you felt it belonged, since it would have been a better representation of what a FA actually should be.

Anonym perfectly describes the appellation given the killer(s) in Whitechapel, as per the definition source provided above, and at least four other sources as well. It does so better than does 'nickname' or 'pseudonym.' Your offered choice seems a bit more vanilla than necessary - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've looked in three dictionaries, and all give the word "anonym" two definitions: the second definition is "a pseudonym". The link you provided above gives "an assumed or false name" as the first definition of "anonym". That is a pseudonym. If "pseudonym" is not correct, then neither is "anonym". DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymologically speaking "pseudonym" is perfectly fine -"false name" nothing about use or ownership. [14] That being said, it's a single word that does not impact or detract from the article one bit. Leave it (my preference) or change it, but somebody flip a coin.Padillah (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with DrKiernan & Padillah on this. Just leave it as 'pseudonym'. I don't think this one word makes a difference on way or the other. Just leave it as is and move on to something more important to deal with. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan, the definition of 'pseudonym' is on par with a pen name or nom de plume - in virtually all of the examples, the definition was paired with a descriptive of an author using a pseudonym. That is its most common usage. Anonym refers - in its primary definition (and not secondary, as you glossed over) - as a term to refer to someone anonymous; etymologically perfect and precise. I think we can all agree that the killer(s) fit that particular bill. As we've spent this much time on a single word, I think we have to go with the term that is more precise - this is an encyclopedia, after all, not some fansite. Ere its been a waste of time and effort by all of us.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not "gloss over" it at all. I stated it explicitly. DrKiernan (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

An unfortunate choice of words on my part, DK; in any case, we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with secondary definition usage but with primary usage. And please, stop reverting in your preferred version until we are finished discussing the matter. It's at best distracting and at worst disruptive an deleterious to the discussion process as a polarizing influence on friendly editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we apparently cannot agree on the precise term to use, I've taken another suggestion made here in discussion and implemented in the two occasions that the word 'pseudonym' pops up. Though less precise (and essentially vanilla), it still reads well, and isn't contrary. It's the middle ground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack the ripper in fiction

It seams to me that adding a section, on the inclusion of Jack the ripper in literature, cinema and television would be a valuable addition to this article. RevDan (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already covered in the Legacy section. The main detail is in Jack the Ripper fiction. DrKiernan (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How Did This Qualify For FA?

Could someone please summarize the discussion that resulted in this article being given featured status. My respect for wikipedia has been hemhorraging and could not bare reading the discourse that led to such an absurd action. In addition to the lead sentence ('an odd name's' suggestion above would do wonders to resolve this, btw), the opening passages of the Murders section are incredibly unencyclopedic. Specifically, (unencyclopedic aspects emphasized):

The large number of horrific attacks...

then in the following passage:

The attack was linked to later murders by the press, but it was almost certainly gang violence unrelated to the Ripper.

For the record, if someone has studied and formed an opinion about the crimes (or considers themselves a 'Ripperologist'), their knowledge and input may warrant assessment, but they probably should not be editing the article itself. It's exactly that sort of conflict of interest that results in poorly phrased statements like those above. I'll refrain from reading any further into the article for a couple days so I can do so a bit more objectively (my opinion of it at the moment is such that I'd nitpick the hell out of every little flaw).

Oh, and who on modern earth refers to Jack the Ripper as 'Leather Apron'? Please point them out to me so I may laugh at and mock them until my fingers are sore and my keyboard breaks.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying about phrasing, K10wnsta (and have made changes accordingly), but I disagree with the idea that listing of the other anonyms used for the killer(s) - like Leather Apron - isn't useful. These were names (s)he was called at the time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, the one point you are correct about in your above comments is that the person who put in the claim about "almost certainly gang violence" was pushing their POV into the article and should not have done so. If you laugh at someone talking about Leather Apron then you are just demonstrating lack of basic familiarity about the case. People who study topics should be the ones writing articles about them, and studying any topic will inevitably lead to forming opinions. The trick to writing good encyclopedia articles is to leave your opinion out. The answer is certainly not to suggest that anyone who studies a topic shouldn't be contributing. Then only ignorant people will be contributing, and what's the point of having crap written by people who don't know what they are talking about? Heck, if anything, the contributors here need more knowledge about the case than they currently have overall, not less.

But if you have specific suggestions on improvements, leave them here so they can be addressed. I haven't looked at the article in months, and that probably means lots of unsourced junk got put in again. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On a Suggestion

Shouldn't there be a section about the conspiracy theories, surrounding Jack the Ripper, I mean obviously too many might create a wrong impression of the serial killer profiling of JTR. However a useful and usable theory might be used as a counterpoint of essentially how a media might hinder murder speculations. Could some historian possibly update the whole newspaper thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofuman900 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the suspects section, and it has its own article. It would be undue weight to focus on that particular theory when there are a hundred equally deserving ones. DrKiernan (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tofuman900 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's Box

I added this only because it's the source work for Lulu, already included. I hope this isn't giving the work WP:UNDUE prominence; "Jack", although having a key role at the end, isn't a central figure. Other views welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the parenthetical comment removed. I originally mentioned Lulu because it was the only opera to include Jack the Ripper, and "...and one opera." looked a little silly without saying what that opera was. However, I guess there has been at least one rock opera based on JtR, so maybe we can lose Lulu now. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense: JTR's been in lots of plays, making Pandora less notable than Lulu.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan has removed Lulu because it isn't unique but, leaving aside WP:IDONTKNOWIT in reverse, would it be fair to say it's the only "mainstream" opera in which JTR features? If so, there might still be room for it here. Its deletion was an unintended consequence of my edit and as such I'd be happy to have the original version back, before my meddling. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Leather Apron"?

I just finished reading the Whitechapel murders article, and maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it mentions there that a SUSPECT for the murders was dubbed "Leather Apron", not Jack the Ripper himself? I have to admit to not being terribly familiar with Ripper lore, but I've never heard him referred to as "Leather Apron". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachturnal (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your susgestion to improve the article is?IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

see the article, under Media, where this is mentioned. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks! I admit I only quickly skimmed over the header, got confused, did a page search for more mentions of "Leather Apron"... but I either didn't find it there, or simply didn't read it. Consider me a dolt. :\ -- Nachturnal (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dominant Hand Issues

Has anyone else noticed that surgeon Thomas Bond said, "In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right,..." and the "From Hell" letter appears to have been written by a left handed person. This would mean, if he were left handed, he would have had to push the knife across the victims' throats instead of pulling it, which is awkward and unnatural. 71.173.135.197 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Anon

...or he was a right-hander cutting from behind. His modus operandi includes strangulation/asphyxiation to incapacitate the victim and then he likely killed from behind while they lay on the ground. There was only 18" between the wall and where Stride lay facing it making it unlikely that he was positioned in front of her. Same thing for Chapman where she was on the ground when cut and the fence was only 14" away...no room for him to have been in front of her.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unknown identity

I haven't gone through past discussions in the talk page archives, but I noticed that in the infobox, it claims the birth name to be unknown. However, on a Discovery Channel special, Jack the Ripper In America, a police officer investigates who exactly Jack the Ripper was. At the end, he was confident that he was a man by the name of James Kelley, Mary Kelley's husband. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 17:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And every one else who has come up with his identity claims it as being the 'final solution' as well. In addition he has in nfact been mentioned as a suspect for years.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? That was the first I've heard of it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It was lame. He made many mistakes on the actual case but like most of the sensationalist shows can sell it to those unfamiliar with the case. At the time I first saw it, I realized NYC doesn't have have much going for it in the detective department.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Evans and Skinner, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, p. 136
^ ^a ^b Keppel, Robert D.; Weis, Joseph G.; Brown, Katherine M.; Welch, Kristen (2005), "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel Murders", Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, vol. 2, pp. 1–21
^ Woods and Baddeley, p. 38
^ See also later contemporary editions of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, quoted in Woods and Baddeley, p. 111
^ Evans and Rumbelow, pp. 187–188, 261; Woods and Baddeley, pp. 121–122

[1] Evans and Skinner, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, p. 136

[keppel-2] Keppel, Robert D.; Weis, Joseph G.; Brown, Katherine M.; Welch, Kristen (2005), "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel Murders", Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, vol. 2, pp. 1–21

[3] Woods and Baddeley, p. 38

[4] See also later contemporary editions of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, quoted in Woods and Baddeley, p. 111

[5] Evans and Rumbelow, pp. 187–188, 261; Woods and Baddeley, pp. 121–122

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]