Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Moved disussion

Since the suspect page now is separate, I moved most discussion relating specifically to them to that page. If that's in error someone can move them back. I left the first Sickert one because it seems more historical than current, and if they want to debate him over there there was another topic already available to use.

DreamGuy 22:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cornwell's Sickert theory taking over the article

Dang it, somebody beat me to the Patricia Cornwell blurb! Anyway, if our edit conflict caused some of your new entry not to get posted, my apologies. -- Storm

I'm really not sure about the Sickert pic being on this page - it does rather give the impression that he was Jack the Ripper, and my understanding is that that's a very long way from certain.

The Sickert picture is already in the Sickert article and shouldn't be here for the reasons adduced. And, no, I don't think there should be a picture of the Duke of Clarence, either, particularly since that theory (as with many, many, others) isn't even mentioned. Ortolan88

Also:

Other evidence cites Sickert's artistic genius in crafting the Ripper's letters, in disguised handwriting, and varied sketch styles. The letters often contained specific information related to crimes, and as such are unlikely to be from any other than the Ripper.

IIRC the only letter which any reputable commentator has any degree of certainty came from the Ripper is the so called "Lusk Letter" which contained a bit of a human kidney with Bright's diseas, the same as one of the victims.

What does "crafting the Ripper's letters" mean? --Camembert

There have been so many theories about the Ripper that to put only Cornwall's derivative theories (see updated Walter Sickert article) is really poor encyclopediaism. This article needs a huge amount of beefing up, stuff about how the murderer apparently knew anatomy, thought to be a doctor or med student, the Duke of Clarence connection, etc. Ortolan88

Why were the other suspects removed from this article? Mintguy

I can't find them in the history. Were they ever here? In any case, they belong here. -- Someone else 04:52 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
They are in the history, removed by User:Stevertigo. I'll restore them. also Sickert picture should go!
Is there a way to convey that some of these are clearly less credible than others? Lewis Carroll, for example? Without getting too POV-ey. -- Someone else 05:04 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)


Someone else, are those entries you just removed at all true, and therefore encyclopedic? perhaps they might fit with a different rank on the page.

-Sv
I didn't remove any suspects, just a nickname for some other murderer. -- Someone else 05:19 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be very little on the murders themselves, and much more on the Sickert theory. Questions: 1) Second to last paragraph: Why is genius necessary to "craft the ripper's letters" and 2) Do we need to know in this entry that Sickert's art is 'much admired in the British art world?' Atorpen

If anywhere, the Sickert stuff should be under Walter Sickert. He really was a very famous artist, you know, not even counting this pop-novelist theory that so seems to fascinate some people, including the pop novelist herself.Ortolan88
In answer to 1): it's not even clear which if any letters were from the "Ripper", so it can hardly be clear that genius was needed in crafting them; in answer to 2) it's probably good to know that Cornwell has not chosen a completely obscure painter. Maybe the "Sickert is Ripper" stuff belongs under Cornwell rather than under Ripper or Sickert? -- Someone else 01:06 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)


We all gather this.... as for his "genius in crafting letters" - this needs explanation- that the "Ripper letters" sent by X to scotland yard - bragging and taunting basically, are completely inconsistent in style, writing and drawing... Scotland Yard had thought some of these were fakes, and some remain in question, while othere are clearly done with knowlege of the crime in question, (such as a drawing of how a body was mutilated and where it was...) Cornwell claims to have made links to Sickert - firstly, (and recently) the kind of paper- small press, same cutting marks indicating the same batch of 24... second .. some mitochondrial dna evidence (not clear on) and third - what she claims as the skill by which sickert disguised the sickert letters from bearing any traces of his handwriting or drawing.... and they differ from each other... Scotland yards best were led to believe that these were done by different people altogether. So... thats all folks... -Stevert


It's always amazed me how people can come up so many theories that Jack the Ripper must be someone who was a well known personage and not some previously nameless figure within the community, like most serial killers. Mintguy

Also this article needs a hell of a lot of work .. The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing Anon

I looked at the record, to see if the accusation above , about me removing some relevant material... i looked in there and found this claim false.. thought it very well could have been true.. only its unlike me... i havent been watching this page - so i just became aware of it... Im not going to quote the ten commandments here... but im glad to see the interest in this, and the article reads pretty succinctly. as for the notion that JTR has to be a famous person... I see no reason why it couldnt have been the queen herself... though, we can deduce it the be unlikely... and the Cornwell evidence , all told is fairly damning... im not doing it justice, by rehashing out what little I caught from booktv,

Re removing relevant material and "I didn't do it" - what about this (05:11 Jan 2, 2003, marked as a minor edit) --Camembert

Well Sv, if you call PCs evidence damning I hope to not ever find myself in a position where you're on my jury. As for the accusation made against you, the evidence for this IS indeed damning as Camembert has shown. Although I suspect what happened was that you accidentally edited a previous version, thereby restoring the Sickert picture and removing the usual suspects. Mintguy

yeah... well i apologise for that... must have had in in the clipboard for pasting lower... or something like you say Mint .. distracted . As for the nature of the evidence, what I heard and read is, I admit flavored like a crime novel, (which she is) but its also sound. She began her career as a medical examiner, (and by the way I didnt know who she was before her lecture) and she connects the dots pretty logically. I'd be deferential to someone whos actually read her whole book. ( and not just scanned the sample pages on amazon, like I did. .) So, the book what I read, like a lot of works, strikes a funy balance between research and historical novel. A lot of speculation fills in the gaps between her evidence. Which is pretty damning, not unlike that link...-Stevert

PCs book is a court with a prosecution but and without a defence. See http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html Mintguy

I'd like to go on board with PC's evidence belonging somewhere else (Under her or her book), as it seems less than damning. At least someone with more skill should add that the DNA PC used - as I think one of the links points out - could match with between 1/10 and 1/100th of the world's population.

Stevert, I agree that the article reads well and succintly, and I congratulate you for your part. However, I am having trouble following your explanation of the genius of Sickert's (the Rippers?) letters, in this talk page. That the quire is from the same batch is quite possible - but considering S. was in France during at least some of the murders, I think there's more than a reasonable doubt. Why, by the way, isn't more discussion given to more traditional suspects?
Last - and more personally - I'm troubled by that PC's assertion that she first thought Sickert was JTR after seeing one of his paintings and subsequent horror at the artist's depiction of women, as if he's another male that hates women. His paintings are works of _art_. If this is the starting point for any hypothesis, we could damn just about any artist/author we choose. Atorpen
One of the links at Walter Sickert makes the argument that Cornwall ignores the fact that Sickert was a protege of Cezanne and Degas and that manyof their paintings depicted women in perilous situations.
Unnoticed and unmentioned by the eye of Cornwell, these works show the continuing influence of Degas (and of early Cezanne paintings such as The Murder and The Abduction as well). In a painting alternatively called Interior and The Rape, Degas painted a giant menacing man barring the door of a small room while a woman sits cowering on the other side of the room. This is one of Degas' strongest paintings, as anyone who has seen it in Philadelphia or on tour will know. The suitcase in the middle of the picture glooms with an unearthly light. You wonder why Cornwell doesn't accuse Degas or Cezanne of being the Ripper. The reason is simple. These artists are as invulnerable to Cornwell's investigations as Cornwell is invulnerable to my criticism. Poor Walter Sickert is not.
I forget which logical fallacy this is, but it must be one of them, confusing the artist with his work. This Sickert stuff is taking over this article and should be moved out, either into the Sickert article, or my preference, to an article of its own. Ortolan88

Understood, and agreed: atorpen, and ortolan. Im really not 100 percent clear on her case for associating artistic genius with the ripper letters. And yes, it does seem distressing that someone with a hunch goes and spends several million dollars of her own money, allegedly destroying one or more sickert paintings... and to somehow, after all this seemingly "unscientific" process, come up vindicated, and with a well-selling book, some notoriety for herself, and the claim to have solved a mystery which has baffled the best for over a century... I agree its all very Texas ( apparently where shes from ) and smells a lot like yesterdays sushi to the habitual skeptic... All this I understand...

as for the similarity of the paintings... she talks about how sickert never painted anything he never saw, and some of the poses appear near identical to murder scences, though this is subjective. I wont estimate the veracity of either of these... And Im not going to run out and buy a copy... though I just may... why not... I dont want to make this just a book report...

Im not going to repeat my self and my opinion of her credibility, I will say that If she 'turns out' to be correct - meaning, over decades, the naysayers quietly go away and her evidence is scrutinized and accepted; than this might be a clue as to what was missing in the original investigation and those since: The unwillingness to believe in the guilt of X, in itself can incapacitate an investigation... She did say, on TV, that Scotland Yard was (paraphrasing ) A hundred years away from the technology needed to solve these murders" ...and she added something as to how fortunate she had been in making any headway at all... she was near giving up and cutting her losses more than one point... when some minor success persuaded her to continue... yadda...

A final thought, and then I will abandon this topic altoghether or until I have something new to add... Is that the unwillingness of people to believe in Sickerts guilt, or anyone's for that matter, is the fact that the solving of a mystery (its no longer just a "crime" - nobody cares about pursuing justice ) - the solving of a mystery kills something: something that was, in fact the embodiment of a cultural icon - and an urban myth. The 'mysterious Mr. Hyde -like monster that they say killed some ladies...' etc... JTR was a symbol, with much greater meaning in the whole world than just a serial killer with a name. By tying the Ripper to a name, she commits the unforgivable crime of killing a modern mystery, as well as all the wonderful speculations on said mystery the culture had produced for over a hundred years. - Stevert

I think the whole thing belongs in the article on Cornwall, not on Sickert or Ripper, which should simply cross-reference Cornwall. I am delighted at the solution of long-standing historical mysteries myself, but I don't see that Cornwall has solved one. She's just one more in a long list of writers who have trotted out their theories on Jack the Ripper, a perennial topic for writers like the Loch Ness Monster or Napoleon. I don't see where she is "vindicated" at all.Ortolan88 PS - As for painting only what he saw (a dubious proposition), I'm pretty sure Sickert saw some naked women lying in bed. The number of artists, indeed men of all kinds, who are repulsed by their sexual attraction to women is very great indeed. They can't all be the Ripper, even though the Ripper too was (probably, presumably) repulsed by his attraction to women.
I've made a home for her theories at Patricia CornwEll (not Patricia CornwAll). (Do we need a redirect at the bad spelling? Couldn't hurt.) -- Someone else 02:58 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
Done, Ortolan88

Story on the BBC news website today [1] suggests that PC's theory is widely dismissed by leading experts. Another reason why we should definatly not bias her ideas! Grunners 15:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is very, very badly structured. I suggest at least

  1. moving the massive amount of other victim candidates to a separate article
  2. moving the massive amount of suspects to a separate article and
  3. listing the known facts here in an easy-to-read way (the m.o. of the Ripper, factors affecting the police work, mistakes they made etc.) -- Card 10:31, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Texts

Could you deal with the letters and the "the Juwes..." writing? Describe them and point if some of the hypotheses describe them.

Please also explain why this and not other murders are so popular, and how the media reported it, political reactions, press theories at the time, crime gazettes,...

Can you say something about foggy nights of London?

-- what do you want to say about foggy nights? the nights of the Ripper murders weren't foggy, actually... -DN, Oct. 7, 2004

Restructuring?

This is a very interesting article (yes, I'm also interested in the Ripper) although the structure can do for a change. At any rate 21 suspects is really too many in one section. What I suggest is that certain of the least likely suspects, like Lewis Carroll, be moved to another section (presumably under "Less Likely Suspects") so that we at least halve the section. I don't believe every suspect merit a serious thought, and to weed the less likely ones out will possibly make better reading. Mandel 20:34, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the suspect list is way too long, not only in who it covers but also the depth to which it goes. All of those should probably be moved to pages specifically about that person, like what was done with the Sickert piece. -DN, Oct. 7, 2004

And, while I'm thinking about it, it's bizarre that the "other possible victims" section has about ten times as much information on each of those people and crimes as the information the article has about the canonical victims. Essentially, the vast majority of this article is about bizarre theories claiming everyone and their dog could have been a serial killer, people who probably weren't killed by the Ripper, and fictional references. The facts about the most likely Ripper crimes and investigation are sorely lacking. -DN, Oct. 7, 2004

Controversy and Revert Battles

Mandel recently entered changes to the lead, which I reverted. He/she put them back, claiming that they were not controversial. I just removed them again, as they definitely are. Let me explain why:

First up, you can't just toss the word East End in front of Whitechapel and have it make sense. "East End" isn't part of Whitechapel, in fact it's the opposite. And cramming the extra phrase in there is redundant, as East End is already mentioned a few sentences later and has a link to the entry for that. We don't need to toss everything into the lead paragraph, and especially not when it makes the reading clumsy.

Second, the line about having killed at least five prostitutes and horribly mutilating them is outright wrong in the sense that the five that are called the "canonical" ones weren't all mutilated and weren't all necessarily prostitutes (Eddowes may not have been, according to some authors). Reading the actual Wikipedia article would have shown that. And the phrase "at least five" is quite controversial, as many experts think that one killer only murdered four, and some go as low as three. Stride, for example, didn't have mutilations and probably wouldn't have been thought of as a canonical victim if she hadn't been killed on the same night as Eddowes, along with a (now largely believed to be hoax) message being delivered to the Central News Agency claiming credit for both murders and using the "Jack the Ripper" name. Some people think Kelly was killed by a copycat trying to get away with murder by making it look like Ripper death. Putting "At least five" is taking a definitive conclusion, loses the neutral point of view, and can't be proven. It's not something that should be there.

I find it bizarre that someone who just showed up on this entry relatively recently to try to tell us that the Ripper killed *seven people* (??!?!? Where on Earth did that screwed up number ever come from?) and then changed it to five after bothering to read the article can now be claiming what is and is not controversial about the case... especially when the article already explains why it *IS* controversial. If someone can't be bothered to read the Wikipedia article or the books on the case, they shouldn't be changing the lead to the article.

Oh, and I also removed the recently added mention of From Hell, as that was already discussed later in the same section. Another case of someone not reading the thing before making changes.

-DN, Oct. 7, 2004

First of all, tone down your language. Since you claimed to be a Wikipedian, you should know the no personal attack nature of the community. One revert does not constitute a revert battle. I'll explain why my reverts are justified, at least from my perspective:
I did not claim to be a Wikipedian. That's an amusing but bizarre term which I would not use. What I do claim is to be a Ripperologist, and one of minor but growing reknown. I don't have the time to rewrite this entire article, but when I see the chance to correct errors, I do. If you look back through the history, you'll see similar IP addresses making substantive changes all the way through. I did not in any way intend to personally attack you, but you have to realize that someone coming out of nowhere who by his or her actions has not read recent books or websites about the topic or even the article itself and then makes changes to the lead, and then just changes them back after it was pointed out that they were controversial... come on, get real... That's irresponsible behavior. That's not a personal attack, that's a reasonable and fair description of someone trying to rewrite something without taking basic steps to make sure they understood what they were doing. - DN Oct. 15, 2004
You are working on Wikipedia, and that makes you a Wikipedian. Please read about how you should conduct yourself when faced with changes. As a visitor to this encyclopedia, you should know you do not hold a monopoly to any facts and that your facts will be inadvertently changed by another user. If you grade courtesy low as your priority, state so. Mandel 17:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
It's still a pretentious name for anyone who chooses to use it. I don't have any problems with people changing writing, but I do have problems when they do so without knowing the slightest thing about what they are writing about and then raising a holy fit about it and not letting go months later. - DN Jan, 7, 2005
Whitechapel is part of East End, true. My whole point is that it is committed in a larger vicinity. Put East End later if you would, but adding East End is more accurate in the area and scope of the killer's killing.
I don't think that's quite right. I see no problem linking to East End to put it in a larger context, but all the canonical victims were found either in Whitechapel proper, on its boundary (in the case of Chapman) or within 150 m of the boundary(Stride). In fact all the canonical victims and several non-canonical ones were killed within at most three blocks either side of Whitechapel Road, roughly running SW along it with the progression of time. Stride, incidentally, was the only canonical victim found South of Whitechapel Road, was by far the furthest from it, and the only one not actually within the district. Securiger
As for the number of 7, it was mentioned by a good number of authoritative sources, including 2 Encyclopedias: Britannica "ebi" (though the article was changed a few days ago and now the victim count reads 5) and Columbia [2]. A number of other sites also mentioned that number eg [3]. After realizing that 7 is not that uncontroversial from the article's perspective, I changed it to 5 (if 5 if not acceptable largely, then I would question why the word "canonical" is used).
The number of victims has been a matter of furious dispute, even within the original police investigation. Surprisingly there are only three victims who are universally accepted by all Ripperologists; the canonical five were those accepted by pretty well all the original investigating officers. However it is to be noted that Whitechapel was a pretty violent place at the time, and quite a few other woman were found murdered over the relevant period; some officers believed certain of these victims to also be the handiwork of the Ripper. (Some Ripperologists accept three of the Police's canonical victims, then add a couple more the Police did not include!) The Press at the time, and some pulp authors since, have claimed as many as twenty victims. This is generally seen by serious students as nothing but a grotesque form of sensationalism. In consequence, any attempt to raise the number, without careful explanation, is likely to be seen in a bad light. Securiger
Regardless of whether some horribly outdated general encyclopedias (and an occult website...?) used to say seven, if you had read the article before you (Mandel) changed the lead you'd see the "canonical" list is five, and that it's controversial. It's also a matter of being familiar with modern resources of the topic. Have you read the books referenced at the end? Looked through the websites cited in the article? HAve you done anything to give yourself any reason to be able to logically think you can claim what is or is not controversial in this case? If not, why would you just change it back without explanation? 3-7 is a more generally accepted range, with some serious theories up to 12 (including the torso murders in the count, among others). Saying "at least 5" is taking a definite opinion on it, violates NPOV, and contradicts many leading scholars in the field. - DN Oct. 15, 2004
If you think so, state so, but in a pleasant enough and not provocative manner. I find your behavior sounds suspiciously like someone picking up a fight and dare I say, reminds me very much about Jack himself. Mandel 17:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Dear lord, you are trying to lecture me on my behavior and you then follow it up by trying to compare me to Jack? I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here. - DN Jan, 7, 2005
As for the mutilation parts, I agree Stride was not mutilated, but mutilations is a feature of all Ripper murders, and most think that he was interrupted in his killing of Stride before he can do any mutilations. My reason is that in the lead paragraphs, some points about the Ripper being a mutilationist ought to be mentioned, which was what makes the murders featureful (how else do they know it is by the same person, BTW?).
There is a minority of Ripperologists who do not believe Stride was a Ripper victim. I am one of those disbelievers. I am a little baffled why so many accept Stride as a Ripper victim, because the evidence for it is all but nonexistent. Originally it was simply assumed that she was, due to the "double event" letter - but that letter is now generally regarded as a hoax. The only other point in arguing that she was a Ripper victim was that her throat was cut. However throat-cutting was a common mechanism of murder at the time, and the way her throat was cut was not similar to the Ripper's technique. In every other respect of the Ripper's MO, this crime fails to match. Still, that's my opinion, and she is widely accepted as a Ripper victim. Securiger
"Stride was not mutilated" and "mutilations is a feature of all Ripper murders" while including Stride as a Ripper victim means you are contradicting yourself, Mandel. That's one reason why you can't just say he mutilated all five victims. And with some of the other possible victims there was no other mutilations either. You can't just make a blanket statement about what the connecting feature of the murders were, when experts don't agree either. The main link seems to be location, dates and general approach to the killings, but then that still means individual ones need to de included or excluded on a case by cases basis. And the very real possibility of copycats (after the Whitechapel murders got int the news, there was a marked increase in knife and mutilation attacks around the world, some of which are clearly copycats based upon dates and convictions) means that even similar killings in the same area could possibly be by someone else. - DN Oct. 15, 2004
The whole point of making a lead is to draw attention to what goes on later in article. It does not matter if it repeats some materials from later parts of the entry; its purpose is to draw the reader to have some prior knowledge so that he / she can go on reading the article without being stupefied by the wealth of facts. What I find is the lead is generally missing in information to take people through the article (which is very long), which was why I added in those (you claimed, not so accurate) guiding info.
I agree, the lead needs some work (but then, so does a lot of the rest!) I would suggest the current information is kept (even if reworded), and that we add: the uncertainty in number of victims (perhaps with a range); refer to the large number of proposed suspects of varying quality; refer to the cultural impact; and maybe put in a little teaser by referring to the recent declassification of the Scotland Yard case archives? Securiger 15:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If the whole point of a lead is to draw what goes on later in the article, at the very least we need to make sure the lead doesn't contradict the article, Mandel. That's my major point. I agree the lead could be rewqorked, but, honestly, there are much more important areas to concentrate on, like the lack of info about the main killings, the apron, graffito, police investigation, newspaper coverage, etc. At the very least, if the lead gets made worse, I'll change it back. If it actually improves in some way, of course it should remain. - DN Oct. 15, 2004
What I felt was you did that make a good enough explanation for reverting my changes, and I was not fully convinced then. Had you had make your explanation in a sensible and reasoned manner, I might not have reverted the changes. Some ways of changing, (like adding, "believed by most" etc) would be probably more helpful than excising the entire segment, and than ranting very unkindly about another Wikipedian who merely don't see eye to eye concerning an entry.
Sorry you didn't feel my explanation was sufficient, but its seems extremely "sensible and reasoned" to say that it's controversial when the article itself already explained why it was controversial. It's pretty reasonable to think that someone would at least read the article before making changes to the lead, or reverting back changes that had already been edited out for being incorrect. "Believed by most" probably isn't even a NPOV statement for the number of victims, as I don't think there is general agreement on it. DN Oct. 15, 2004
Basically I feel it's the superior attitude which I find offensive. When someone makes an edit which you find not to your liking, state so, but in a polite manner. You don't own a monopoly to any article nor do anyone of us, we are all entitled to make changes. Talk it out. Basically I do find your manner offputting and may put off many good contributors. Mandel 17:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
And I think your superior attitude (and your projecting it onto others) is a major problem, so what's your point? It's ridiculous for you to go off and complain about what you see as bad behavior in others when you are busy doing the exact same things you are complaining about. Let it go, grow up, move on, and contribute to the article if you want, but I *will* change anything you add to it that's wrong (and apparently so will the new editors we have who have added a lot since you raised your fit months back), and you'll have to deal with it. - DN Jan, 7, 2005
BTW I have removed the neutrality notice. The neutrality of the article is not questioned. This is just a minor dispute. Mandel 03:39, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Cornwell

I suggest all interested parties take a look at the Talk:Patricia Cornwell page. IVoteTurkey 05:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Ripper victims

I'm making changes to the Jack the Ripper article, and also expanding the articles on the victims chiefly attributed to him. The main purposes of these changes were:

1. To clarify the Introduction by briefly stating the reasons for the Ripper's notoriety and his method of operation.

2. To list the common features linking the canonical murders, and how they displayed a trend of increasingly severe mutilation over time.

3. To mention other features that differed from one murder to another.

4. Since the list of canonical victims is debated, to mention its partial (though by no means entire) reliance on the "Macnaghten Memorandum" of 1894. In particular, the press at the time of the murders tended to link six victims if not more: Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly. Other murders such as that of Emma Smith and the dubious "Fairy Fay" were being mentioned too at the time. Some, like the latter two, have been ruled out on several grounds. Others, especially Stride and to some extent Kelly among the five "canonical" victims, have been challenged in more recent years. I've even heard the murder of Eddowes challenged as a possible "copycat" crime, though Eddowes together with Chapman is an anchor point of the whole series. Yet up until the 1960s, when there had admittedly been few full-length books on the Ripper, the more informed impression (whatever that's worth) seemed to be that the Ripper had the six victims named above. This was reflected in the first full-length Ripper book, Leonard Matters's "The Mystery of Jack the Ripper" in 1929. It's hardly a reliable source, touting an unlikely theory of who the Ripper was, so I didn't bother citing or even mentioning it. However, after Macnaghten's notes came to journalists' attention in 1959, the increasing number of Ripper books thereafter hewed to Macnaghten's opinion that "the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims--& 5 victims only."

This meant on the one hand that Stride as well as Kelly was canonically confirmed as a Ripper victim, whether she was or not. On the other hand, Tabram was definitively excluded from that moment on. There are other arguments for excluding Tabram. Just the same, many authors on the Ripper have tended to copy from one another along with whatever original research some have done, perpetuating not only errors of fact but also influences such as Macnaghten's. His was only an opinion gathered from other police officers at the time, and after the event, since he didn't even join the force until the year after the murders. When Philip Sugden came to write "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" in 1994, he was to my knowledge the only professional historian to do so, and to thoroughly check all the sources as well as digging up new facts. His opinion, among that of others (including myself) is that Tabram deserves serious consideration (at least) as a possible Ripper victim.

4. To expand the "stub" articles as requested on the five canonical Ripper victims by adding biographical information from the best-attested sources, with brief details of their murders; also to make their format more uniform.

5. To add a similar article on Tabram.

6. To add a brief summary of the arguments for and against Tabram, Stride, and Kelly being Ripper victims in the relevant articles.

7. To correct the authentic spelling of Catharine Eddowes's name. I've redirected the original article to one with that spelling. That's another example of how facts are misreported and errors perpetuated. Even the newspapers of the time spelled her name "Catherine," so I'm sure no reporter bothered to check official records, and everyone wrote down whatever they thought they heard, which was copied later by other writers. Dr. Timothy Killeen's name was reported by newspapers as "Keleene" or even "Keeling." I recall that it was Melvin Harris who turned up Eddowes's birth certificate, probably around 1990 since he too had been spelling her name with an "e" instead of an "a" before that. I redirected the "Catherine" Eddowes article to one with the correct spelling.

I hope I'm presenting the differing opinions evenhandedly enough according to their merits. I don't believe I removed any information added by previous contributors, since I had no cause to challenge it, though I did reword some of it while incorporating it into other text.

(above was by new user User:Gordon L)

Hi Gordon,

The added articles are very impressive, and then to see a long note here explaining your intentions is a very good thing. You've put up a new article and enhanced five more while adding this note all in a very short period of time. I can only guess that you type extremely fast or that you prepared all of these ahead of time. When I saw new long, detailed articles popping up originally on an IP address/unregistered user, I was extremely nervous that someone was wholesale copying text from another source. My cncerns on that are lessened by seeing the explanatory note above, which shows knowledge and familiarity with what was here, so that couldn't have been copied. Of course with that much information it'd be nice to have sources listed for your material.

Some general comments on what you've done so far:

  • I disagree with changing Catherine Eddowes' name to Catharine Eddowes, as Wikipedia policy is to follow the most common version of the name. As most sources (in fact, ALL, comtemporary and modern, as far as I am aware, except for The Mammoth Book of JtR) use Catherine and the person herself used that spelling I think it'd be a bad idea to use Catharine just because that's how it was apparently spelled on her birth certificate. Author Stewart Evans supports the spelling Catherine, though I'm trying to dig up his old email explaining that, whether it was for the reasons I mentioned above or if there was some dispute in the appearance of the birth certificate (which I admit I have not seen), not that it necessarily matters for her but it's got me curious.
  • There are quite a few things about the information on the victim pages that I think is a POVy, about how the arguments are handled for whether someone is a true victim or not. I think that can be cleared up with editing though. The main thing is, when presenting conclusions about sorting through the facts, it'd be best to cite an author who makes the claim instead of just making the claim in the article itself.

And basically I could add other comments to the appropriate article talk pages.

DreamGuy 13:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Spelling and sources

Hi DreamGuy,

Thanks for your comments, and for pointing out those were my remarks above. I've only just registered, but I'm sure I'll learn to use this system properly before long! Your second guess was right, of course; I don't type as fast as that, and I wrote the bulk of this material yesterday, in advance.

The matter of "Catherine" or "Catharine" Eddowes, as trivial as it sounds, would boil down in my mind largely to how she herself preferred to spell her name. There can be issues about the "established" spelling of a name, and who (if anyone) has the "right" to "establish" it. Fair enough, we spell "Shakespeare's" name that way, even if he had different ideas at times—frequently differing from one another! But then he wasn't consistent himself, so it's up to us to pick a spelling and hopefully stick with it.

Eddowes had some schooling and presumably wrote her name at times. If "Catharine" was the spelling of the name she was given, and if most people have spelled it "Catherine" only because a bunch of newspaper reporters and others couldn't be bothered to check, while others copied them later, I feel she should be accorded the dignity of a correctly spelled name. But if as you said there is evidence that she herself spelled her name "Catherine," that's a different matter. I don't have the "Mammoth Book," and I don't recall hearing of any document coming to light where she did spell her own name. If she preferred to spell it "Catherine," that's fair enough. If, like Shakespeare, she didn't care either way as long as it sounded right, then perhaps popular preference for the "e" should be allowed to take precedence anyway. I ought to get myself a "Mammoth Book" to add to the Ripper collection. If you can quote anything relevant, I'll be interested.

Another language issue, however trivial, is British versus American conventions, not just in spelling alone. I changed the spelling of "meagre" to "meager" in the Nichols article, not because I'm writing from the U.S., but in the interest of language consistency. It's been changed back to "meagre" on the reasonable grounds that "the Ripper was British, after all!" Yet the same articles as originally written talk about murders during the "fall" of 1888 (cf. Tom Cullen's "Autumn" of Terror), and mentioned an entrance "on" rather than "in" Buck's Row, while now we have a bricklayer's "laborer" and so forth. I see both British and American spellings are accepted, but mixing both in the same article is another matter. Maybe I should Anglicize things a little more.

Sugden is one who argues for Tabram's inclusion, citing also Sean Day in Underwood (which I have), along with Jon Ogan in the Journal of Police History Society. Ogan has no published book that I know of, though both Day and Quentin Pittman have dissertations on the Casebook site. So I've added references to Sugden and Day.

Some people on the Casebook site have argued against the inclusion of Stride especially, and also Kelly. In summarizing the arguments for and against those two, I was chiefly expanding on what previous contributors had written in the existing Ripper and Stride articles. While the issues are discussed in some books, I'm not aware offhand of a published book that argues strongly for the exclusion of either victim. There's at least one dissertation (by Hannaford) on the Casebook site arguing against Stride; I don't know how acceptable it is to cite that. Anyway I've added Sugden and the Casebook site as sources, as the main Ripper article has done, which should help readers.

I'll look out for other comments.

Gordon L 22:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • If memory serves me correctly, Ripper articles should have a consistent British spelling, because the murders happened in Britain. As for Catherine's/Catharine's name. Feel free to make it clear in the article what her official name was, but in Wikipedia we have to make sure links will end up where they are meant to go. Most people (including non-Ripperologists) will link to Catherine Eddowes and we need to make sure no double redirects arise from this, purely on practical grounds. So I think we should link to the name most commonly used, whatever her official name is. Would you link to Madonna Louise Ciccone instead of Madonna? At least, that's my view on the matter. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that British spelling should be standard under the where it happened rule. If I end up using Americanisms it's because I may not know that there is a different preferred British style. Regarding the name, I'll have to go look up what the exact uses of the name are. I mentioned the Mammoth Book of JtR as it is famous for having taken essays provided by mutliple authors and then arbitrarily changing every mention of Catherine to Catharine, upsetting many of them. It sticks out like a sore thumb in being he only book I know that uses it. Somewhere or another I have a message from author Stewart Evans explaining why he uses Catherine, and I hope to find that. But the new sources and additions are good, you've done a bang-up job. I hope to go through and start putting so-and-so published author says _opinion here_ instead of just some say, most say. I would think that mere web essays probably aren't good enough when there are so many book and journal authors to choose from. Evans is another, by the way, who argues that MJK might not have been a true Ripper victim. DreamGuy 00:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Spelling and whatnot

About Catharine Eddowes, I'll "argue" about the issue, but I'm not going to "fight" it. There is a distinction (<grin>). Of course I agree that I'd link to Madonna. Madonna Louise Ciccone?—who the heck is she?

There are distinctions there too. Madonna's name is a household word, and what's more, that's the name she's promoted herself. It's the name an overwhelming majority of the population at large knows her by. Most, except for her (very considerable) number of ardent fans, won't know "Ciccone" from "Capone." ("The name's Ca-PONE, not Ca-PONE-ee!") They certainly won't be looking for it.

Catharine Eddowes is known to, or anyway remembered by, a far smaller number of readers who have read about the Ripper and remembered the name. Those who did can probably be divided into two classes. A majority in all likelihood were reading "sensational crime" stories anyway, and probably don't remember (or may not care) how her name was spelled. I think I had eliminated double redirects by changing the original "Catherine" article. The smaller remainder of readers will be more serious students of the case, many or most of whom are familiar with the later research anyway. But for the sake of "peace in our time" (as Neville Chamberlain put it), I've put it back to "Catherine" for the time being.

British spelling too has arguable elements to it, especially since it extends beyond spelling to usage and terminology as well. Granted that people rode hansom cabs in the Ripper's time, when it comes to cars for instance, the problem is—as deplorable as it may be to our British contributors—that American usage is almost universally understood today, while British usage is not. Everyone knows what the "hood" of a car is; but to most, a "bonnet" is only what poor Polly Nichols had on her head when she sadly ventured out for the last time.

The other question is what we do with articles about the Titanic, say—a British ship that sank in the middle of the Atlantic with many of the most distinguished passengers being American.

I guess I'll just have to read the relevant article, along with whatever guidelines Wikipedia has managed to cook up. But to me this is not an issue at all in the present context. I did go back and Anglicize—er, excuse me, that's "Anglicise!"—anything else I happened to spot.

That includes things like changing "autopsy" to "post mortem," a term understood by everyone anyway, and the one used in all contemporary Ripper documents. Then there's the matter of Buck's Row being a few "blocks" from the Royal London Hospital—a term never heard in the UK, any more than anyone talks about "downtown" London! To me, the term "block" is a chuckle anyway, when as a standard unit of distance it's next to useless. In Phoenix where I live, we have the "large block," which is a mile between major planned "streets," and the "small block" as well—however big that might be! To tell anyone a place is "a few blocks away" means nothing in terms of distance. It's like the celebrated "country mile," which may turn out to be three or five. "A few streets away" means just as much, though I inserted the actual distance.

Still harping on the "block" theme, could George Yard Buildings be better described in British terms as "a block of flats"? Today, no doubt; but in Victorian times I think "flats" would be an anachronism. They called them "model dwellings"—which sounds ideal—until the newspapers superciliously added that "the occupants were of the poorest class." "Dwellings" sounds too formal and legal anyway—not to mention reminding me of valve timing and whatnot. I stuck with "apartments," a word well enough known in Victorian England, and defined without comment in Nuttall's 1914 British dictionary.

I do agree about the inadvisability of altering spelling in The Mammoth Book. Compiling an encyclopedia, where writers try to stick to some common standard, is very different from quoting authors who wrote previously, in a compendium of their work. I frankly don't like it when editors hack a previous author's text and spelling for some different audience without having the decency even to say so. In many cases it's a form of "dummying down," as if the new readership were incapable of understanding what the previous author wrote.

I would be interested though to hear who thinks the murder of Catharine Eddowes was "more similar" to Mary Kelly's than it was to Annie Chapman's. That surprises me. I don't see why myself, taking everything into account, and I don't remember hearing anyone express such an opinion.

As for Walter Sickert, I'm staying out of that issue unless I have good reason to get into it! Granted that "logically" the discussion may belong more with Sickert than with Cornwell, I'll only say that while Cornwell's book was an interesting study of Sickert as a possible narcissist, it told me far more about Cornwell herself than it did about Sickert as a likely Ripper!

Best regards,

Gordon L 09:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pseudonym

Jack the Ripper is a pseudonym used by one of the letter writers.

It is an epithet, or nickname or byname popularly used to describe the killer or killers.

Caltrop 22:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

In fairness I, for one, will not presume to judge "notability" based on country of origin, which I think is what an editor is doing here. There is no shortage of room for the extra info about the Austrailian Ripper tele-movie within the context of this section. Please stop bullying and leave this reference in. Thanks. [unsigned, but comment placed here by User:Zosodada ]

a comment. I agree with you. I notice that the Star Trek and Outer Limits episodes are also included. While Star Trek is obviously a notable series, the Jack the Ripper episode was not a watershed - the episode itself does not qualify as being notable. The "Ripper in Popular Culture" opening paragraph just says that it's been used as a subject in the following blah blah blah, it does not make any claim that anything that follows is "notable" and you're right, it's purely subjective, so I think you were correct in putting it back. The section denotes the universality of the theme so an Australian reference is just as valid as two dozen American references. cheers. Rossrs 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

I am not judging notability based upon country of origin, I am judging it based upon overall notability in the field. The Star Trek episode is mentioned in many books about the topic, along with some of these other ones mentioned (though not the Outer Limits episode, which perhaps out to be removed). The Australian film is not mention hardly at all ever. This is not an article called List of Jack the Ripper references in fiction (though if you want to make an article like that, by all means, I don't care), it's an article about the overall figure himself. As such, we can be bogged down with lots of trivialities, especially when the main topic itself is quite underrepresented on much more important areas, like say the Investigation section. Notability is a question of notability related to the topic of the article, not just deciding to list something because you happened to see a bit of fiction once.

You've been out-judged, 3 revert rule, eh? Zosodada

It is not bullying to edit out something that just bogs the article down. On the contrary, it is bullying to insist upon putting it back in constantly and to claim that someone is biased when they are just trying to keep the article up to Wikipedia standards.

And, hell, the argument that the article "does not make any claim that anything that follows is 'notable'" is rather pointless, because notability is something Wikipedia requires for inclusion regardless of whether the article specifically uses the term or not. That's like arguing you can violate the Neutral point of view policy because the article in question doesn;t specifically say that the following text is going to be unbiased. It's just assumed it has to be that way or else it won't be included.

Bottom line is that for some insane reason, most of the contributions to this piece (and pretty much every other article it seems) is about some trivial fictional reference of no real importance for the topic at hand. I don't care if people whose sole purpose here is to find out about fiction have side articles going into details on those things, but they absolutely cannot take over the main articles. DreamGuy 19:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is a movie that exists and has been broadcast, hence it's notable.
The TV movie is entitled to be added to the "Television" section because, unlike the TV episodes listed, it actually deals with the Ripper case. It is also based on a much-discussed theory about the killer's identity. The Star Trek and Babylon Five episodes, however, are totally fictional and have nothing to do with the Ripper case. No Ripperologists are actually claiming that the killer was an alien entity.
It seems strange that you can complain about the inclusion of "some trivial fictional reference of no real importance for the topic at hand" and then claim a mention of an alien being in Star Trek has more to do with the topic than an actual dramatization of the Ripper case! If anything should be removed it is these references to episodes of sci-fi series, which are not noteworthy at all. JW 13:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Notability is not simply measured by how accurate something is to details... In the fiction section, it is represented by how well known something is and how often other fiction and nonfiction references refer back to it. The Star Trek episode is probably in the top three most well known and influential examples of Ripper fiction. Again, if you want to list EVERY example, make a separate article for that... in which case I would offload the majority of references on this article to that one, but the Star Trek one (and the BBC telefilm, and From Hell, and the Lodger and Lulu and some others) would have to stay based upon notability purposes. This is a really simple concept, I don't understand why people have such problems understanding notability.... But then I see the same problems on lots of other articles with people trying to include some trivial one-off mention in some video game or something as if it was earth shattering and influential. DreamGuy 17:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the only person who doesn't understand this. The Ripper movie is more notable than the obscure sci-fi episodes listed, for the reasons I have already explained. Unlike the Babylon Five or Star Trek episodes, it actually deals with the Ripper case. I am not "some guy in Australia" promoting an obscure movie, I just have a better grasp of what is notable than you seem to. The Star Trek episode might be notable in the context of the series, but this is not an article about Star Trek. In terms of Jack the Ripper it is totally irrelevant. The film, however, is relevant. It deals with the Ripper case and with a theory that has been discussed in numerous books as to the Ripper's identity. It features noted actors, and has been screened on TV in the UK and US and is available on video/DVD, it is not just some obscure local production. Please do not attempt to remove it again just because you are the only person who doesn't understand this. JW 18:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Saying the exact same thing you already said is not a rebuttal, by the way. If you look at books about the Jack the Ripper case, the Star Trek episode is mentioned far more often than the Australian production. It seems that book authors understand notability, even if you don't. DreamGuy 18:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I seem to have to repeat myself to get it through to you. It doesn't really matter if you understand it or not, everyone else does. JW 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy seems to have a history of argumentive episodes. Including a reference to a TV movie about the Ripper in a list of TV movies about the Ripper is perfectly justified regardless of his personal judgements and opinions regarding "notability. The article is more bogged down by his obstinate impositions and discussions regarding his personal opinions than by the inclusion of a factiod in a list of factoids. Zosodada 14:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but their has to be criteria for what makes the list or not. If we were to list every TV show or movie featuring the Ripper then the fiction section would be 50 times as long as the whole rest ofthe article. We need to list them by how important they are, influential and noted in the field. If we toss that criteria aside then we stop having an encyclopedia article and instead have a tome of useless trivia. If this article was solely about Ripper-related fiction, then, yes, you'd have a point. But it's not, and you clearly don't. DreamGuy 14:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Their" (sic) is criteria: TV movies re. the Ripper. List them all, I don't care how many there are, I would imagine 15 or 20 (not "50 times as long as the whole rest ofthe article" by any stretch of the reasonable imagination). Certainly there is room for that and if there isn't a sub-page might be in order. In any case, that's a long way off from the current size of this article. Why is leaving that in such a big issue? Labeling it "non-notable" is imposing your opinion on the article (hence BIAS). You're in a singular minority here. For full editorial control try creating your own blog of "notable Ripper movies." Zosodada

A few observations:

  • Might it be that a movie could be well known in some large segment of the English speaking world and yet not be in Jack the Ripper books like some Star Trek episode because... the books were published before the movie, and Star Trek, being 40 years old has had more time to seep into books? That doesn't mean the newer movie isn't notable here in the present.
  • Wikipedia_is_not_paper. Don't throw factoids down the memory hole if they're true. Move them, organize them, whatever. But be constructive and restructure rather than delete.

--67.101.69.152 21:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think moving the fiction section to its own article is the best compromise. Then people can go on their "let's list anything and everything that every mentioned the Ripper" rampage and not screw up the original article. We moved the Ripper suspects to their own page because that section got too big, and those are far, FAR more deserving of space on this article than an endless string of entertainment pieces that has jack all to do with the Ripper. DreamGuy 22:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
that sounds like a good compromise to me. In fact, an excellent one. Rossrs 12:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

Can someone clean up the gaps in-between various sections and paragraphs... (unsigned, but by User:Alvinrune)

I don't see any gaps other than what is normal on web pages. Where do you see gaps? DreamGuy 00:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Images

I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors but the image of Mary Kelly which is the first on the page is extremely distressing. Should readers not be warned about it before being presented with it? David | Talk 22:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If readers don't want to be presented with disturbing material, why are they looking up Jack the Ripper in the first place? Sylocat 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Popular metaphor

I commented out the suggestion that it'sd a popular metaphor - I don't think it is popular, and even if it were the link to Hitler / Godwin's Law seems unduly tenuous. (unsigned)

I originally put that there and am only know getting aroudn to responding... I don't care if it stays or not. Calling someone Jack the Ripper as a slur is fairly popular, at least I see it crop up in news reports fairly often for a variety of reasons unrelated to the murder. But then I don't know if it's popular enough to bother mentioning. DreamGuy 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

graffito/graffiti...

I noticed a recent edit change all instances of graffiti in Goulston Street Graffiti to Graffito, and then that an editor removed it thinking it was "sandboxing"... This actually is a bit more complicated than that.

A number of people who study the case prefer to call the message under discussion "graffito" as it is the singular form of the word, graffiti being plural. They would argue that it was on message, thus one graffito.

This is another one where I didn't bother to change it back when someone modified it a while ago, but now that someone else tried to fix it, I wonder what other peoplpe think...

(Also, incidentally, by seeing the comparison between edits, it's clear now that the word is used way too many times in that section, and that the latest version of the section seems to be longer in general than it probably should be.)DreamGuy 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct Birthdates

Can someone more knowledgable than I change the dates on two victim birthdates? I've copied from the article:

  1. Annie Millwood, born ca. 2006 (approximate date),
  2. Emma Elizabeth Smith, born ca. 2006 (approximate year).

I don't think these are correct!  :) Cabiria 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, already done... you can go to the history and click through and see changes, that was recent vandalism, I just chose a page before it was changed and reverted back to that, fixed now. Thanks! DreamGuy 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock

Hey didnt sherlock holmes fight the ripper in a book? (unsgnied, but by User:SaintDante)

Yeah... so what? The Ripper also fought the crewmen of the Starship Enterprise, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and a whole bunch of comic book characters. DreamGuy 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But did he appear in one of the books?User:SaintDante

Saucy Jacky

Someone should add this personality simulator to the links.

http://www.triumphpc.com/saucyjacky/

(unsinged but by USer:68.154.72.115)

No, no someone shouldn't. It's completely unencyclopedic. The only "simulation" it does it take copyrighted lines from a highly disreputed book and put them on screen as if it were a chat room. there's absolutely no point to having it on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of links. DreamGuy 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

DNA

I understand Professor Ian Findlay was reported in the press recently as studying DNA from Jack the Ripper. I've looked but can't seem to find any more information about this apart from his profile at http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=ifindlay-users --Darrelljon 21:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, he did some tests on some items related to the case, but not DNA from Jack himself, as none exists. The results were all negative. See: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=267 DreamGuy 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

...

Does any one else find this statement a little biast?SaintDante 19:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst we Social Democrats were wasting our time on education, agitation and organization, some independent genius has taken the matter in hand, and by simply :murdering and disembowelling four women, converted the proprietary press to an inept sort of communism.

It's a quote, not a statement of the article. That said, I'm interested as to how you think it's biased? WhiteCat 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... seems you are right. I am sorry. Next time I will read everything with a little more attention. SaintDante 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

==Ripper Notes==

There is only one sample article housed on the Ripper Notes site. Everything else is a link to Casebook. That sample article was NOT used as a source for this article. The inclusion of Ripper Notes website link under references is gratuitous and has nothing to do with accuracy, since there are no sample articles actually there. It's about keeping Ripper Notes up and excluding Ripperologist which I am sure has actually been used to help compile this article as well. I will leave the Rip Notes link up for 24 hours to allow for the citing of actual original material contained on the Ripper Notes website which would justify leaving the citation up. After that, I am taking it down. And by the way Vic, this isn't *your* site for some upstart, *me* to come along and try to horn in. It's Wikipedia, where everyone who has a passing interest in the topic has a right to add, subtract or multiply the information. I am following Wik guidelines.This inclusion is gratuitous-- there is no information contained on that webpage that would merit its inclusion and this started because of bias and personal agenda on the part of you and DreamGuy who is the editor of the Ripper Notes magazine. Bias is against the Wik rules and so is advertising. this was unsigned, but it was by User:CrimeBuff

Wikipedia has policies to follow, and you are not following them. Chris George, the editor of Ripperologist, came here and tried to place a link to his own website. Your account, which has no edits other than on this page, showed up shortly later to do all the same activity. You talk about bias and advertising when what you are trying to do is either add a link to an electronic journal's website, which only exists to try to sell it, and when you do not get your way you try to remove any and all mention of the leading journal in the field, which is in print and whose research was used extensively for much of the information in this article, which would be obvious to anyone who has read this article or that journal. I know of no information in this article that came from Ripperologist, and you have not tried to offer any, just to declare that it must have happened. From what I have seen mentioned elsewhere (i.e. the Casebook content listing of the table of contents of this ejournal), Ripperologist appears to be some sort of fan publication without much real research.
As a newbie editor whose only edits have been to spam and make revenge edits to support a Ripperologist editor and make accusations against a competitor, not to mention to distort what other people said to try to get your way, you do not get to say what happens here. Wikipedia follows policies on notability, verifiability, and external links, not to mention neutral point of view. When there is conflict over these things, we first go by what the policies say, and when that is unclear, we go by the consensus of editors here. An admin already came in to undo your edits, I undid your edits, and you came out of nowhere with a clear agenda in mind, so we know what your opinion is worth. Yes, everyone can come here and edit, but when someone makes bad edits they should expect them to be removed, as yours have been. Being editable by everyone means things can be added and removed and you agreed to follow that whenever you make an edit here by a little warning notice. Your insistence that you will have your way shows clear lack of understanding of how this site works.
Trying to remove mention of a publication because you want the competitor listed instead is bias. Trying to list both publications and slant the sentence so it sounds like Ripperologist is more important (by stating that it is monthly and leaving out that it is only an email, or by listing it first, or by saying it has real research that people in the field admire, etc.) is clear bias. Please before you try to edit here, do so without trying to advance an agenda that is clearly the same as spamming the article. Victrix 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's Talk about Bias=

DreamGuy deleted his rival magazine on a lame pretext that is not supported by wikipedia guidelines. And as for your insistence to keep Ripper Notes up ...have you actually found any ORIGINAL material sourced in one of it's sample articles that are not housed on Casebook yet, which would justfiy a link to Ripper Notes?


You don't get to say what happens here either, Vic. It's not YOUR website or YOUR page. You are just as insistent to have your way as you claim I am to have mine. I am at least insistent on having my way in a manner that follows Wik rules. Or have you actually found ORIGINAL SOURCE found in Ripper Notes article, housed on the RIPPER Notes page? Why no, I think not.

You deleted a perfectly acceptable paragraph on all Ripper media in general because of YOUR BIAS. Explain what possible reason there was for that except for you being biased.

Cool it

Knock it off, keep it civil, etc. The anons and puppets clearly have an agenda, to advertise Ripperologist or hurt Ripper Notes, and editing with such an agenda is a bad thing. But looking beyond their malice I believe there is still some validity to the point that the link to the Ripper Notes site, as it previously existed, was basically a form of advertising. I've put in a properly-formatted jousnal reference corresponding the one existing inline citation of a Ripper notes article. Additional references backing up inline citations in a similar form are welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Lusk Kidney

Can you please tell me what original material from the Lusk Kidney article was included in this article? The only material I found on the Lusk kidney in this article is readily available in many sources that pre-date the Ripper Notes article?

CrimeBuff

The is already an inline reference to the article (inline ref [2] in ==The Ripper letters== section) which supports the information about the "From Hell" letter. It really doesn't matter if the information is available from other, or earler, sources - what matters is that the author of the article chose to cite the Lusk Kidney article as their source for the information. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


So then by that logic, if I add any bit of widely known common knowledge information about the Ripper crimes, even though it is so mundane as to hardly be worth citing, if I claim I read it in Ripperologist, that would be a reason for adding Ripperologist to the Reference page?
Not if you do it in bad faith as you describe. Nor does the information supported by the Lusk Kidney article citation appear to meet the standard of being "so mundane as to hardly be worth citing" - it's clearly an area where experts disagree, so it's quite important that specific sources are cited there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
And do you really think that this inclusion of a Ripper Notes article is NOT in bad faith? Seriously, not trying to bust your chops, just wondering if you honestly believe after seeing DreamGuy and Victrix doing whatever to eliminate any reference to Ripperologist to keep Ripper Notes up, especially when DreamGuy is the EDITOR of Ripper Notes, if this inclusion isn't in bad faith and merely for the purpose of furthering of their agenda? I am willing to let your addition stand, I think you are attempting to be as neutral as can be, I am just wondering if you honestly believe that it isn't a "keep Ripper Notes there, no matter what pretext we need to find", especially considering Evan's Sourcebook is already used in the reference section and it contains more info on the Lusk Letter? I do not at all believe that this article was the source for the information included about the Lusk Letter, I don't think anyone else will believe it either. I think it is an excuse to keep Ripper Notes there. CrimeBuff
I strongly doubt it was done in bad faith, even if what you say is true - I have no idea if what you say about DreamGuy is the case or not. I no reason to believe that the information wasn't sourced from that article. As far as DreamGuy goes, he's a respected long-time contributor who has done good work around here and fully deserves Wikipedia:Assume good faith to be applied his way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Possibly you might want to educate yourself then as to the full facts of the case. The editor of Ripper Notes is DreamGuy, he deleted his rival magazine. If you wish to assume Good Faith in his case, knowing those facts, then you need to give the rest of us the benefit of the doubt in that we are trying to be as fair and equitable in this situation as possible. Those of us who are attempting to include Rip and RN both, or exclude both, are actually doing it to be unbiased. It is those struggling to keep RN up without any real reason who are showing bias and bad faith. I don't really care how long they have been here. The RN article was not used as the source. All of that information is so commonly known in Ripper circles as to be considered common knowledge. The inclusion of the article *is* merely an attempt to keep RN on the page. However the anon who added both under Media seems to have the best solution in my mind, acknowleding both equally for the contributions they have made.
I think I am about done listening to your venom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Venom? What venom AT ALL was there in the preceding paragraph? It was a statment of facts. Saying Dan Norder is Dream Guy and he deleted his rival magazine is a statement of fact. How is that venomous? None of what I said above was at all venomous. It was factual. But if you are done listening that's quite all right. Your refusing to hear the truth doesn't change the truth at all. It doesn't change the fact that DreamGuy and Victrix are biased and are acting on that bias. And adding: See my talk page: The PTBs have ruled that since Dan Norder has been outed by his own words on another website in discussion of this, that it is okay to include his name and his connection to Ripper Notes as it is relevant to the discussion of bias. CrimeBuff 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)CrimeBuff
What CrimeBuff conspicuously leaves out is that I was the one who added Ripperologist as a link in the first place, and that I only removed it once they went out of print and existed only as an email-based publication, and that I was also the one to add it back in later when an editor of that magazine complained. But apparently no good deed goes unpunished, as my comment that they were "still somewhat notable" despite being email-only deeply offended them, and they published an attack piece with highly distorted information, claiming despite their chronic lack of subscribers (and their editor leaving, and the major bookseller in the field removing the link to their site from her site, and so forth and so on) to be the #1 publication. At that point I decided not to directly edit that section any more. As far as the Lusk Kidney reference to Ripper Notes, I did not even put that reference there, someone else did (no clue who, don't want to dig through history to find it), proving Ripper Notes' influence as a source independent of any alleged bias this person is accusing me of. I have, in fact, bent over backwards to be fair in this article to all sources in this field, adding for example Whitechapel Society with its journal (that journal is currently my major competitor for subscribers, Ripperologist is probably third place these days), adding Paul Begg's book as a source (Begg was the editor of Ripperologist at the time, so that's not something someone biased against him and his publication would do), and so forth and so on. But there are some people in the field who unfortunately are very easily offended and launch into personal attacks and crusades over any perceived slight. I have strictly followed the NPOV policy on this article and also Wikipedia policies on notability and so forth. Ripperologist lost a ton of subscribers, couldn't afford to print copies, switched to email only, and quite demonstratably simply fails Wikipedia notability guidelines on all counts these days. I can understand why the editors at Rip (especially Chris George, who signed his own name on his original edits here) are upset about this fact, but this does not justify an orchestrated campaign to lash out at their rivals, which is ongoing here and on other internet sites. This CrimeBuff person talks like someone with a deep professional grudge against me and consistently distorts things other people said to try to justify his biased actions. He claims "The PTBs have ruled" when no Powers That Be have ruled anything, just one person not in any power responded in a wishy washy way to one of his statements and now he pretends that's blessing from Jimbo himself or something. He takes whatever edit comments others make and twists them to try to mean something that, by the actions of the other editor's involved, they clearly did not mean. His bias here is clear and unacceptable. He is also trying to deny Ripper Notes' obvious contributions to field, falsely claiming that everything in this article is well known and from many publications and not just Ripper Notes, which is simply untrue. There are a number of points in this article that could have only come from Ripper Notes, or perhaps from some source that had just republished findings first printed in Ripper Notes, as happens often on Casebook (which has permission to do so with many things) and in the other mags. The Carrie Brown info should be one obvious area, as we published a huge three part series on her murder with info that was not anywhere else and which is now here, but there are others as well. Anyone familiar with the publication and being honest would have to admit this. Unfortunately it is clear that CrimeBuff is neither. As he came here as a direct result of Ripperologist's attack piece, that should not be surprising. DreamGuy 08:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. You added the link to Ripperologist, so when they start reviewing your magazine unfavorably, you find an opportunity to delete it. If your intentions were unbiased, can you explain why in your Wikipedia deletions you pretended not to know who Chris George was when it is obvious that you did know who he was? And while I am sure there are a number of points used in the Ripper Notes article that are unique to it, NOTHING that is unique made it into the paragraph about the Lusk Kidney that is on this website. The point of a reference is to cite where original information in an article came from. Interesting that when someone tries to de-link you on accurate reasons--your web page is an ad, not a resource, no sample articles contained, not truly references, it is because of a deep personal grudge against you, but when you delete the rival magazine you are in deep competition with, it is to keep Wikipedia on the straight and narrow. No one is trying to deny Ripper Notes' contributions to the field, indeed, all deletions and additions by me have been either to put both RN and Ripper Notes on equal footing, either adding Ripperologist when it wasn't there or deleting Ripper Notes likewise. You can now claim hysterically that there is a grudge match against you and your publication, but if there is, it is as a direct result of your own actions: deleting Ripperologist under a shaky pretext and pretending to be someone you weren't when confronted by Chris George. CrimeBuff 10:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they've been giving highly biased and deceptive reviews for well more than a year. I removed them when they switched to email-only. You are clearly one of the people who always looks for reasons to complain when there aren't any. It's funny for you to claim that I'd be "hysterical" top claim a "grudge match" between the publications when, in fact, Chris George is the one who seems to think there is a "war" going on between the publications, and that's a direct quote. I haven't contributed to any war, but I can see how people in a mag who lost so many subscribers that they couldn't go on printing anymore can be looking for a scapegoat. And of course it's interesting that you claim I was claiming to be someone else when all I was doing was using an alias, just like you are doing now... It's clear that you are some person with an active grudge against me, so why are you here pretending to be someone else? Give it a rest, you just look ridiculous coming here and trying to cause trouble when there's nothing to complain about. DreamGuy 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Just can't let your grudge go, can you? Things have been calm and quiet for days, and back pops Dan Norder to start it all up again. You contributed to the "war" when you deliberately erased Ripperologist for no reason and then pretended not to know who Chris George was. Or have you found yet where in Wikipedia it says that e-magazines aren't notable in this, an e-encyclopedia? You say I am coming here based on personal grudge and look ridiculous? Well look in a mirror. No one actually believes you did this for any reason other than personal bias and grudge, so why don't you just give it a rest as well? CrimeBuff 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


CrimeBuff, what in particular do you think should be changed about the article as it stands? If you can't keep your complaints specific and relevant to this article you should pursue this via some other means (ie not Wikipedia). WhiteCat 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
My complaint is specific and pertains to Wikipedia. Dan Norder acting on his own bias deleted the link to the magazine that was his magazine's direct rival, Ripperologist, under an excuse he has yet to be able to back up with actual rules from Wikipedia. I am satisfied with things as they now stand with both Ripperologist and Ripper Notes getting equal mention and links to neither one's website. I believe that is fair and equitable solution. CrimeBuff 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

'All over the world'?

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that in Media it says the practice of inventing interesting names for serial killers then became common practice "all over the world" and then lists a group of American serial killers with a couple more British killers tossed in? That's hardly all over the world; that's America and Britain. CrimeBuff 11:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So come up with other examples... It is, in fact, all over the world, so it should be easy to do so if you think that needs to be improved. The fact the US and British ones are used have more to do with this being an English encyclopedia than the fact that it's not all over the world. Contribute to the article instead of only being here to complain. DreamGuy 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I did do something. I removed the erroneous phrase. CrimeBuff 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Except it was not erroneous. You were simply ignorant of the facts. DreamGuy 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the page on "List of Serial Killers" (either by name or by region) usually has the nickname right by the killer's real name, if the killer has in fact been given a nickname, and it's true that serial killers all over the world have been given nicknames by authorities. Why not post a few up there? Or maybe we should just list a few of them and keep that section simple, since it's not really like those killers have that much to do with Jack the Ripper at all, except that they happen to have been given nicknames by authorities too. We should mention killers with SIMILAR nicknames that were inspired by Jackie boy (like "Jack the Stripper"), but other than that I think we should just keep that page simple. Sylocat 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Movies

I guess there are several movies about Jack the Ripper. Usually, articles with many related movies have a movie-section. I think we should add such a section here: it can also help the reader to understand the popularity of Jack the Ripper. gala.martin (what?) 01:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

See Jack the Ripper fiction#Theatre. Most of the long list of Jack the Ripper in fiction has been placed in another article, to give this article more focus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. I did not see the link before. Do you reckon we should add the Jack the Ripper fiction#Theatre link to the See also section? gala.martin (what?) 13:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Jack the Ripper in popular culture section already says "See Jack the Ripper fiction for details"; seems like enough to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I could never disagree with the owner of two of this things. gala.martin (what?) 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A Great Theory

I don't know if this theory has been established yet, but due to the knowledge of Jack the Ripper, you would think that he was an inside source like apart of the press or a policeman. All of this is based on the letters he sent. The only thing that is weird is that in each letter, he has a different grammar ability. For example; In the "Dear Boss" letter, he writes with almost totally correct grammar, but in the "Letter from Hell" letter, he writes with almost all incorrect grammar. Hmm. Isn't this a great theory? I wonder...

Hi. The letters you quote are not thought to be from the same hand. Alas the world of Jack the Ripper is full of such complexities. Of all the correspondence though, the "letter from hell" is the favourite to be genuine. JSL595 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, he was deliberately writing with different typography and skills every time, just to throw the police off his trail, but that's purely WP:OR. I do like the theory, but if you want to put it on the page (and I assume you do, otherwise you wouldn't post here) need to cite a source detailing someone besides you who has that theory (not that your opinion is worth less than theirs, but one person isn't recognized by Wikipedia as a source). You could post a link to a website devoted to that theory, and if there isn't a website devoted to that theory you could start one. The internet is pretty big (in case you hadn't noticed, lol), so it really shouldn't be too hard to recruit people to a website devoted to a Ripper theory, especially one as logical as that, and you can all do research and hunt down evidence and facts to support it. I personally favor Sir John Williams as my suspect (what a blow that theory must be to the modern-day composer who shares his name), but I love seeing new theories. Sylocat 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper and Claudius the fourth emperor of Rome were brothers, and Jack had a time machine with which he alternated between the years of ca. BC 5 and AD 54 (he was younger than claudius and did not live long after him) and 1888. Oh and they are both lizards, as are George W. Bush and some say the British Royal family, but I don't think so. cheers.

External links

I almost hate to bring this up, but I wonder if any thought could be given to restoring Ripperologist and Ripper Notes to the external links section?

I have no specific interest in JtR myself, but an associate has informed me that both sites are valued tools for researchers, and that a specific link would benefit the article. Both pages solicit subscriptions, but both also provide free materials and are (apparently) respected within their fields.

Comments? CJCurrie 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check out WP:EL, you may agree with me that neither site is appropriate as an external link here. Wikipedia isn't google; both sites are primarilly advertising vehicles. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Could they be linked elsewhere in the article, then? CJCurrie 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism

Someone has messed with the Graffiti section, and possibly more (I didn't read the entire article closely yet). I would remove it, but I'm not sure what it originally was. Sorry. - DarthLuigi36 11:46, 23 May 2006. (UTC)

Forget that. I'm still a newbie with the Wiki, I forgot you could see the history of a page.

JTRForums

Some anon recently added a link to a JTRForums site to External links. External links must meet certain guidelines to be included here. See Wikipedia:External links policy. This particular site fails the criteria quite dramatically, as it has no encyclopedic purpose (being solely a messageboard, just like tons of others out there), was clearly intended for self-promotional purposes, and so forth and so on. Then there's also the problem with two websites proclaiming themselves to be the "original" JTR Forums, on top of the Casebook forums having been around longer than both of them put together and being widely recognized as being the #1 spot for such things. 172.162.254.119 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Boys killed

I wonder why a section claiming that the Ripper may have killed young boys keeps getting added. It has no source listed, is not something in most books on the topic, seems extremely speculative in a Wikipedia:No original research policy-violating way, and doesn't particularly stand out as being at all notable as far as wild speculation about the Ripper goes. If this is to be added back, I would hope that someone could give an actual source for it to show that it comes from someplace real instead of being just someone's pet personal theory. 172.162.254.119 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Identified?

"The man he named was Aaron Kosminski, a Polish-Jewish hairdresser living in Whitechapel, East London, who was eventually committed to a lunatic asylum, where he died."[4]

There's nothing new about the alleged identification of Kosminski, this has been known about for some time. As I understant it, it is not disputed that a supposed identification of Kosminski in an asylum did take place. However the issue is whether an identification years after the event, by somebody who may not actually have got a particularly good view of the Ripper, under condititions which fell short of a proper identity parade, should really be given much weight. PatGallacher 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another consideration is that the claim of there being an identification at all is only made by two high ranking officials who had no direct involvement in the investigation, while other police, including the officials in the City Police directly in charge of that particular investigation and the investigators working the case not only never mentioned this identification but explicitly state that it never happened. Thus the whole identification thing is thought by many sources to have been made up by a high ranking official in his autobiography to try to claim the crimes were solved when they really weren't. 172.128.235.182 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Location of the Murders

I don't know too terribly much about the geography of the London area, but the Ripper wasn't active just in Whitechapel. He also committed crimes in Aldgate/City of London (Eddowes), in Spitalfields (Chapman and Kelly), and in St.-Georges-in-the-East (now Stepney from the Wikipedia article on St George in the East (Stride). [5] In fact only ONE of the five canonical victims was actually killed in Whitechapel (Nichols). I think "East End" would be a more accurate term to use in the opening sentence of the article. 68.13.236.96 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I believe an old version had East End listed instead of Whitechapel. The "Whitechapel" designation came from some early non-canonical victims, I believe. 172.128.235.182 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go back up this page, you'll see that this subject has generated some debate before. However, two things are evident: that some of the arguments put at that time were predicated on factual inaccuracies, and that the current wording is not satisfactory. Specific mention of Whitechapel is, I think, valid because of the popular term Whitechapel Murders used to describe the series. I'll make as small a chang as possible in an attempt to improve things; let's see what people think. Guy Hatton 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"has never been determined"

Here's a chart for the editor who doesn't understand and keeps changing back to his WP:NPOV-violating version, despite clear consensus that his change is not needed and actually harmful.

NPOV violation: This theory (or one of these theories) about Jack the Ripper is right! We know who Jack was!!

Middle ground: Not taking a side, simply pointing out that there are multiple theories

NPOV violation the other way: All of the theories are WRONG! Jack the Ripper's identity HAS NOT been determined!!!

A large number of authors think and argue that they (or the police at the time, or some other source) have proven the identity of Jack the Ripper. Saying that none of them have is a clear, clear violation of policy here. 172.146.73.82 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea that something "may" be right and therefore should be taken at face value is laughable. Just because someone thinks they have it solved doesn't mean it is, just like the idea that one theory might be correct and therefore we should consider it no longer unsolved is even more laughable. The idea that if someone can't disprove your theory then it must be a valid theory is incorrect. That's like saying that because you can't disprove the existence of God he must exist.
A fact in the abstract must be proved into existence. That is very important let me say that again, a fact in the abstract must be proved into existence. Saying that a killer has never been determined means that there is no general consensus as to who the killer was. The killer's identity has never been determined (fact), at least not in a way that most western civilizations with their modern jurisprendence and legal standards would consider satisfactory. That doesn't mean the theories are all incorrect only that they are just that, theories nothing more. After that correct fact has been stated then you can proceed to the conjecture about who he may have been.
Guy Hatton's edit is solid and laudable in that it includes both points, he was the bigger man than me and compromised and it is completely acceptable to myself.
By the way determined means " a.To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively.
b. To end or decide, as by judicial action." :[6]
So for you to say that the statement "has never been determined" is incorrect, means logically that it has been determined and that Jack the Ripper's identity has been decided or settled conclusively and authoritatively. Which is comical. --Quadzilla99 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you don't understand simple English. The idea that something "may" be right and therefore should be taken at face value is laughable. -- Nobody is asking for you to take it at face value. That would be taking a side. Saying that none of those theories are right is ALSO taking a side. This is simple, basic understanding of how the English language works and also how the WP:NPOV policy works here. 172.130.56.123 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quadzilla - thank you for the kind words. To clarify - my original objection to the blank 'has never been determined' was not so much philosophical, more that it seemed to underestimate the fact that many researchers are still attempting a determination of the killer's identity, and that there is an outside chance that one or more may be successful. It is possible, of course that someone may already have stumbled across the correct answer, but to date, none of the theories that I have seen advanced are backed by sufficiently solid evidence to constitute, in my opinion, a 'determination' in the terms very well defined above. Hence it eventually dawned on me that there was a need for both points ('has not' and 'may never be') to be incorporated. Guy Hatton 11:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The individual opinions of people here claiming that there is not enough evidence to determine who the killer is would be fine if you were writing an opinion piece on yourone website somewhere, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia following rules of objectivity. That means your opinions cannot be incorporated into the article. Wikipedia cannot take a side on whether the Ripper's identity has been determined or whether it has not been. 172.130.56.123 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment We cannot include may never be in the article, because this is an encyclopaedia and should include verifiable fact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so any comment on future developments cannot be made. The facts are:
  1. There were/are suspects.
  2. Some contemporaries had very strong suspicions about individuals.
  3. No-one was convicted of the crimes.
Fact, fact and more fact is what is needed. Verifiable official speculation from the time should also be included, as should modern day verifiable official speculation and should be clearly stated as such. But, speculation from individual Wiki-editors cannot be included. This is classed as original research and therefore inadmissible. DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 00:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I restate:

By the way determined means " a.To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. :b. To end or decide, as by judicial action." :[7]

So for you to say that the statement "has never been determined" is incorrect, means logically that it has been determined and that Jack the Ripper's identity has been decided or settled conclusively and authoritatively. Which is comical.

Show what part of the above statement does not follow impeccable logic.Quadzilla99 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Quadzilla... I think David was supporting your version, not the IP's. I may be wrong, but from looking it over I'm pretty sure he meant to support your version of the statement. I believe that he means that editors cannot say that the crimes may never be solved because that is our personal speculation. But I must say that I agree completely with your logic. Srose (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's my fault I didn't mean to address it to him. For anyone who is interested I have constructed the logical proof for the argument on my user page. I eliminated the other entries so the pure logic of it could be focused on [8].Quadzilla99 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would object to the use of the term "May never be" as well. All we know now is that it has not yet been determined, so the statement that it "may never be determined" is technically true, but it is redundant. Any dispute that has not yet been resolved "may never be" resolved, and to specifically mention that it may never be resolved is redundant. Sylocat

172.134.109.34

Someone at 172.134.109.34 reverted to a POV/OR-laden version from many edits back, leaving no discussion here. He/she did leave an incredibly uncivil message on my talk page, though. (This user only started editing Wikipedia today, and this edit was their fifth one ever, incidentally) wikipediatrix 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are completely wrong on pretty much everything you claim.
My edit did not revert to a POV/OR-laden version, as it removed the highly POV comment discussed above (claims that the Ripper's identity has never been determined), and restored several sections that absolutely have no POV problems whatssoever and have been here for years approved of and supported by multiple editors. Please go read up on the actual WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies before trying to make claims about what they mean when it's clear that you have no idea.
Furthermore, I have been editing Wikipedia for years, and this article specifically for years. I have recently not been bothering to sign on to my Wikipedia account. It's actually you who are completely new to this topic, and it's highly deceptive of you to try to discredit anyone's edits based upon length of time here when yours is nonexistent itself. If you had any knowledge of this article's history, or spent any time looking at it at all, you would know your claims are false.
And I would argue that your comments above are highly uncivil, and, worse than that, purposefully created to ignore discussion on the lack of merits of your edits by trying to insinuate that someone who hasn't edited an article before is automatically wrong -- but if that's your argument then it'd be your lack of history here which is most significant.
Please try to come up with a reason why your drastic edits are at all appropriate when the hundreds of editors who have been creating this article over the last several years did not have a problem at all with the sections you are removing. 172.147.224.125 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere in that moving speech did I see any defense of your own edits. The burden of proof is on he who is trying to insert unsourced/POV/OR information, not those who seek to remove it. Tell me specifically, line by line, sentence by sentence, why you think the segments I am removing so "obviously" belong here. And see if you can do it without being condescending this time. wikipediatrix 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, 172, why don't you just sign on to your wiki account so we'll know who you are and can judge this. Just saying there is one somewhere doesn't help. And as you must know, if you've been at this for years, it really isn't all that laborious! --Christofurio 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: an argument based on the fact that a particular bit of content has remained unaltered for a set amount of time is bound for failure. The merits (or lack thereof) of the content should be addressed, not its age. EVula 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already constructed a logical proof that shows the statement is 100% a logical fact. Click here to read it [9]. The statement nowhere says all theories are wrong. It merely states that the issue has not been decided conclusively. I you don't understand the meaning of each word in the sentence "Has never been determined" get a dictionary. Quadzilla99 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some things are stylistic. I'll go ahead and agree "Has never been determined" is factually correct. What makes it better than the (in my opinion) harder-to-misinterpret "Has never been proven"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Determined is more cut and dry. Proven is more equivocal. Determined says "There is no consensus" proven says "we know who did it but can't prove it" in my opinion. Sometimes people's feeling have to get hurt. If some novice comes along and asks "Do we know who did it? Yes or No." The answer is No. What are you going to say?- I think so. Maybe. Kinda. Quadzilla99 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My feelings weren't hurt; I'm just glad you're talking about the pluses and minuses of the two options rather than going on about how it is logically correct. I think you are probably right about the choice between those two options; I also have a feeling that there's a better-yet wording for the matter out there waiting to be written. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the 172. person who takes the statement as a grave injustice. Basically when a person comes across this subject they should know that there is no clear person who did it. The Ripper's identity has not been determined. I am still amazed someone could get so worked up, it's pretty simple. I imagine he has a theory of his own that he proclaims is fact. I hope we can just drop this now.Quadzilla99 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

172 edited it again today saying that determined means some peculiar thing that does not exist in any dictionary and is most probably a figment of his imagination. It's fascinating how he makes up a false meaning of the word and treats it as though it's real. I will continue to revert it back as I will not let the article fall victim to a basic lack of understanding of the English Language or the argumentum ad nauseam (aka proof by assertion) and argumentum ad hominem method of dicussing an edit.Quadzilla99 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A very late addition to the 'argument' but to me the wording "has not yet been determined" seems to be more fitting as it clearly states that the identity of 'Jack' is not yet known with any degree of certainty, but it also shows that the identity of 'Jack' is still being researched/debated? Just a thought. - zero187

Documentary TV Channels

I have seen this matter on these TV channels from time to time. One theory going around is that the murderer was a member of the Royal Family and he was terminated to put a end to the murders. Due to certain Wiki-protocol, I can't state that anywhere at all. Martial Law 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That was actually the plot of From Hell the movie with Johnny Depp also (except that he went to an asylum if I remember correctly). It's a pretty well known theory in the Ripper circles. It would go well in the trivia section of the article (if there were one), you could sneak it in by way of explaining the plot of the movie. Or just present it as Trivia sections are understandably less scrupulous in their evidentiary standards. That's the only way I could see you getting it in but I imagine some people would question an addition like a Trivia section to a serious subject such as this. I wouldn't mind personally. Quadzilla99 03:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. That's not the plot of From Hell -- that plot was to kill those who knew about a royal baby born out of wedlock. Either way there's no reason at all to mention in this article, as List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories and Jack the Ripper in fiction (with the offshoots on From Hell and etc.) all cover it in exhausting detail. 172.163.85.111 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I said if I remember correctly. By the way did you have time to read this [10] and look up determined in the dictionary?Quadzilla99 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what determined means... Did you go read the WP:NPOV policy yet? Or any actual books about Jack the Ripper? Or websites? Or even the articles already here on Wikipedia? Apparently not. 172.165.136.245 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What does determined mean? Does it mean this "a.To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. :b. To end or decide, as by judicial action.[11]"? Quadzilla99 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a historian considering that someone was a murderer and a tribunal deciding the same individual was guilty of murder. For example Stalin is considered by most historians to be a murderer, but has not been found posthumously guilty by a competent tribunal. To describe the conclusion of historians, the term determined is used, while legal proceedings revolve around proof. If there had been a tribunal, which had dismissed a case, then proved would be appropriate. However, we are describing the judgement of historians and so determined is appropriate. Addhoc 22:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some compromise attempts

I have made some edits in an attempt to reach a compromise between the edit-warring sides here, both of which I think have some valid points. Note that I made my edits one at a time, a policy I highly encourage all sides to continue to follow. I offer my thoughts on the six areas being changed in that last round of revert warring:

  1. "Jack the Ripper's identity may never be proven/has never been determined."
    It is true that it may never be proven but this still strikes me as unneccessary crystal-balling; better to talk about what has taken place so far. Someone might have determined his identity, maybe by a lucky guess, but certainly nobody to this day has proven it.
    Which is why we need the word proven there instead of determined.
  2. The paragraph starting "The legends surrounding the Ripper murders"...
    This paragraph should stay. It is a good overview of a very important aspect of the story -- the phenomenon rather than the crimes themselves.
  3. The Fairy Fay paragraph
    No opinion.
  4. Carrie Brown's ovary
    I thought some of the wording was unclear, particulary what "taken" is taken to mean. I attempted some small modifications to clarify.
  5. Refuting Knight's interpretation of Juwes.
    Tricky one. Personally I think the fact that there is no evidence of Juwes being used that was before Knight is a strong refutation by itself, and saying "the idea is rejected by most experts" becomes unneccessary. If you disagree, some citations verifying that the idea is rejected by most experts would probably be a good idea.
  6. "Many theories about the identity of Jack the Ripper have been advanced. None is entirely persuasive, and some can hardly be taken seriously at all."
    Well, the article should say something there. I've attempted to tone down the POV by deleting the last bit. — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work, Bunchofgrapes.... I appreciate your efforts against the POV/OR problems here. I also still have problems with the phrase "a complex muddle of genuine historical research, freewheeling conspiracy theory and dubious folklore." dubious? muddle? freewheeling? Can't we state this a little more impartially? I also still see a LOT of sentences here that beg for a specific source citation, and I still see a lot of WP:WEASEL language like "Most experts say...", "Many sources believe..." and unsourced "However..." counter-arguments. wikipediatrix 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's got a lot of weaseling, I can't deny it. Not enough direct citations, either. Do you think it would be difficult to source some of those statements more concretely? Or provide direct quotes from sources indicating the same thing? Maybe you should try Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and give it a shot. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly most of the statements CAN be sourced, by digging up appropriate quotes from lots of different books, but when something is the opinion of the vast majority of experts, I don't think it's weasel talk at all to just state that when to source that would require quoting enough different sources to demonstrate that it's the vast majority. It's simply a matter of not having to specify in excrutiating detail what would be obvious to anyone who reads the books cited in the References section. That's what the Reference section is for. 172.163.85.111 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This deserves mention

  • Atlanta's Jack the Ripper [12]

BTW hating on the anon is lame. 132.241.245.245 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is notable enough to warrant an article, then yes, I agree that it should be placed in the See also section. As it stands, there isn't an article, so I don't think it should be mentioned. Feel free to register and then write an article about it.
I wasn't "hating on the anon" for posting the warning. It's just procedure. EVula 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Determined vs. Proved

I actually don't care, I am perfectly happy with either version -- but you two (you know who you are) seem quite determined to edit war over it until, presumably, one loses in a war of attrition. This is unacceptable. As you know, I've tried a different wording -- one which includes neither the words "determined" or "proved". This was quickly reverted by one side, with no mention of the current wording, just that his preferred wording wasn't wrong. I have a feeling that if the other side had seen it first, he probably would have done the same. Please put aside petty stubbornness, both of you, and try new things until everyone is satisfied. Or until everyone is equally unhappy -- as long as the edit war stops. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The version you had might be acceptable... The "determined" version is absolutely not acceptable, as its highly POV-pushing and against policies here, as mentioned time and time again. It is disturbing that you think someone fixing a blatant POV problem is somehow a BAD thing. So if you went and repeatedly had to undo damage caused by an editor to another article, would you like it if some third person showed up and accused you both of being just as bad as each other? Give me a break. When we have a determined POV-pusher, the only thing to do is to keep correcting it until the POV-pusher goes away or gets a brain or something. I will undo any mention of "determined" until Kingdome Come if necessary, and since the other editor in question is just a flash in the pan clueless newbie who sumbled upon the page I don't he's going to be around very long. He'll go find an article who actually knows something about to edit... assuming he knows enough about any topic to contribute anywhere. 172.165.136.245 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, articles are the result of consensus, it's not all about what you want. You do not WP:OWN this article. Secondly, you are in multiple violation of WP:NPA with your insults. Attacking people who disagree with you - and so far several editors do - is not going to result in making the page permanently say what you want it to say. wikipediatrix 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

BunchofGrapes thank you for not resorting to illogical, irrelevant ad hominem attacks on me like 172 but if you look over the discussion page most people seemed to agree with the determined wording. Except you and 172. No one who knows what the word determined means should have a problem with it. Basically people should know that the case is unsolved and that if you ask the question Do we know who did it? Yes or No? The answer is No. Please tell me what is wrong with the current wording. Just because somebody really hates it doesn't mean we have to compromise to be nice because it hurts his/her feelings (I'm speaking of 172).Quadzilla99 22:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

While going back and and forth with 172.165.136.245 (talk · contribs) is just so much fun, I'm afraid I have to ask him to actually provide a source. I understand that there are six items listed in the References section, but the entire article needs to be redone using in-line references. Right now, 172 is referencing all six items for all the claims, without making specific references. Sorry, but that just ain't flying right with me. I can't make claims and then say "oh, it's in one of those six books", and neither can he.

Currently, I've made two reverts, as has he. We're both flirting with WP:3RR. Can someone else weigh in on this, please? EVula 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

172.165.136.245 has, so far, reverted the edits of yourself, myself, Addhoc, Quadzilla99, Bunchofgrapes, and some other IP, each time pushing his own private version as if he WP:OWNs the article and opposing consensus. I have been lurking to see what happens when the dust cloud settles, but support your version over 172's (who is apparently also editing this article under the name of DreamGuy - see his edit summary at 18:55, 13 August 2006). wikipediatrix 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is, that we have a new group of editors who have shown up who demonstrate no knowledge of Wikipedia policies at all, and even less about the topic in question.

Let's bottom line this for you... Wikipedia does not expect every single last sentence to be sourced. When the info supporting that line can be found in multiple sources, and especially in cases where just about every source there is has the same info, you absolutely do not have to cite them line by line. I'm not saying "oh, it's in one of those six books", I'm saying it's in ALL of the books, and every other freaking book on the topic. We don't go to the Abraham Lincoln page and demand a specific inline citation to support the fact that he was President of the United States, or when he was born, or the year he died, and so forht and so on line by line through the entire freaking article. That's exactly what you seem to be demanding in this article. Citations are ONLY for those things that are disputed, not common knowledge, differ in different sources, etc. Asking for a cite for the term "Ripperologist" and basic info on the murder of MArtha Tabram, etc. and so forth and so on is not at all how Wikipedia runs any other article, and the only reason people are asking here is they don't even know the common info about the case to know what any source at all says, let alone virtually all of them. If you don't know what is accepted common knowledge in a field you have no business trying to edit the article, let alone demanding citations.

Furthermore, the tag at the top claiming that the article needs to be edited for POV and that it reads like a story is just absurd, as nobody ever claimed any of that, it's just a nuisance tag. 172.149.101.59 07:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Proven vs Determined

Lawyers are concerned with proof, however this is about historical judgement, consequently determined is more appropriate. Addhoc 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers and, oh, detectives trying to solve mysteries are concerned with proof... that's what this topic is about. Historical judgment may have already determined who the Ripper was anyway, it's highly biased to claim it hasn't. 172.149.101.59 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. Ever get around to reading this? [13]Quadzilla99 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Addhoc 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

I have the following concerns relating to this sentence: "The lack of a confirmed identity for the killer has allowed subsequent authors, historians and mostly amateur sleuths—dubbed Ripperologists—to point their fingers at a wide variety of candidates; research into the the events continue to this day."

  • "subsequent authors", couldn't we group them as historians?
  • No, a great death of authors on the case are not historians.
  • "mostly amateur" is this directly from a reference, because it sounds like editorializing
  • There are next to no professional sleuths involved, which beomes obvioous reading any book about the case.
  • No it isn't...
  • "Ripperologists" again, which source?
  • ALL of them??? Tell you what, why don;t you actially go READ THE REFERENCES and then come and ask questions.
  • "point their fingers" is unencyclopedic
  • So you may have one legitimate point out of several completely nonsense ones
  • "research into the the events continue" who is currently researching? are they notable?
  • OH MY GOD... There are four active periodicals dedicated to the case publishinig research all the time, several books every year, scientists running tests on the Ripper letters, etc. etc... and if you would have bothered to actually read this article, you would have seen cites for all of this.


Addhoc 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

172.149.101.59 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"*"to this day" is unencyclopedic

I would agree... that was originally put in by the same person trying to put the "has not been determined" POV pushing, by the way."

Here is another in the endless examples of the ad hominem methods of 172 I described below. I was not the one who inserted "to this day" it was Guy Hatton [14] but even if I had it is irrelevant. Let's assume for a moment I had inserted it. I was most likely trying to improve the article and included an inappropriate phrase in an attempt to do so. Using the fact that an individual made an error on one post and therefore a separate post is incorrect is illogical and a pointless waste of time.Quadzilla99 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Editor 172

Ok, you have raised a significant number of issues, which are dealt with below:

  • In Wikipedia users who are anonymous have less weight than users who create accounts, regardless of how many years you have been editing. You appear to be suggesting the opposite, which is clearly erroneous. Personally, I would be prepared to discuss this article on the basis we are all equals.
  • If this was a featured article that would clearly be of relevance. However the age of the article and how long the previous version had lasted are entirely irrelevant.
  • Inappropriate accusation of vandalism and highly emotional statements such as "oh my god" or "kingdom come" should be avoided, if possible.
  • There is consensus this article requires copy editing to reach the formal tones expected of an encyclopedia article on a historical subject.
  • Inline references are not optional, they are expected. Excuses such as many other articles lack citation are not relevant. This article should be cited in accordance with community standards.
  • Finally, I would suggest you assume the other other editors working on this article are trying to improve it.

Addhoc 15:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As regards 172 he ignores the logical argument I have worked out for my statement[15] (even though I have posted it here several times and on his talk page as well) and my sourced and cited definition for determined[16]. He insists it means something which is not in any dictionary that I know of and is most likely a product of his own imagination. He just continually reverts it in an argumentum ad nauseam or proof by assertion manner. Also he has an unrelenting fondness for ad hominem methods which are time wasting and completely pointless. In short it is reaching the point to where he is just intitiating a proof by assertion campaign on this article. What I am conveying is you should not expect any kind of logical response from him. I went to great lengths to make a clear concise presentation of my argument to no avail he just kept stating "it's wrong POV" and reinserting his wording.Quadzilla99 09:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Reasons for merge

To whom it may concern: obviously - at least I thought it was obvious - this article consists of only four short sentences, and half of it is on the Jack the Ripper article already. I don't think the remaining two sentences justify the article, and I don't think it would be calamitous to move these two sentences back to the Jack the Ripper article. wikipediatrix 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(See also: Talk:Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.)

Support per Wikipediatrix. Addhoc 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Support I agree also.Quadzilla99 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Support as per nom. EVula 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to be WP:BOLD and do the merge, go for it. I'd do it myself but I've never done one before and would hate to screw it up. wikipediatrix 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - "Four short sentences" is NOT a valid argument for a merge. In order to merge, it not only must be a substub, but it also must be unable to be expanded in a way that won't already be covered by the main article. The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee very easily can have far more information on it than what anyone would put on this article. You guys should pay attention to what mergers are for and what they aren't for. DreamGuy 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support I don't think the WHitehall Vigilance Comittee can really be expanded and it is entirely based around the Ripper Murders...--Sharz 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Dream Guy is 172 for what it's worth (this is pointed out above by another user). The same questioning of credentials and lack of understanding of policies. Just say you disagree and state your reasons Dream Guy don't start telling people they don't know what they are doing. It's tiresome and will never get you anywhere.Quadzilla99 14:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Lack of understanding of policies? Uh, no... understanding of policies that you clearly do not what to understand yourself. But, yeah, any website that lets the general public without any qualifications to make any edits they want and band together to do whatever they can get a temporary majority on is always going to be screwed up, especially when they don't read the policies and then lie and cliam the policies back them up. DreamGuy 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The Whitehall Vigilance Committee article, while short now, can be expanded. Who were the members? During what time period did they meet? Where did they meet? By whose authority did they operate? What were their final conclusions? Did they consider any other crimes besides the "ripper" murders? There are plenty of areas of information that could be added to this article.Joshua Friel 14:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Need resolution on the "proven" vs "determined" debate

First of all, as I assume is obvious, I'm new to this article. I just stumbled upon the page out of curiosity and found this big messy argument. I can see it hasn't been discussed in a few days, but the edit history shows that the edit wars continue, which I believe is a problem.

You guys are going to have to come to some sort of conclusion on this. Take a survey if nothing else works on whether or not to use "proven" or "determined." What I can see is that you can't just keep arguing about the thing through editing, and I highly doubt you can resolve it through further discussion since both sides seem unwilling to settle for a compromise or back down. I see that third party attempt hasn't worked either, seeing as several third parties have come in to comment on the debate at various points. Though, if you're still willing to try that method, I will say that - as a third party - I favour "determined" based on the discussion here and my own understanding of word meanings.

But really, do what it takes to stop the edit wars. --Trance 05:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trance, there has been substantial compromise regarding other issues, however I agree determined vs proven isn't going anywhere. Regarding other alternatives, I could live with "the killer has never been identified", would that be acceptable to you? Addhoc 10:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Heyoz. Yes, it's okay with me, but I don't really think I'm the one you should be talking to since I'm not the opposing side. --Trance 02:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, from my perspective there has been a reasonable amount of compromise regarding the copy editing. In this context, I am not overly concerned about the precise wording of this sentence. However, I would suggest that given the nature of the previous debate, neither 'proven' or 'determined' are likely to be acceptable and some form of alternative could be required. Anyway, this debate isn't my current priority and the next task would probably be to gain agreement concerning the proposed merge. Addhoc 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


"Identified" is just as biased and POV-pushing as "determined" as there are plenty of authors who believe they have identified/determined the Ripper. Just ask, say, Patricia Cornwell, who is famous for being on TV and in newspapers claiming she has. She may or may not be right (in this case she's so highly unlikely to be right as to be silly), but an encyclopedia article built on the foundation of the WP:NPOV policy simply cannot say that she (and author authors who claim to have identified/determined) is outright wrong. "Proven" is a higher standard, and therefore the more accurate and unvbiased way of phrasing things.

And, really, this is a very simple concept, so I don't know why a couple of people here are having such difficulty understanding it. DreamGuy 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed alternative

"Although many theories have been advanced, the truth behind Jack the Ripper's identity has never been established."

A bit clumsy? Perhaps, but it bypasses the whole "identified/determined" debate. EVula 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just came up with another:

"Although many theories have been advanced, the true identity of Jack the Ripper has never been formally declared."
- or -
"Although many theories have been advanced, Jack the Ripper's true identity has never been formally declared."

Formal declaration (as in the police saying "so and so did it, case closed") is decidedly not POV, again bypassing the current debate. EVula 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Although many theories have been advanced, there is no consensus on Jack the Ripper's true identity." 151.204.105.10 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The case is not solved (or some equivalent) is the correct summary

The crime is unsolved and the killer is unidentified. This is a basic fact that needs to be bluntly stated in the first paragraph just as it is in Encyclopedia Britannica: "It is one of the most famous unsolved mysteries of English crime."[17] and MSN Encarta: "Jack The Ripper, name for the unidentified serial killer of women who from August to November 1888 brought terror to east London."[18]. So as long it's in that sort of language it will be acceptable.

It's amazing to me that people don't understand that this is the general consensus of the case. It's a plain and simple fact. However, if you want to replace the "has never been determined" statement (which is a proven logically correct statement[19]) make sure you put in a statement that states in plain unequivocal langauge (like the two sources I just quoted did so plainly and matter of factly) that the case has not been solved and the killer has not been identified.

(p.s. Those are the only 2 encyclopedias I looked at but I'll bet every single one in existence says essentially the same thing (probably in a similarly blunt manner also). My point is not to make an argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority argument using "infallible" sources but just to point out that every credible unbiased source states the same thing(I doubt any theories contained about the case in those publications would cause any significant changes in sales; unlike theories and summaries contained in a "Ripperologist's" book)

I also have to admit an admiration for the 2 sentences sited above, while we are here struggling back and forth over such a simple issue they just eloquently stated "unsolved" and "unidentified" right at the start and moved on.) Quadzilla99 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the entire sentence perhaps, as these other works have shown, once you state the killer is unidentified or the case is unsolved, that is all that's really needed. People should understand what unidentified or unsolved means and not need further clarification. Quadzilla99 11:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (I think)

Has someone vandalised the list of victims? Sorry I don't know how to fix this.

intesvensk 22:40, 30 September 2006

Yes, somebody had. I've reverted it. Thanks for the alert! Guy Hatton 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

London History template

The wikilondon project are attempting to get some standardisation - and linking into London history articles, by introducing a common London history template. I think in this article it looks long, and somewhat out of place, in an already crowded page. I added it, but someone might wish to revert my changes as 'corporately inspired vandalism'! For already long, and crowded articles like this, it might need rethinking. I apologise, in advance, if it's considered intrusive. Kbthompson 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I reverted this myself! The existing template just doesn't work here, I've put a note on the {Template talk:London history} page, and went ahead an voted for this page as a featured article ... The issue of the London history template will need to be revisited. Kbthompson 11:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New Studies

According to new studies, "Jack the Ripper" would have had to be living or been re-located close to the area where the crimes occured. So if you look at an old map of London, You'll see that by where the crimes were commited there was an hospital close by. Also it seem that the crimes took place on the weekend when someone of ok health might have been aloud out of the hospital for a drink. Hopeful this can help The Dwarf_King 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Without citing sources for these "new studies", it doesn't. wikipediatrix 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for the heads up maybe in a few days of resreach i can cite it ill need to find it again. --The Dwarf_King 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


The Whitechapel Murders

Wouldn't this article make more sense and be more objective if we distinguished between the 'Whitechapel Murders': i.e. those 9 or so murders (starting with Martha Tabram) noted by the contemporary police in their casebook for this area 1888-92 and that variable sub-set (bizarrely named 'canonical' here) ascribed at varying times by varying people to the Ripper. The Whitechapel murders are actual matters of recorded fact, no matter who committed them. The Ripper ascription to a variable sub-set of these murders is more hypothetical and can hardly be called 'canonical' ('canonical' according to whose authority?). Lay out the evidence - then come to the conclusion. Don't do a Patricia Cornwall and prejudge the issue before the start. Colin4C 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "Whitechapel murders" file started with Emma Elizabeth Smith and not Martha Tabram. I agree that the five victims named by Macnaghten as being the only true victims can in no way be certain, but "the canonical five" is the term used extensively in the field for that grouping. The article is very specific in where this idea came from and that it may not be the actual and total list of victims. Would I prefer a different term for the grouping? Yes. But so far, other than author Robin Odell (who proposed "The Macnaghten Five") and one or two others in the field, the "canonical five" term is preferred, even by those who do not believe in it truly being "canon". DreamGuy 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. The trouble is, though, that if you type in Whitechapel murders you are redirected to this article, which nowhere gives a list of said Whitechapel Murders. Instead we have 'the canonical five' and another very extensive list of possible Ripper victims. Nowhere in the article are the 'Whitechapel Murders', as noted in the original police file on the case, listed...Colin4C 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add it if you want. I don't think it'd take a drastic change to the article, as you could sum it up in a sentence.DreamGuy 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes...when I've finished reading Begg's latest book on the subject. A related problematic thing about this article IMHO is that it doesn't make much sense of the original police investigation of the case. Although this was fairly fruitless, subsequent Ripperological investigations seem to have brought us no nearer the truth. Everything about this case seems to clouded by the legendary figure of 'Jack': who seems to me to be mostly a product of hoaxers, journalists and fantasists. Colin4C 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

User:Englishrose recently removed a cited link to a messageboard thread on the leading website about Jack the Ripper disputing the claims that made the news about the Ripper supposedly being seen by 13 witnesses and so forth, claiming Removed ref, as a discussion on a forum which is open to the public should not be used to back up an "experts" claim.

First up, it is worth noting that Englishrose has a long history of harassing me and following me around to undo or otherwise interfere with my edits on articles he has no prior history with. This and similar actions is why I normally do not bother to sign in. I had signed in that day, and, because that guy is apparently stalking my edits, he undid them and left an edit comment proving exactly why he has no business editing this article.

Yes, the discussion forum is open to the public. Why that is important I do not know, but Stewart Evans and other identified authors and experts do post there. Furthermore, to put "experts" in quotes as if to imply that Stewart Evans is not an expert is sheer madness, as that man has written more books about Jack the Ripper and is more respected in the field than any other person.

Yes, I realize we would like to have more solid citations to back things up, but considering that any idiot with no background on a topic but with experience in some other area can get press attention by making claims about the Ripper, as happened with Patricia Cornwell and this retired Scotland Yard investigator (who, incidentally, Cornwell had claimed was her source that Walter Sickert should be looked at as a prime suspect, when everything he says know describes someone not fitting Sickert at all), it'd be nice to actually have a response here in the article of the field's leading experts... I mean, if you cite what someone with no background says just because they got in a news report, we for NPOV reasons absolutely must report what qualfified experts on the topic say if they dispute those findings, otherwise the article is slanted quite severely to whomever can make the most sensationalistic claims and therefore get press coverage. We don't allow that kind of slanting in articles about archeology or science or anything else, and we shouldn't do it here either.

If you want an actual printed source of experts in the field disputing the claims, I can certainly provide one once the field's leading magazine and/or newsletter has a chance to come out with an issue afterwards that responds to it, but in the meantime citing a messageboard with proven status in the field and proven identities of posters is preferable to no cite at all. DreamGuy 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First please assume good faith, I also defy you to find one other article that I’ve edited on that you’ve edited on. You won’t be able to, thus your wikistalking accusation is false.
A forum discussion does not constitute expert opinion as it is impossible to determin which of those are experts and which are not. As you’ve also contributed to that forum discussion, it is a conflict of interest as is citing onself to which you have done with your “Ripper Notes” magazine to which I turned a blind eye to in order not to get into an edit conflict with you. However, I am pretty sure you can find more appropriate sources.
Believe it or not, I do actually believe that the Jack the Ripper e-fit is a bit of a farce and that only a few witnesses will have seen the face, and that is unreliable. Englishrose 09:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"A forum discussion does not constitute expert opinion as it is impossible to determin which of those are experts and which are not." Stewart P. Evans posted to that thread, and he's the one specifically mentioned in the line in the article in question and the one who said the specific things being referenced. Go look at Amazon for Stewart P. Evans. He has more books on the topic than any other author, and he is also easily in the top five most respected authors, if indeed he doesn't top that list. All the comments in that thread by everyone there basically trash the documentary and give reasons. It's not difficult at all to verfy that the experts said in this situation. You keep repeating some claim that a web posting can't be reliable just because the public is there, but the important part is that the recognized experts on the topic are there and what they are saying. I am not citing myself here, I am citing the actual sources that say what you wanted a source on. Furthermore, it's even more ridiculous to demand a print source citation but then try to claim that it'd be a conflict of interest to cite Ripper Notes, as otherwise you are unlikely to ever get a citation until someone offhandedly refers back to the E-FIT in some book years from now, except perhaps for The Whitechapel Society Journal newsletter. The things you are arguing here would throw out the best sources (ones that are verifiable, authoritative and professional) by trying to just declare out of nowhere that they aren't sources you can trust while explicitly allowing a reference to a highly unreliable source full of errors. DreamGuy 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper "face revealed"

Regarding this story currently making the headlines all over the web:

"Jack the Ripper's face 'revealed'", BBC, 20 November 2006

Not sure where or how to incorporate this into the article. Also the picture would be great to have as fair use, assuming that is allowed. Considering the source for this picture is Scotland Yard it seems credible enough to be included. -- Stbalbach 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's in the "Investigation" heading. :) Englishrose 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just finished watching this documentary myself. The thing I don't understand is why these modern investigators had no problem with just giving up on the case at the end of the show. It seemed to me that they had a good description of the man, and a strong idea of the area where he lived. Why not investigate to see why Jack's murders stopped. My theory being that he was somehow killed after the November 9th 1888 killing. Could they not have looked for evidence of someone matching this description dying in the months following? --The Lone Bard 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing theories. If you want to discuss theories, I suggest you find another website... and read up on the crimes beforehand so you have some knowledge upon which to base a conclusion so that you don't actually fall for a rather reckless and nonsensical facial composite put together by people who know so little about the case that they think there are multiple, reliable witness statements to work off of. DreamGuy 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Crime

  • For those interested, a WikiProject regarding crime in Great Britain has been proposed. MadMax 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copycat

I have added a new section describing a serial killer in England trying to copycat Jack the Ripper. Please send your thoughts/comments on it. Jbanning22

Hi... First, please add new comments to the bottom of a talk page and not the top. Second, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think this new killer is trying to copycat Jack the Ripper, as the only similarity is that prostitutes are targetted, which could be a bazillion other serial killers. I know some very irresponsible news reports are mentioning a Jack the Ripper connection, but it's just ludicrous. Encyclopedia articles can't just get taken over by whatever weird thing some newspapers are claiming, they should follow what expert opinions on the topic are. Furthermore, if there were going to be a copycat section, there are far, far better cases of actual murders copycatted on Jack the Ripper that would be included long before this modern ongoing case even got a snippit of notice. As such I have removed the offending section, although as a gesture to people who seem to think it ought to be mentioned, I left a link int he See also section, which will undoubtedly be removed once the publicity surrounding this latest case dies down. DreamGuy 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I've read the killer sounds more like the Boston Strangler. Colin4C 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, we're highlighting a current event that investigators, and the media is likening to Jack the Ripper. The brief mention I think is appropriate for wikipedia. Please note we should probably take a closer look at this as current events change and more details may come out. At the moment, the victims are prostitutes/sex workers and the killer is openly challenging the police. Additionally, the number of victims is equal to the amount that Jack killed (historically known). --Jbanning22 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Practically every multiple prostitute killer gets likened (accurately or otherwise) to Jack the Ripper at some point, and this example doesn't appear to justify the tag any more than any of the others, especially when taking into account the obviously different MO. 'Copycat' is clearly not a justifiable description, no matter which media outlet may have chosen to adopt it. I was tempted to delete the entire section myself, but decided to treat it with more caution than DreamGuy eventually did. The mention should certainly be very brief (with a link to the 2006 Ipswich serial killer investigation at most. Guy Hatton 07:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again, as it is completely pointless here. Do not put it back without a solid reason for it to be on THIS article. The fact that is should have it's own article is not under dispute, but, as already stated, if you want a section on jack the Ripper copycats, this case wouldn't even rate a brief mention with all the other actual Ripper copycats there have been. Incompetent news reporting with ridiculously overdramatic headlines does not an encyclopedia addition make.

Furthermore "do notremove entire sections without discussing" is a rather obnoxious edit comment to make. It shoulld be do not ADD entire sections without discussing first.

And for some reason I can't get the history page of the article to figure out that I edited the page, but the current version of the page looks right. If there's some glitch I will sort it out later. DreamGuy 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, telling an unregistered user to discuss first before removing entire sections is good. It would have been different if you logged in under your username instead of using an IP address. Maybe you need to clearly look at your actions first and how it looks to the public before telling me the comment was obnoxious. As for your argument of what should be in there and what shouldn't be, I do understand why you want to protect any changes to this article (as clearly stated in your about page). But the truth is, the media made Jack the Ripper who he was and despite all the facts that we've put it into this article, that's still the basis of his fame. The hype and the media. Now fast forward to our century and we find someone with the same amount of victims, the same line of work, and in the same country -- killing victims. We saw the references to him by journalists and the media calling him a copycat killer. It is hype to sell more newspapers? Perhaps. But it's the same type of hype that originally made Jack the Ripper who he was to the public. At any rate, we should mention the copycat killings somewhere in the article, short and sweet. And please next time, when you edit, try signing on with your name first so I know it is you. --Jbanning22 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if I am signed in or not... an anonymous person making that edit is just as justified as someone signed in. It's ridiculous to complain about the removal of an entire section when that section was not put there by any sort of consensus. New content can and should be removed if it doesn't meet encyclopedic standards regardless of whether you put a section header in front of it or not or whether the person removing it is signed in or not.
And what do you mean "the copycat killings"? If you refer to the case you added info on, no, no it shouldn't, because no reputable source is calling it a Ripper copycat at all. DreamGuy 08:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

A paragraph in the media section states "Some believe the killer's nickname was invented by newspapermen to make for a more interesting story that could sell more papers. This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, the Hillside Strangler, and the Zodiac Killer..."

I believe that the Zodiac Killer should be ommitted from this list, as he applied the nickname to himself, and not the media.S davis 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objecting to removing that name. DreamGuy 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Where were the bodies of the victims found?

There is no information in this article about where exactly the bodies of the victims were found. Surely such info is relevent to this article? Colin4C 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, this would be a welcome addition; especially to someone who recently wasted a half hour of a holiday photographing the wrong side of Berner Street! MattHucke(t) 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Have added requisate info. Next nice thing would be for a map of the area, showing the murder sites (or maybe your photos???). Colin4C 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I've already posted a few of my photos in the Mitre Square and Mary Jane Kelly articles. Most of the others aren't as good, because the sites have changed too much - 29 Hanbury is a supermarket or something, Berner Street a schoolyard, and I wasn't sure of the exact spot on Durward Street. But I'll try to upload more - it would be useful to give other travellers an indication of where to look. MattHucke(t) 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Mission Accomplished - articles now exist for all five canonical murder sites, with photos of each. Unfortunately, as I had limited time that evening (and a poorly drawn map), I did not get photos of George's Yard or Goulston Street, so if anyone has those, uploads would be appreciated. MattHucke(t) 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DNA tests showed Jack was a Jill?

I just found on a German forum a post which says that 'Krone online' had an article about renewed DNA testing of the letters done by Australian researcher Ian Findlay showing that Jack might very well have been a woman. As a possible suspect the name Mary Pearcey was given, who was in 1890 hanged for the murder of her lover's wife. Would someone like to investigate if more info about this is available? 210.211.245.36 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty extensive article on the "Jill the Ripper" theory and her possible identification as Pearcey on casebook.org, complete with a rather creepy photograph. It's in the suspects section under Jill the Ripper. Makes you think... Girlfawkes 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think it says anything about DNA testing. GirlFawkes 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The line at the end of the letters section about tests being inconclusive was what mentioned the DNA test, but the link to the Australian news article explaining it no longer works. Bottom line is that one person who touched one hoax letter pretending to be from Jack but for which the police and modern sources do not believe had anything to do with the case was thought to be female, but we don;t know if that DNA came from 1888 or in the intervening century, when the letter was not kept in a forensically sealed environment. The Pearcey name is not thought by any sources to be a likely JAck the Ripper, and the inconclusive DNA tests in no way support the idea. 216.165.144.240 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Other Possible Victims' Section

Wouldn't this bit of unbridled speculation be better placed near the end of the article as some sort of appendix? For what it is worth, I think it has undue prominence in the article. What do people think? Colin4C 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not unbridled speculation, as most comprehensive sources on the topic mention them as well. In fact, we just had someone earlier complaining that listing the canonical five was highly POV-pushing. I have to agree, claiming the Jack only had five victims would be an extreme POV and would unduly give that notion undue prominence. Furthermore, it would be silly to split it off from the Victims section, not only splitting obvious similarities in topic but also further push the idea that there were five and five only. This is an encyclopedia article, not a place to post your opinions on the csae. 216.165.144.240 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside your last snide remark there is a difference between listing credible Ripper victims and a including massive laundry list of all possible murder victims. I applaud the fact that this article is not encumbered with the usual laundry list of implausible murderers (Lewis Carrol, Queen Victoria, Gladstone, Prince Eddie etc etc), why therefore should be encumbered by a massive list of victims, introduced on the flimsiest of evidence? As I see it there are three categories: 'The Canonical Five', 'The Whitechapel Murders' (those murders listed in the police files of the original investigation into the Ripper) and then a rag bag of other possible murder victims included here for no real credible reason. For these reasons I think, the latter at least, should be put in an appendix. Hoping to have a civilised discussion with you on this. Colin4C 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering your demonstrated stubbornness to revert to your version and ignore all explanations why it has problems, I doubt you care about any civilized discussion.
Facts are that the victims named as other potential victims are cited in multiple works on the case. Your desire to toss them out based upon your claim that they are "flimsiest of evidence" is nothing but POV-pushing... in much the same way you try to credit Begg's book for disputing Cornwell when all other recent books do so as well and referring to it in glowing terms when most sources consider it rather unexceptional and, frankly, full of personal bias of the author. There is no need for a "Bibliography" section when there is already a References section, as those two terms mean the same thing... and the only thing sources can agree upon as far as ranking books is that Sugden's is far and away considered the best. Based upon you singling out "Ripper Notes" in your edit comments when you reverted to your version as if it were somehow getting undo attention in a list of six periodicals (most of which are completely nonnotable in the field, I should add), it seems clear that you have a history here, if not under the same name. This article is bending over backwards to be NPOV -- in fact, bending so far to appear to be unbiased that it ends up biased against some more established sources and ideas -- please do not try to introduce sections heaping praise onto individual books you might like.
216.165.144.240 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sugden's book is vintage 1995, with a more recent intro tacked onto it. I.e. it represents a view of the Ripper case from some 12 years ago. Ergo it is out of date compared to more recent treatments. That is what I have been trying to indicate in the text. Recommendation of the Sugden book to the exclusion of more recent and equally comprehensive treatments is just pure POV. Colin4C 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely false. It has been updated, contains just as much new information as any other book. There are no "equally comprehensive" works. Furthermore, this article isn't endorsing it, merely mentioning that it has been endorsed overwhelmingly by those in the filed. 216.165.147.36 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Also your supposed justifying link is just a publisher's puff. Colin4C 13:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No, no it's not... that's an independent review by the world's leading website on the topic and not what the publisher said at all. 216.165.147.36 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) AND Lots more justifying cites could be provided as well, if you demand it. 216.165.147.36 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Colin's windmill-tilting

Looks like we have another bad editor trying to turn this article into a circus.

It's absolutely a falsehood to say that Sugden's book is out of date. Furthermore, it is not POV-pushing to acknowledge the fact that it has far and away time and time again been named as the best general overview of the case by those in the field. That's not pushing a POV, it's simply stating clearly shown facts that other people have that POV.

He's also on some wild crusade to try to make the victims section detail information that we already discussed here and said that his version was unnecessary and POV-pushing itself.

Bottom line is, as long as Colin continues to ignore what was clearly spelled out to him on the discussion page and tries to force the article to the way he wants it, it will be reverted as many times as it takes until he realizes that he can;t just ignore other editors and the longstanding agreements hammered out to do whatever the heck weird ideas he gets in his head. 216.165.147.36 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You personal abuse of other editors is against wikipedia policy. You should be ashamed of yourself. Colin4C 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal abuse of other editors is against wikipedia policy Colin4C 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Begg in 'Jack the Ripper the Facts' (2004) Sugden's book is out-of-date. The supposed new edition of 2002 is mostly a reissue of of the 1995 edition. Among many of its glaring omissions there is no mention of the contemporary suspect Tumblety. Colin4C 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
By who? And when? Name your sources? According to a P. D. James quote from the TLS Rumbelow's book is the best in the field: 'It is difficult to believe that any future Ripperologist will provide a fuller account' And according to the Birmingham post. Rumbelow's book (not Sugdens!) is 'The best treatment of the Ripper's crimes so far'. Colin4C 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Not 'we.....'you'...Colin4C 10:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to be dictated to by a personally abusive editor like you. And don't come the 'we' - it is 'you' who have the problem. Your personal abuse of me convinces me that your arguments are based on emotion and pique rather than reason. You do not own this article Colin4C 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Watching this page flip-flop is not particularly entertaining. Ultimately, the way to resolve it is to put a question to the community and vote on it. There are a few suggestions:
  • lock the page to anonymous users (I don't want to stop you pressing your point, but it would be nice to identify your changes).
  • use in-line reference format (ref/ref), instead of aggregated reference style. I suspect it needs to go to the page level. This will allow other editors to confirm that what is being stated is a fair summary, and not an unsubstantiated PoV.
  • Don't lose sight of the notion that the intention is to collaborate to improve the article.
  • keep it civilised!

Kbthompson 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I think it is DEEPLY uncivilised and totally against wikipedia policy to create a sub-section in the talk pages whose sole purpose is to bully another editor. Colin4C 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken Colin's comments out from the midst of my edits, as they are confusing because they break my statements off from my signature.

To respond to his posts, OF COURSE Paul Begg is going to claim that Sugden's book is out of date, as he's trying to convince people how good his book is. You seem to want to desperately push his book, as your earlier edits claimed his book was a "badly-needed" update and so forth. I named one source for the evidence that Sugden's is widely considered the best, and can provide many more from the boards on that site, other boards, and from Ripper periodicals. The quote saying Rumbelow's was the best "so far" was from someone outside of the field and back before Sugden's was even released.

And, frankly, it is ridiculous for Colin to be complaining about supposed personal attacks while making edit comments calling me a vandal and so forth. Simply pointing out that he is not following Wikipedia policiy is not a personal attack, and, indeed, his behavior here is atrocious. 216.165.147.36 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Altering the talk page and moving other people's comments to suit your arguments is against wikipedia policy Colin4C 09:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly deceptive edit comments

Colin is now trying to label edits that he doesn't like as "vandalism" to try to justify reverting them. This is nothing but a transparent attempt to get his way through lying when he knows he can't get his way through consensus. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that any editor putting in false edit comments should be banned, as there is no excuse for it. 216.165.147.36 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is YOU who should be banned for creating TWO sub-sections soley devoted to bullying another editor. That is not what the wikipedia talk page is for. Such action is totally malicious and reprehensible. Colin4C 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Personal Attacks

Assuming bad faith on the part of other editors and abusing and bullying and conducting vendettas against other editors is against wikipedia policy. Talk about the issues. Colin4C 10:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


The Whitechapel Murders

The Whitechapel murders redirects to this page, therefore I have given an account of such murders. Sensible comments appreciated. All personal attacks and vendettas directed against me (see above) will be treated with the contempt they deserve. This is a GOOD FAITH edit:

Colin4C 10:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC):

The Whitechapel Murders
Emma Elizabeth Smith, born c 1843, was attacked in Osborn Street, Whitechapel April 3, 1888, and a blunt object was inserted into her vagina, rupturing her perineum. She survived the attack and managed to walk back to her lodging house with the injuries. Friends brought her to a hospital where she told police that she was attacked by two or three men, one of whom was a teenager. She fell into a coma and died on April 5, 1888. This was the first 'Whitechapel Murder', noted in contemporary police files.
Martha Tabram (name sometimes misspelled as Tabran; used the alias Emma Turner; maiden name Martha White), born on May 10, 1849, and killed on August 7, 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, owing to the evident lack of obvious motive, the geographical and periodic proximity to the canonical attacks, and the remarkable savagery of the attack. The main difficulty with including Tabram is that the killer used a somewhat different modus operandi (stabbing, rather than slashing the throat and then cutting), but it is now accepted that a killer's modus operandi can change, sometimes quite dramatically. Her body was found at George Yard Buildings, George Yard, Whitechapel. This was the second 'Whitechapel murder'.
The canonical five (see above) are the third to seventh of the 'Whitechapel murders'.
Rose Mylett (true name probably Catherine Mylett, but was also known as Catherine Millett, Elizabeth "Drunken Lizzie" Davis, "Fair" Alice Downey or simply "Fair Clara"), born in 1862 and died on December 20, 1888. She was reportedly strangled "by a cord drawn tightly round the neck", though some investigators believed that she had accidentally suffocated herself on the collar of her dress while in a drunken stupor. Her body was found in Clarke's Yard, High Street, Poplar. This was the eighth Whitechapel murder'.
Alice McKenzie (nicknamed "Clay Pipe" Alice and used the alias Alice Bryant), born circa 1849 and killed on July 17, 1889. She died reportedly from the "severance of the left carotid artery" but several minor bruises and cuts were found on the body. Her body was found in Castle Alley, Whitechapel. This was the ninth 'Whitechapel Murder'.
"The Pinchin Street Murder", a term coined after a torso was found in similar condition to "The Whitehall Mystery" (see below), though the hands were not severed, on September 10, 1889. The body was found under a railway arch in Pinchin Street, Whitechapel. An unconfirmed speculation of the time was that the body belonged to Lydia Hart, a prostitute who had disappeared. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the works of a serial killer, for which the nicknames "Torso Killer" or "Torso Murderer" have been suggested. Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers of uncertain connection to each other (but active in the same area) has long been debated by Ripperologists. This was the tenth 'Whitechapel Murder'.
Frances Coles (also known as Frances Coleman, Frances Hawkins and nicknamed "Carrotty Nell"), born in 1865 and killed on February 13, 1891. Minor wounds on the back of the head suggest that she was thrown violently to the ground before her throat was cut. Otherwise there were no mutilations to the body. Her body was found under a railway arch, Swallow Gardens, Whitechapel. This was the eleventh and last 'Whitechapel Murder', after which the case was closed.
What is your verdict? Should this edit be removed from the article? Colin4C 10:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say no, it should stay, as while it may not be direct 'riperology'. it adds to the climate surrounding the murders (as long as its referenced!). Sufficient caveats can show it's not a part of the official cannon. I would suggest, again:
  • in-line refs to justify statements and ensure that editors are not just pushing a PoV
  • that 'anon' does login to make changes, and that both protagonists start over, forgive and forget, and concentrate on matters of subject fact, rather than personality
  • that there's a few days cooling off to allow all parties critical faculties to kick in
Anyway, that's my fivepenneth. Kbthompson 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)