Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 What is remaining to Suss out? 2 Whitechapel Murders Timeline 3 User:kbthompson - recusal 4 Walter Dew 5 Unprotection requested 6 The Investigation 7 Semi-Protection 8 76.114.86.121's edit 9 Please Cease the edit warring 10 Latest anon edit: 11 Very simple and obvious edits being removed for no reason? 12 The Channel Five paragraph 13 Museum in Docklands 14 Edit warring again! 15 Steven Knight conspiracy theorist 16 Which policy is violated? 17 New Information - help add it please 18 Image discussion 19 Spam Link? 20 GA Assessment (2008-03-19) 21 The "Torso Killer" 22 Revert Only When Necessary 23 JTR edit 23.1 Attempting to explain my "mass alterations" 24 Map image/placeholder image 25 Folkloristic/Mythological Perspectives 26 Body moved 27 Joseph Silver

[edit] What is remaining to Suss out?

What changes are we proposing for the main article at this point? Are we going to replace it with the User:Jaysweet/Jack_the_Ripper temp page graciously afforded us by Jay, or are we doing something else? What are some key points about the article content that still need addressing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, as long as we are now all agreed that we are allowed also to have The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) article to cover that aspect of the strange case of JTR. In general I hope we are agreed that not everything to do with the case has all to go into the same article or that an Agatha Christie type who-dunnit perspective is the only one permitted. This case had complex social and historical ramifications in reality as well as being the happy hunting ground for crank theorists as to the identity of JTR. The latter aspect is not the only or even most important thing about the case to my mind. How often have we seen a fanciful house of straw built on the flimsiest foundation of fact in this case. The Ripperologist Sugden's book is a case in point in which he makes a great deal out of supposed eye witness descriptions of the Ripper, something which has been proved over and over again in police practice to be a very dubious precedure. Basically most people can't remember very well what people looked like and different people give widely different accounts of the same person. None of which bothers the average Ripperologist with a gullible public out there to fool and to pay for his speculative nonsense. Colin4C (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[conflict] I'm still loathe to make changes to an article that will be reverted at the first opportunity. I think the intro could do with some work, there needs to be a linking narrative to develop the story - there's nothing wrong with much of the detail (subject to some of the fact checking indicated by Colin) - it just can't be presented as a list of evidence/suspects/etc. The article needs structure and deserves to be developed by GA and FA guidelines, not just left in aspic. Kbthompson (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In aspic? ewww, you would have to remind me of my Aunt Carol's Christmas dish, wouldn't you (shiver).

So, the Jaysweet draft page is an acceptable replacement for what we have now? I think we should incorporate those changes which present the subject not - as Colin and Kbt have noted - as a whodunit, but instead simply stating that this was a serial murderer, here are the victims most agree could be attributed to him/her, here are the ones s/he might have also killed, and here is what was done at the time to catch the person. Subsequent info could address how successive generations of 'ripperologists' have applied modern forensic methods to the crimes, with varying solutions and degrees of acceptance. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with your Aunt Carol, we all have our personal shibboleth's ... I'd describe the Jaysweet version as a start. I have issues with it, and think that I could improve it for structure and style, I wouldn't dare to mess with the substantive stuff. I'd still like to get some input from DG - if he can be persuaded to work collaboratively, rather than obstructively. He actually has a lot to offer on the subject. Kbthompson (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the Jaysweet version as a start and I personally am happy to work in a constructive collaborative fashion. My motto (nicked from Chairman Mao) is 'let a thousand flowers bloom' and 'trust the people'. I oppose control-freakery in all its forms, especially on this particular subject. Subjective interpretations by particular editors should not be foregrounded as immutable fundamentalist biblical revelations. If we don't know something we should admit it, not pretend that we do know. Do ghosts exist? Nobody knows. Does God exist? Nobody knows. How many people did JTR kill? Nobody knows. Who was JTR? Nobody knows. Is Bush a Martian? Yes. Colin4C (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Its very quiet round here. I'm getting nervous...These streets of wiki-Whitechapel are so dark at this time of year and who knows what editor might be lurking round the wiki-corner with a razor sharp knife in his hand, waiting to pounce and cut me up?....Colin4C (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

DG has not posted anything on the project since 12/16, is a good part of why things have quieted down. When one side of a discussion goes silent, the discussion tends to taper off as well. At some point it will make sense to assume he's gone and not returning, but it's hard to judge when that point has been reached. MIA 1 month? 2 months? I really don't know. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably best to proceed on Jaysweet's test article, wait until it's fairly stable and then check for a consensus for it to replace the current edition. To be well structured and to cover the topic, it may require several subpages - so, we'll just have to keep track somehow. Kbthompson (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Okay. I think it might be helpful to archive alot of the older stuff (as we all know what has been discussed) and set the link for Jaysweet's page at the top of this one. Subsequent 'editions' can be listed there as well. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update, DG has apparently not been absent, but says that he had not noticed that his browser had logged him out, and he has thus been IP editing for a couple of weeks now. (See here and here for details of his return to logged in status.) So my musings above about what to do if DG did not return to editing are moot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, its an excuse that has become a bit threadbare. Eitehr way, while I feel he was useful as someone who knew a lot, there is no sense in using a reference book that cuts you every time you use it. We are all fairly intelligent and Colin seems to know the material just as well. Let's just move on. If DG comes back, he will have to behave. if he doesn't, he might go away again. I for one am not planning my editing around his schedule anymore. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitechapel Murders Timeline

I'm hoping to develop a Whitechapel Murders Timeline at The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). I'm sure that once everything is put in chronological order it will make more sense than skipping around and back and forth at the whim of dubious post-hoc subjective interpretations about what is relevent about this case. The timeline will also demonstrate how late in the investigation the 'Jack the Ripper' hoax was foisted on the gullible public. Colin4C (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. Perhaps there would be useful citations that we might be able to cull from there for use in the ripper article. If you need help or a non-ripperologist pair of eyes, give a shout. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne! Maybe 'The Investigation Timeline' section needs bullet points or to be highlighted or jazzed up a bit??? Just to add that it is still in a fairly rudimentary state. I fully intend to give it more attention but am a bit worried at the moment that you-know-who will try to have it deleted making all my labour-in-vain. Colin4C (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:kbthompson - recusal

Just a note to say that as I have been involved in prior discussions I recuse myself of administrative functions on 'Jack the Ripper' unless there is complete consensus. I reserve the right to contribute in a forthright manner! Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with you editing here at all. Admins do it all the time (just ask Texas Android, an admin). I think objections would arise only if you started making people 'talk like a duck' else you'd block them :). Not likely to happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you misread. I reserve the right to contribute in a forthright manner, i.e. in respect of this article, but I am recusing myself of administrative functions in this respect, as I am involved. Still, maybe I'll reserve the right to make you talk like a duck in a forum of my choice 8^). Kbthompson (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Dew

Hi everybody, I am having one or two problems on the Walter Dew article. The Ripper section has been reverted a couple of times by someone called Dreamguy. I have re-reverted his edits and have put a detailed explanation as to why on the article's talk page. Could some one else take a look at it to see if I'm wrong about it. I feel that maybe I'm too close to the article, having started it, to be entirely objective about it. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it look. I just read a book about Walter Dew last week called 'Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen' by Nicholas Connell. I have also read several books about the Ripper. Colin4C (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with me archiving the older stuff? I will summarize what we have already come up with at the top (for consensus' sake), as well as including the Jaysweet temp page. Please let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection requested

Things seem to have pretty much stalled out. Given DG's absence from the discussions, and the general lack of progress on the user space version in the last month, I have filed an official request to have the situation examined by a neutral admin with an eye towards removing the protection and performing a history merge of the user space version over the old protected version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I just now noticed that there was a redirect from the talk pageto archive 4, I wonder how that happened... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, it is because I archived by Move, which is a way of archiving that allows the history to remain with the archived comments. The talk page is moved to a new name (Archive 4 in this case), which creates a redirect automatically at the original talk page location. The redirect is then replaced with a reconstructed talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like protection was lifted. Are we in agreement to adopt the Jaysweet page draft to replace the article currently in place? We can work from there onward (keeping the parts of hard-fought consensus in place). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to adopt the Jaysweet version. Colin4C (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're still awaiting the history merge between versions. I don't know how to do that! Kbthompson (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

History merge requires admin tools (it involves deleting and restoring the history at certain points). It's now done. The history of the Jaysweet user page version is now part of the history of the main page.

For anyone who is interested, a history merge basically involves:

1) Move page A over page B deleting page B in the process (the last is admin only).

2) Undelete the revisions of page B deleted in the first step. (admin only again)

3) Depending on which version (A or B) you want to remain as the active page, and which name you want it under, a couple more non-admin clean-up steps may be needed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it has lost a number of recent edits by Bletchley, but they should probably read the talk page. Kbthompson (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Texas, i knew you were the right guy to ask for help with this. I am not too concerned with Bletchley's edits; most of them were unsourced and the main image he added shouldn't have been used as a placeholder image anyway, as its fair use rationale and summary weren't as solid as the ones we already had. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Er....this doesn't look like the Jaysweet version at all. Its exactly the same as the version which was frozen! Colin4C (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not having followed the actual discussions that closely, I don't know what either particular version looks like. I just merged the history from the user space version into the main JtR page history. I assumed that someone else had already copied the latest user space version over the active article to activate it. Anyone is welcome to do that as if doing a normal revert. All edits from the user page are now in the JtR page history. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone ahead and done it. Anyone who has made useful edits since the unprotection will need to redo them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's better! Had me worried for a bit...Colin4C (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is now the 'Jaysweet version' - feel free to correct if anyone feels wronged. Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Investigation

Just thinking it might make sense to incorporate the material under the heading of 'The Goulston Street Graffiti' with the 'Investigation' section together with further material about the police investigation I have provided at The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) thus providing a coherent and chronological account of the police investigation into the Ripper crimes. What do people think? Colin4C (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of two minds on this. Allow me to ask a couple of questions so I can decide, if I may:

• Were the letters considered by the investigating officers at the time as actually being from the killer?
  • If so, what was gleaned at the time from the investigators (leads, etc.)?
  • If not, who did the investigators feel wrote the letters?
• Were the letters investigated concurrently with the murders as they were occurring, or only after the fact?
  

I think that if I could get an answer to those, I could render an opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The police were sceptical as to the authenticity of the Dear Boss letter, received 25th Sept, and the Saucy Jack postcard, recieved 1st Oct, both signed by 'Jack the Ripper' but felt duty bound to investigate them. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Charles Warren wrote to the Home Office on 10th October: 'At present I think the whole thing is a hoax but of course we are bound to try and ascertain the writer in any case'. Inspector George Littlechild the head of Special Branch thought that they were penned by the journalist, Tom Bulling, who had forwarded them to the police. The letters had first been addressed to the Central News Agency where Bulling worked rather than directly to a newspaper or the police. All this was highly suspicious. However the jury is still out on the notorious "From Hell" letter sent to George Lusk of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on Oct 16th, signed "Catch me when you can". This was the letter enclosing half a kidney which the writer claimed he had taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes (the other half he claimed to have fried and eaten). The writer of this letter does not use the name 'Jack the Ripper' but as to whether it is genuine or not who can tell? Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell (2001) by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner is a fascinating book on the subject of the letters. As for the Goulston Street Graffiti, there were conflicting views in the police force as to whether it had been written by "Jack" or whether he had fortuitously left part of Eddowes' apron next to a bit of anti-Semitic graffiti that was already there. There is of course a whole conspiracy theory involving the royal family and the masons concerning the graffiti: if you want to know more about that the most painless way is to rent out the film From Hell or the earlier film Murder by Decree which delve fully into the sublime nonsense of it all. Colin4C (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I needed. Thanks for explaining it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

I am thinking we might want to apply for semi-protection, as we seem to be encountering a fair amount of IP vandalism. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been worse. Maybe a group of editors could form themselves into an anti-vandal patrol, known as the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee ... I don't know what criteria are used to decide, some pages seem to qualify and this hasn't, in the past. It's a low level , but continual nuisance. Kbthompson (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 76.114.86.121's edit

The above number editor has just deleted The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) article without saying anything on the Talk page and has altered this article to suit. I have reverted his edits until he explains his actions here. I would also like to ask 76.114.86.121 whether he has previously edited under the name of 'Dreamguy'? Colin4C (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A warning has been issued, with a request that any suggestion that the two articles are linked - or, not - should be discussed in the proper way on the talk pages of the article. Another user has suggested that this account is a sockpuppet, but I don't think in a procedurally correct manner. I would suggest that you allow this editor the courtesy of assuming 'Good Faith' and if they wish to press the point discuss it on the relevant talk page. Please remember, it's the article, not the editor. Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So are 76.114.86.121's and Dreamguy allowed to have three reverts each until it is proved that they are one and the same person? Are they allowed to combine their forces to defeat anybody in an edit war up until the point when the number is revealed as a sockpuppet? I am not an expert on wikipedia law so would like this point clarified. Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its just that several months back I wasn't aware that an anon number and Dreamguy were the same person and assumed that they were in a majority, but now I realize that in that case 1+1 = 1. I feel ashamed of myself for having been duped by this lousy trick and don't wan't others here to be duped also. The peremptorary tone of the number's comments and the fact that he seems incredibly well versed in wikipedia rules for a new user leads me to be suspicious. I am not going to be duped again, not for anybody's benefit! Colin4C (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[Conflict] I take it that that is a merely rhetorical question? There is no 'wiki-law', merely chaos moderated by consensus. The situation is under review by independent admins, have confidence in them and stick to issues regarding the article. Kbthompson (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a good one: Code of Hammurabi from 1760 BC. Old King Ham could teach wikipedia a thing or two methinks. I guess wikipedia law is more like those Dark Age laws of Trial by Combat or floating witches to see if they sink or swim or holding a red hot bar in your hand to see if it burns or not...: Trial by ordeal.

Colin4C (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Cease the edit warring

Please stop the edit warring on this page. The vandalism is bad enough. Why not bring your ideas on the article into this talk page and let's work it out here...? Thank you, Berean Hunter (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK do people think that linking The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) is better than unlinking it? In my edit I support linking. Colin4C (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be linked?..sounds logical to me. Is there an argument against linking them or how they are linked? Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask Dreamguy and/or 76.114.86.121. They/he are/is the one(s) who unlinked it. Just to say that though they seem to be in the majority I strongly suspect they are the same user. But if they are different I hope they will accept by apologies for confusing them. What do other editors think? Colin4C (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see what the problem is. It seems like DreamGuy, yet again, thinks he knows best and refuses to discuss it with anyone. --clpo13_(talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, can I ask for calm. DG can I ask you to participate in a discussion. It's this kind of thing that got the page protected in the first place. Can I remind others to limit their discussion to the article, not editors. Kbthompson (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kbthompson here. If you are infuriated by another user's edits, deal with them here. If they refuse to participate, then they miss out on consensus. If they continue to act in a way that is disruptive, report them to AN/I. Clearly, kicking a hole in their bum here isn't a big enough encouragement to act better. We should try to avoid rising to the bait of bad behavior and mischaracterization, and focus on the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they need to be linked. Jack1956 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Kbt and Colin (who's actually published in the friggin' field) feel it should be linked. Four for, one against. Call me zany, but I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe they should be linked...both Rumbelow's Complete JTR and Sugden refer to most if not all of the listed victims on the Whitechapel Murders Article...looks like Ripperology 101 to me. No one has stated a counter-argument...? Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal view is that the case file of the Whitechapel murders overlaps this topic, but not all the murders are attributed to JtR. I think, for the sake of clarity they should be separate, and that offers an opportunity to concentrate this article on the Ripper's attributed killings. Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They should be linked, but not merged. Of that I am absolutely certain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Latest anon edit:

"One author of note who focused his writings on Jack the Ripper in the late 19th Century was Guy B.H. Logan."

Just to say that I've never heard of Guy B.H. Logan and a google search of the name yields no results. Anyone else have a clue to this enigma? Colin4C (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick look on abebooks.com suggests he was a true-crime hack of the 1920s, with titles like "Guilty or Not Guilty?: Stories of Celebrated Crimes" to his credit. (Try searching without the middle initials.) Barnabypage (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No cite means no inclusion. This article has seen enough fallout that it is clear that without citation and consensus, no contentious edit will be added tot he article. I would suggest that you invite the editor who added it here to discuss the citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very simple and obvious edits being removed for no reason?

One more time (though it has been explained and ignored by Arcayne more than once already in his rush to blind revert any edits I ever make to this article):

• The site jack-the-ripper.org is nothing but spam. It has no encyclopedic content. If you go to the victims page, for example, all it has is photos and names saying they died. The site has SIGNIFICANTLY less information than this very article. WP:EL rules are pretty clear on this, we don't just add links to add links, they have to have encyclopedic purposes, and this site is primarily Google adfarming with info copied and pasted apparently from this very page.

• The Fairy Fay section needs a cite for who claims it was based upon the song. There is no reason to link to the lyrics of the song, as that provides no source for saying anyone claimed that that's where the alleged victim's name came from. When I add a tag request WHO said it, either provide text saying exactly who did or leave it, don't just remove it in a blind revert.

Bottom line here is I have just as much rights here to make edits as anyone (and if WIkipedia were set up to give more weight to people with demonstrated knowledge on a topic, much more), and a calculated and demonstrated history of blind reverting all of my changes simply will not fly. He's adding spam and removing calls for cites, for crying out loud. Can't get more basic than that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you keep strictly to the article content and can I also suggest that everyone gives each other the consideration they all deserve. As we are all aware, these revert wars just end with the article being protected. Kbthompson (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got here. I was out blind-reverting lotsa articles and misinterpreting Wiki policy to a bunch of reporters while running over a busload of nuns and cute little puppies. Gosh, destroying Wikipedia single-handedly is hard work. :P

I have no problem with DG editing in this article, so long as he somehow learns the value and rules of seeking consensus with his edits. Deleting information with but a speculative edit summary does not constitute discussion. Deleting precisely the same information after it has been restored less than two weeks later is another example of seeming contempt for his editors (or admins, if his User Talk page is to be considered a true viewing of his unhappiness). In short, it is unreasonable to expect editors to tolerate edits from someone who has all the social graces of someone raised by wolves. Therefore, discussion is key. It doesn't matter if he is the DaVinci of the subject, his weight of contribution is going to always be weighed against his ability to work well with others. Its a community; if he wants to be a luminary, he needs to seek another venue.

The Jack-the-Ripper.org site is not a spam site. DG's seeming disallowance of this particular site seems less than genuine, especially when one considers that he admins a JTR site, and we neither have no way to know if the site in question takes away visitors to his site nor do we know if he personally endorses hs own site. In fact, we do not know what site he admns for; that said, it would seem prudent for him to recuse himself on matters concerning external JTR links, unless he is willing and prepared to disclose what site he actually admins on. He doesn't have to do it here. As Kbthompson is in fact an admn, he needs only disclose it to him, and Kbt can evaluate the legitimacy of DG's contention with the contested site. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't "admin" a JTR site, and these sorts of attacks are just more of the nonsense Arcayne is known for: bad faith, blind reverts and the assumption of wrongdoing because of personal bias. This also seems to be a particularly bad faith claim coming from someone he had previously argued that Colin's edits should take precedence because he supposedly has written for the field. No evidence of Colin having written anything or being respected or so forth has been demonstrated, and if Arcayne were interested in fair dealings instead of just attacks he should have asked Colin what his biases were. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also for the record, the claim it is unreasonable to expect editors to tolerate edits from someone who has all the social graces of someone raised by wolves is especially ludicrous coming from Arcayne. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If everyone stuck to the article and its content, life would be a lot more pleasant for everyone. All parties, just be civil and stick to the point. Kbthompson (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ps www.jack-the-ripper.org doesn't strike me as particularly authoritative. If you can find another reference, that would be better. Kbthompson (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

pps OK, an external link, not a reference. I don't see ads, but then I block 'em. It should be fine, let readers make up their own minds. Kbthompson (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a question about making up their own minds, it's a question of following Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:External links is pretty clear on this issue. We don't link to things willy nilly, they have to have an encyclopedic purpose. Being added by someone for self-promotional purposes (added by an anon IP as only edit), having more ads than content, not having any more information that the article itself already has are all reasons which on their own would mean it shouldn't be here. Put them all together and there's no justification for keeping it here. Please start following the policies you claim you want to follow instead of just deciding to oppose anything I do, no matter how obvious it is. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not the sole authority in determining what sources are good and which aren't We are, and the consensus thus far is to allow the reader to evaluate the strength of the website themselves EL is clear on a great many things, but it requires someone who can interpret the rule correctly; in order to use it effectively. Jack-The-Ripper is just as flawed as the other sites (one of which you have previously claimed to web-admin for - which seems to represent a significant conflict of interest since you haven't declared your special interest); all have ad space, and all have accurate and inaccurate (or speculative) information. We either allow them or we don't. EL is pretty clear on that, too. Both links follow current policies.It doesn't matter if an anon added it. Were that anon a sock-puppet, for example, then the edit would matter. Are you contending that the anon was a sock, DreamGuy?

Allow me to restate the question, DreamGuy, as I might have the titling wrong. Do you or do you not work in some capacity for a JTR website? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you pretend that my doing anything in the field is supposedly a bad thing while Colin claiming to have done something means you support him. First off, you should welcome people with actual expertise in the field and not try to run them off. Second, I never said I was an admin of any site, so I don't know where you came up with that. Third, anybody who is anyone in the field could be construed as "work in some capacity" for a website.... that would be thousands of people all told. Fourth, why aren't you loudly demanding that Colin not be allowed to edit, since you claim he is some sort of expert (which I sincerely doubt, based upon the content of his edits and comments over the years). All of my edits here have always been done following Wikipedia policies, including conflict of interest policies. Most importantly, the link in question does not come ANYWHERE CLOSE to following EL policy, which you'd have to admit if you actually read the thing instead of just blind revert anything I do. Why is it that you have not let a single edit of mine go by without blind reverting it for more than six months... even the ones you later were forced to admit on the talk page that you agreed with but only removed because you don't like me? You've got a serious problem here, and all your wikilawyering and flailing around and denial won't fix it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I asked, DG: do you work in any capacity for a JTR-type website beyond occasional user contribution? If so, you should disclose who that website is - if it is a cited source, you need to stay the hell away from defending it or criticizing others. It seems an easy question to answer yes or no to, without slipping into semantics. As for never admitting that you work/do work for a JTR website, are you really, really sure you don't want to retract that statement? There are enough folk who know you do work at one.

Secondly, the reason we don't give Colin as much of a hard time is that he is polite and is willing to work with others to find both consensus and sometimes compromise. Additionally, his block log is empty, so he's never been blocked for 3RR, gaming the system, edit-warring and whatnot. Were he uncivil and rude, he would likely find the Bucket o' Good Faith to be about as empty as you are finding it now. As it is, he doesn't use any Essjay crap to push his viewpoints through.

Now, if you want to discuss why you think the link doesn't follow EL policy, we can do that. You need to prve it doesn't, and we need to be able to agree that it doesn't. Its how we do things here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin certainly is not polite, nor is he willing to work with others to resolve any disputes... we just have a bunch of people who have decided to gang up and support each other's edits despite the fact that they very clearly violate policies. I think what we need to finally do here is get some new blood: people with a clue both about the topic and, preferably, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Because the people who don't even pretend to care about either have taken over, and it's just sad. DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DG, you haven't ever shown how the edits are violating policy. You have just stated they do without backing that statement up with any reasoning. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are not concrete, so a simple statement that edits violate them isn't enough. And it would help a lot if you--and everyone else--would refrain from making major changes to the article while this discussion is ongoing. If you really want to work with other editors, discussion (minus the comments on other editors) is the first place to start. --clpo13_(talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been shown. If you refuse to read the policy and refuse to read my explanation, or if you do read both and refuse to see how utterly obvious it is, that's your issue, that doesn;t mean I haven't "shown" it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that, as tragic crocodile tears are a drip-drip-dripping and threatening to deluge the immediate cyber-vicinity, that I for one have a clue about the topic and the wikipedia. If you look at the edit history you will see that I was the first editor on this article to include the absolutely basic information about where the bodies of the victims were found. This had apparantly not seemed worthy of mention by editors in the previous 4 years the article had been in existence, which is sad...snivel...[gets onion out]. Colin4C (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. That sure shows a lot. Probably not what you thought it would though. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DG on the "Fairy Fay" thing. I've never come across any suggestion that the name comes from the song, and if someone wants to make such, then they should provide a source. A link to the lyrics is not a source--the fact that the song exists is not evidence that the claim is true. revmagpie

From Richard Jones.

I sincerely apologise if I offended you in any way by posting a link to my site, but please could I stress that my site www.jack-the-ripper.org is not spam, nor is intended as spam. I am a ripper historian, and have been for over 25 years. I have in fact published several books on JTR, as well as creating a documentary dvd which has been well reviewed on Casebook.

My site is most certainly not a cut and paste of this "very article" but is the beginning of what I hope will be an online resource concerning the Jack the Ripper crimes. I admit the victims page lists the victims, as this page does, but that is because they were the victims of Jack the Ripper. However, they all link through to a far more detailed synopsis of each one of the killings, as well as looking at the wider context of the murders.

The google ads are simply a way of funding the photographs on the site, all of which were acquired or taken by myself or by Sean East. Few of them appear in this article and those that do are victim photographs that we actually took in Scotland Yard's Crime Museum.

The sections on the Common Lodging Houses, Prostitution in 1888, the Police Officers on the case are all original as indeed are all the sections on the site.

Once again I do apologise for any offence that I might have caused and assure you that I am in no way attempting to spam, but am trying to create a valuable resource. It is very much in its early stages and a certain amount of trial and error is inevitable.

Best of Wishes

Richard Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.172.38 (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jones, to begin with, you have nothing to apologize for. Your posting of the link without hamming it up here in the Discussion page (or tearing down another link) is to be commended. Also to be commended is your coming forward to explain more about the site. In fact, on behalf of most of my fellow editors, i apologize if you felt insulted by having your website characterized as spam. Sometimes online, there is a tendency by some contributors to act like bulls in a china shop, gaining imaginary courage from the relative anonymity of posting here in Wikipedia. Don't take it seriously. And please, feel free to contribute to the article as you will - someone interested in the subject matter for over 25 years cannot hurt the article at all.

I would encourage you to set up an account at Wikipedia (not using your real name, of course) and begin contributing. This allows for your good edits to accumulate and your reputation as a solid editor to grow. If you need any assistance in getting started, please do not hesitate to drop me a line. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, if Richard Jones would take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM he would find that adding a link to his site here is absolutely improper. Regardless of whether he is capable of writing good content or not (his book was pretty decent), that does not excuse linking to a site with very basic information of less content than this very article. Now, certainly, there are certain pages he has written that might be worth sourcing... the page he has on one of his many sites with [www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com/jack_letters.htm info about the Ripper letters] is quite good... but this guy is making money off his tours and feeding people to a secondary site for commercial purposes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, he isn't hawking the site; he's offering it as a source of valid information, which two other editors have already commented on as having. Every JTR site listed in the article is making money in some way. At least, Jones steps up and says, 'hey, this is my site - I can answer any questions about it that people have'. He isn't saying, 'my site is better than someone else's.' This is in marked contrast to other editors in the article who are suspiciously reticent about revealing the JTR website they are affiliated with while at the same time tearing down those sites that offer similar info. The up-front guy is going to win over the sneaky guy. Every single time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, er, somewhere on this page, many websites Wikipedia considers reliable (e.g. news websites) contain advertisements. As long as a website isn't dedicated solely to advertising a product and as long as the information it contains is freely accessible (not subscription-based), it's not blatant spam and therefore shouldn't be discounted without discussion. As for the conflict of interest problem, well, that can easily be solved by having another editor add the link should it be removed. --clpo13_(talk) 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Which I am almost positive has happened a few times. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Channel Five paragraph

What an active article.

Anyway, I think the Channel Five paragraph should be removed:

On November 20, 2006, the British television channel Five released an E-FIT-generated photo illustration showing what the researchers affiliated with the documentary believe the serial killer may have looked like...

I don't think this is notable. In the long history of Jack the Ripper speculation, one particular 3D sketch created by one particular TV show surely doesn't mark any actual advance forward in identifying Jack the Ripper, the silly policeman's quote notwithstanding. The "Computer Enhanced!!" aspect of the 3D sketch is meaningless. Tempshill (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I noted this before. Your actual contention is that it is inaccurate. That a tv special was made, a sketch created and silly statements issued by policemen are all notable. Again, the threshold for inclusion is citability, not truth. I would recommend that you find info specifically characterizes the television program as bollocks (or whatever), and we can provide balanced info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to tell him what his contention is. I also don't think it was notable. The fact that it was bollocks was already included, but that's really not enough in this case because even bringing it up unfairly biases people toward thinking it has any credibility at all in the field, and it doesn't. It was just a cheap gimmick for a documentary. DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph. It was referenced and NPOV, giving the pros and cons of the proposed identification. Not the definitive answer to the mystery of JTR's identity, I grant you, but that shouldn't be the criterion of inclusion here. Colin4C (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You should go look up WP:UNDUE weight rules for the exact criteria. Even mentioning something so ridiculous gives it more attention than it deserves. The image has no historical or factual basis. It was created as part of a publicity campaign for a documentary. We have notability and NPOV rules here, and both are majorly violated by wasting any time on that. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We aren't in the business of biasing people one way or the other, and we aren't going to disinclude info because it happens to include all the trappings of tv. As well, we aren't her to play elitist parlor games; all have equal standings in the eyes of Wikipedia, Ripperologist or not, professor or not, money or not. Let's avoid that altogether, as it will only lead to furthr unpleasantness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, every time you put it back you are, in fact, in the business of "biasing" people. And, frankly, no, not everyone has equal standings as far as the policies of Wikipedia are concerned. If you don't follow them, you aren't contributing. And, frankly, considering that you tried to claim Colin's edits had to stay because he was allegedly "published" in the field (which again is extremely doubtful, based upon his edit history here), you were the one preaching elitism. I am preaching Wikipedia policies and making an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy is continuing to remove this paragraph, as well as the jack-the-ripper.org site. I've requested that he discuss it here, but he appears to be ignoring me, as my first request was on the 11th and his most recent edit removed the exact same content. Still no reasons given, though. --clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's give him the chance to wise up and approach the discussion. No one is going to get tired of reverting his undiscussed non-consensus edits, so he will either edit his way into either an RfC/UC or AN/I or an eventual topic ban. So long as we follow the protocol for dealing with disruptive editing (and not be goaded into reciprocal bad behavior, which would only distract admins from a highlighting of the DG's pattern of behavior), the problem will more or less get resolved. Stay cool, and simply report him if it gets to be more than 'a flea on the dog' to coin a phrase. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the mistake of edit warring with DreamGuy, which resulted in admins ignoring his tendentious edits and focusing on me. Following the rules is always a good suggestion. --clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clpo13 claimed "Still no reasons given, though."? Hello, reasons were given. The fact that you and a couple of others simply ignore them doesn't mean they weren't given. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where were these reasons, then? I can't ignore something if I can't find it. --clpo13_(talk) 01:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find it then you clearly have not even looked. The difference between that and ignoring it outright is virtually nonexistent. DreamGuy (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of coherence, it'd probably be best to limit this discussion to the section below, since it's on the same topic. --clpo13_(talk) 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museum in Docklands

From 15 May, the Museum in Docklands is mounting an exhibition of the original (Scotland Yard) evidence in the case, from the National Archives. Kbthompson (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But will they will be selling Ripper T shirts and souvenir mugs? Worth a look I guess - though no doubt there will be one or two dodgy looking Ripperologists hanging about the building trying to entice one into completely futile arguments... Colin4C (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go, then - quisque pro omnibus.  ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'd probably take the train ... 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, punishment - surely a product of an English education...- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly a new book entitled 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' is being published in association with exhibition: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-East-David-Spence/dp/0701182474/ref=sr_1_43?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205187087&sr=8-43 Colin4C (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring again!

Can I remind everyone that it not good to edit war - that just gets the page protected so no-one can edit it. Can I also remind people to discuss changes. Those particular changes appear to have reached some kind of consensus for inclusion - that's only amongst five-six people, but bullying reverts don't get anyone anywhere - so, talk about it before taking them out. Oh, and remember 3RR! Kbthompson (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's it. I'm not touching the article again, but DreamGuy reverted to his preferred version once more without discussing it. If someone else wants to talk to him, feel free, but I'm not going to get into a tussle with him (or anyone) so long as my RfA is going on. I did notify him of the discussion, however, as a courtesy. --clpo13_(talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the people blind reverting me would be the only group engaged in "bullying reverts". And the problem is, it has been talked about, with very clear links to the policies in question, but those are ignored. We can't ignore Wikipedia policy just because a gang of people who do not understand policies or the topic this article is supposed to cover decide their main strategy is to blind revert every edit I make. This isn't making an encyclopedia, this is just sheer gaming the system by trying to fake a consensus -- a real consensus looks at the edits, compares policies, and makes an informed decision. There has not even been the slightest attempt to do that from certain people in the last six months or more. People seem to be treating this more like some online game instead of a serious attempt at making an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If there has been discussion before, would you care to link to it or provide diffs? Also, consensus can change over time, and policies are not set in stone. That said, what policies are being violated? --clpo13_(talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you not even look at the talk above? There's hardly anything on this page. Asking me to provide diffs to show something that's easily visible on the very page you are asking for it strikes me as quite peculiar. DreamGuy (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So when you say "it has been talked about before", you're referring to discussion not even a month old? That discussion never ended. This is a continuation of it. No consensus has been reached recently. --clpo13_(talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated on my talk page that you disregard policy. Policy is super-consensus. Actions that violate policy overrule the desires of people who want to ignore the site's rules. The link in question is the most clear-cut example of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you could ever hope for, as it was posted by the owner of a site and the site has next to no info, Google ads, and exists to promote his commercial interests. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I said "our opinions on how much policy matters differs greatly". Nothing about that says I think policy doesn't matter. You drew that conclusion from my words, and it's completely false. Policy does matter, unless it gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia (again, WP:IAR, which, ironically, is a policy). Consensus can always overrule policy. If the participants in a discussion decide a link isn't spam or evidence of conflict of interest, then it isn't. --clpo13_(talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Cipo is right here, Dreamguy. If you want the edit you keep insisting upon, convince us of your viewpoint. After you are reverted once, youneed to realize that edit summaries- and snippy ones at that - are not going to get you the results you are seeking. In fact, reverting without discussion would eventually have some negative repercussions for you.

Consensus is not a static quality, unless the same majority remains unconvinced of the minority viewpoint. If something is being added against the rules, take the time to point out precisely what rues are being avoided. I think you get extra points if you can do so with a minimum of vitriol. Consider this your opportunity to address these points. Take the time now, since your edits/reverts aren't making any headway. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, you have proven yourself unwilling to llisten to any edit I make simply because it is me making it. You also in the past have explicitly said anyone with experience in the field ought to be ignored because they are all wackos. Your actions here are simply kneejerk obstructions to any improvement to the article. I have made discussions, so your continuing attempt to falsely claim I am reverting without discussion is clearly yet another attempt to try to create justification for disciplinary action under more false accusations. You (and one or two buddies who blind revert out of revenge for edits on this and related articles they didn't get to keep) are the ones violating a whole slew of policies. The difference is I don't bother taking the time to report you to try to get you in trouble, while you spend all your time trying to come up with ways you can try to justify filing some false report or another (one of your clueless buddies repeatedly falsely accused me of violating 3RR recently). You aren't interested in having an encyclopedia article that follows Wikipedia policies, it's clear you're just out to play games and try to win at any cost. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked to confine your comments to edits, and not editors. Your edits are not being singled out for reversion. They are being singled out because you choose to add in precisely the same edits over and over again without discussion, or specifically pointing out how they violate policy. Simply throwing out an acronym isn't good enough. We all know the policies and guidelines; you explaining how a particular statement/link/etc. violates them allows us as your fellow editors the opportunity a view into how you are interpreting - or misinterpreting - those policies and guidelines. You need to explain to us why we all of us are wrong, and not just say we are wrong and go back and revert back in a version that aesthetically pleases you.

Frankly, addressing your numerous uncivil, unsubstantiated (and largely inaccurate) accusations would be tantamount to making this discussion page all about you yet again, and that is simply boring. Your choices have negatively impacted your working environment here in Wikipedia, and that isn't because of some grand conspiracy to "Get Dreamguy" but because you've attracted enough negative editorial and administrative attention to yourself that you are now finding that the Wellspring of Good Faith can in fact flow a bit shallow. Own your mistakes and move forward. Continuing to blame everyone else for your misfortunes is simply going to marginalize you even further from the Project.

This is the last time I want to address your behavior here. The next time you act uncivilly or attack another editor or disrupt the article, you will simply be reported to AN/I or AN/3RR, depending on which policy or guideline you violate with no further warning. The article is about Jack the Ripper, not Dreamguy. Do what you need to to ensure it - and this discussion page - stays that way, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Knight conspiracy theorist

Sorry, I should have checked the discussion page (or even just thought about it for a second), but it didn't occur to me that this article would have so much edit warring going on. Anyway, I removed the additional qualifier 'conspiracy theorist' from the description of Stephen Knight. I am aware that he had a theory about a conspiracy-but the term is pejorative, as it implies that the person so described is wrong. I'm sure that Knight is wrong, but I think that we can do better than this. The explanation about a Masonic plot makes the phrase redundant anyway.FelixFelix ^talk 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is edit-war central. Even Jack the Ripper himself would hesitate to dip into this particular piranha pool IMHO. Colin4C (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist author is an accurate and nonbiased title for Stephen Knight. He's the one who wrote the major book about the Royal Conspiracy Theory, which is what it's called, so there's no way getting around that description. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Conspiracy theorist isn't a pejorative unless it's used like one. In this situation, it's perfectly descriptive: the man theorizes about conspiracies. --clpo13_(talk) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, a 'conspiracy theorist' isn't just someone who has a theory about a conspiracy, they also have to be wrong. Which is why I tend to remove the phrase when I see it. Its almost always redundant (as with Stephen Knight in this case, where the passage decribes his theory about a masonic plot) and is nearly always used pejoratively to imply disapproval. And the royal conspiracy theory is what the WP article is called, I note previous editors objected to that title. FelixFelix ^talk 09:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Felix on this, Cipo. If someone called me a conspiracy theorist, he'd be picking up his teeth spread like bloody chicklets from the gutter. In almost any instance, it is a pejorative, lik the nutters who see the Gnomes of Zurich or the Vatican behind the curtain of all world events (FNORD). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see how it can be used pejoratively. I'm guilty of using it that way myself. But I still don't think it automatically implies they're wrong. Unproven, perhaps, but not necessarily wrong. At any rate, given the concerns, I'm willing to let it slide. I suppose it is a bit redundant, considering the man is mentioned in the context of what would be considered a conspiracy theory. --clpo13_(talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which policy is violated?

There seems to be a revert war going on about policy violation. I don't understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the accusation gets thrown about a lot. Hopefully, the accuser will cite the specifics of what is violating policies and how. In the absence of proof, I'd say utterly disregard it. Good of you to ask, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Information was already provided. I say we utterly disregard those editors, like yourself, who knowingly pretend no specifics were given to try to justify their own bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could simply answer the question about how a certain policy was violated. That would be the civil thing to do, instead of attacking the person. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Information - help add it please

There is information on Jack the Ripper that is not mentioned on the page. It was found at casebook.org but here is the exact address that should take you to the information I am specifically talking about: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-left.html It discusses the details of Polly Nichols's post mortem body, quotes Dr. Llewellyn, and ponders the possibility that Jack the Ripper was left-handed (he cut his victims' throats left to right, etc). I would edit the page myself but I'm not sure how to use the source, etc and want it done properly (as I'm sure everyone else does as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.207.111 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really new information, and not particularly noteworthy either. It's just the opinion of one person. Certainly the idea that the killer was left handed has been thoroughly debunked by most authorities on the topic over the years. DreamGuy (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With a modicum of respect, is it in fact a single opinion that the Ripper was a leftie? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne. Yes, pretty much. Dr. Llewellyn was the only person who examined the bodies and came to the conclusion that the killer was left-handed. Every other doctor who participated in a Ripper autopsy either disagreed with Llewellyn or said it was impossible to tell. Any belief or claim that the Ripper was definatively left-handed can be tracked back to a single source--Dr. Llewellyn. Revmagpie (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Dreamguy may be correct in that this might not be notable. Allow me to pose a question: should it be mentioned that the initial doctor of record thought the killer was left-handed (ie, is it notable, as he was in fact the first doctor of record)? Or is the weight f subsequent doctors enough to drown out the other voices that claim otherwise? I ask, because this sort of notability will be used to judge other things in the article that have similar claims against the weight of opinion. Is a single, professional scientific view notable in and of itself, or does it require concurrence for the purposes of this article? Is Llewellyn notable enough on his own? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand it's somewhat notable, because the erroneous assumption that the Ripper was left-handed has entered the common lore of the case (for instance, Jack the Ripper routinely appears on lists of "most famous/infamous lefties", etc.). However if it's going to be mentioned at all, it should also be stressed that Llewellyn is a minority view, both then and now.Revmagpie (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that although Llewellyn was a doctor, he was by no means a forensic specialist, so while his opinion might be more "scientific" than the average joe of the time, it doesn't really justify the assumption that it was particularly "expert"--the only Ripper doctor who approaches that standard was Dr. Bond--and even he was learning as he went along. The whole concept of forensics was relative new and there was virtually nothing in the way of establish procedure.Revmagpie (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we should wait to get more input than just two or three editors, since there are something like 5-6 active in this article currently. I think that while Llewellyn's notability is intact (he was an actual doctor who had his hands in a Ripper victim), his assertion that the killer(s) was(were) lefties is decidedly less so. Countering that is the fact that this assertion - fallacy or not, minority opinion or not - has wriggled its way into lists like the one you mentioned (and should probably cite for good measure, please). My opinion is that if it were included, it should be stated in the same sentence that it is in fact a minority opinion not agreed to by the majority of the forensics folk who have since come late to the autopsy info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The lists I mention appeared for instance in several editions of this publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Lists. Also many early books and articles about the Ripper erroneously assume a left-handed killer--an error that can be laid squarely on Llewellyn's doorstepRevmagpie (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It should be mentioned, but with the emphasis cited in the above discussion. Jack1956 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also wanted to point out to the anon user that there is only a finite amount of evidence and info specific to the Ripper/Whitechapel killings. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for the number of Ripper books out there. A lot of the same information is used over and over again - sometimes evaluated, and sometimes just taken at face value while taking a back seat to the presentation of yet another theory of the crime and/or the culprit. That the killer being left-handed has come up a few times isn't really surprising. If more than one doc or investigator at the time had suggested it, that would be worhy of more than a mention. That Llewelyn noted it as the first medical professional of record to comment makes it notable enough to comment, but not worthy of much more than that, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image discussion

I am wondering if we could discuss the infobox image currently being used in the article. Recently, someone helped me locate the link to an image that I was thinking might be a better choice. It is located here. As I understand it, the original image is old enough (c. 1888), so it is copyright-free.
Might I get some polite input on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Both images seem good to me. But what would you say makes the newer image better? --clpo13_(talk) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It puts a face -at least a face that people thought should belong - to the killer. It's also more engaging. Honestly, the first time I saw the Puck image, I thought it was some sort of carnival or circus illustration. It didn't seem to fit the mood of the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'd support changing the main image. But something needs to be done to get that Photobucket watermark off of it, unless there's another version somewhere. --clpo13_(talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• How about this [1] (see right) or this [2]? I know I've seen the image in a couple of the better books on the subject. Jack1956 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The first example seems a bit more flexible in terms of sizing it to the article. Now, while the picture is pretty nifty, what exactly was it supposed to portray (at the time)? As well, knowing exactly when and where the image was first published would be perfect for licensing and summary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The caption for the second example says "A Suspicious Character", which implies, to me, that the authorities were suspecting anyone that seemed shady, especially since the picture adjacent has a caption saying "Homeless" and depicts a detective/policeman/vigilante accosting a homeless guy. I've never seen that picture before now, so I can't say for certain what it's really about, or even what licensing information it has. --clpo13_(talk) 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the group of men on the right are members of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee (note their smart clothes) patrolling the area for suspects. The suspicious looking man on the left is evidentally some guy whom they suspect of being the Ripper. Perhaps it is indeed him....Colin4C (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• The image is one of two from 1888 captioned 'With the Vigilance Committee in the East End'. It is taken from the Illustrated London News for October 13, 1888 [3]. Jack1956 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have the information we need. I don't mind uploading it, but I think that Jack has earned the right to do so - he did a lot of the grunt work in finding it. Once uploaded, I will check it over for licensing issues that might pop up. I am thinking that maybe the Puck image can also be used, lower in the article (maybe in the Murders section).

Oops, it look like Jack is a lot more efficient than I thought - it's already uploaded. I'll adjust the summary accordingly. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to call for 'ayes' and 'nays' on the image substitution. I say 'aye'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'Aye' from me. Jack1956 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake... the image in question is NOT of Jack the Ripper. The image currently at the top of the article IS, and it's in color to boot. There's no reason to change the image. If you want to put the image in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee article, or in that section of this article, feel free, but there's no reason at all to make it the main image. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And I should also add that we discussed this image previously on this talk page, and it failed then for these very reasons. I believe Arcayne was part of these discussions previously, so it seems odd that he'd be acting like this was a wholly new suggestion. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New participants, new discussion. --clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And it bears pointing out that the current image is NOT of Jack the Ripper, either. As neither image can authoritatively identify Jack the Ripper, the image that communicates the subject material best should lead. I am not saying that we should do away witht he circus-style one from Puck; I am just saying that this one is better suited to describing in the art of the time what some people thought the killer might look like. I dig that this picture is your preference (for all I know, you uploaded the image in the first place), but this one seems to work better. First rule of Wikipedia: if you aren't prepared to be edited mercilessly, Wikipedia isn't for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also like this image for the lead as opposed to the current, for the reasons cited by Arcayne. --David Shankbone 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to DG how do we know that the fellow slinking away in the hat is not Jack the Ripper? Seeing as the latter fellow was never caught it could very well be him. I think ambiguity as to identity is at the very heart of Ripperological enquiries - so the picture is a very apt one for this article. Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either of the cartoon images. To me, they speak of Dickens and Conan Doyle. This is an article detailing the murder of prostitutes in one of the poorest areas of 19th century London. It also details the popular mythology surrounding the identity of the murderer. I see the photographs as the most appropriate, though least palatable, candidates for prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but the article is about Jack the Ripper, and there are no no known photographs of the killer(s). Therefore, much of what grew out of the murders came out of public speculation and fear. The illustrations demonstrate that, as well as assigning physical traits that corresponded to what they thought about the killer(s). Because of that, I am thinking that the illustrations are appropriate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that the illustrations represent fear. They are too light-hearted. There, no doubt, was real fear among the prostitutes on the streets, but I don't see that in the illustrations. It's difficult because, in the 21st century, The Ripper largely is fun. I see his place in the public consciousness as somewhere close to a Stephen King creation. And, of course, the article must reflect that. But I feel that the article would be better served by preferring the forensic over the fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they have a place, as they are contemporary illustrations. You're right that the modern view is akin to an 'anti-hero' rather than a murderer. Forensics have little place here, as they didn't have them - need to ground the article in historic accounts, leavened with reliable modern interpretations of them. Has to be the approach of the historian, rather than the criminologist. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

... and just for the record, I don't see any particular need to change the current lead image ... cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But the alternative image does actually show us the streets of Whitechapel at the time and shows us what really went on then. I.e. the patrols of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee looking for dubious looking individuals who might be connected with the murders. As the identity of the Ripper was never discovered the fellow on the left could well be him. The ambiguity about the Ripper's identity and dubious claims to have discovered who he is, is the leitmotif of Ripperology then and now. And unlike the current picture this alternative works on both the realistic and symbolic level. Colin4C (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two distinct strands to The Ripper story. The first is factual; it deals with the murder of prostitutes on the streets of 19th century London. The second is almost folklorish; it deals with the films, the books, the Ripperologists. Both strands clearly belong in the article. But, for my money, photographs of the victims carry much greater weight than an abitrary illustration taken from the folklore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is to do with the Ripper, whoever he or she (or they) might be, and his/her legend. The more factual aspects of the story and information on the victims are included in the article The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). Colin4C (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I feel there is an even stronger argument for that article to lead with a photograph, rather than a cartoon. But, getting back to this article, or indeed any article dealing with this subject, I feel that the kernel of the issue is the murder of the girls. Pictures of those girls are extant, and should, imo, be at the head of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to point out that the title of the article is Jack the Ripper and not Jack the Ripper Victims. I appreciate the political correctness of giving attention to the victim and not the killer, but political correctness isn't the hallmark of a good encyclopedia.

If we had a picture of Jack the Ripper, you can bet your last shilling we would lead with it. Unfortunately, Jack failed to take a picture of himself and send it off to police. Without that or some CCTV coverage of the killing ()which wouldn't be in place for almost a century, we are pretty much stuck with illustrations. The illustrations we should use should be representative of the topic.

On a side note, I find the images of the victims to be a bit too graphic, but haven't said anything thus far, as the matter is of small importance, considering the larger movements of the article thus far. It's a topic for another time, I guess. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I agree with Arcayne's side note. I think it does a disservice to the victims to merely show what they looked like after JTR carved them up. There are other illustrations from newspapers of the time depicting how they looked when they were alive. Colin4C (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if we had a photograph of the murderer, that would be used. The question is: in its absence, what is the next best thing? For me, it's photos of the victims.

As you say, the article is indeed about Jack the Ripper. And Jack the Ripper is about the murder of several prostitutes. That's all. The only reason anyone is remotely interested in him is because he murdered several young girls. And I see that as a strong argument for using the photos of those girls at the top of the story.

Regarding the graphic nature of the photographs: that is my whole point. The story of Jack the Ripper is the story of the brutal murder of several young women. To my way of thinking, the cartoons sanitise that; and that is not what an encyclopaedia should be about. An encyclopaedia is about facts. Those horrible black and white photos of the victims are the best facts, the best historical record we have.

I won't belabour the point any further as I can see that it's not going to carry the day. I didn't expect it to but wanted to add my opinion anyway. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you offering reasoned thought about this, 81. I disagree that Jack the Ripper is about the murder of several prostitutes; the article is not just about the murders but the horrific nature of those murders, the ensuing public panic, the taunting letters and the increasingly bizarre theories as to the underlying reasons of the crimes as well as the likely culprit(s). Without trying to sound callous here, the victims are incidental to the discussion about the killer.

Another thing: the illustrations aren't "cartoons" in the sense that you likely thinking of them. Photographs were still pretty expensive, and not within the budget of a great many folk, and certainly not amongst the hand-to-mouth subsistence existence of London's bottom economic rungs. That the victims didn't have photos of them while living is not unusual. That photos exist of them after death is amazing foresight by someone to photograph them after death. Newspapers likely used few photographs, as the cost in inking them was likely more expensive than line illustrations. Illustrations were the 'photos' of newspapers in that bygone era. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne. This seems kinda trivial, but I included line breaks in my post; you removed them, I put them back, and you've removed them again. I included them simply because I feel it makes the entry more readable. I've put them back in. If I'm running counter to some guideline governing how to post to discussion pages, please feel free to remove them again and point me to the relevant info. If it's purely a stylistic choice, please leave the line breaks in; it's just the way I prefer to post. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.40.39 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to sign your name Mr Anon. I always find that intercourse is more civilised when one's interlocuter has a moniker. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, it is easier if you create an account. You don't have to give your actual name (and actually, you shouldn't ever do that in Wikipedia). Creating an account allows you to generate an editorial rep, but do what you will. I don't mind calling you User:81, or maybe just '8' for short ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Link?

Just read some of the supposed 'spam link' that Dreamguy keeps deleting. It seems very good. The section on prostitution, for instance, goes beyond the usual tabloid cliches you find in most Ripper books and I liked the bit about Inspector Abberline. Colin4C (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if it were explained how the link supposedly violates multiple policies, it might help to clarify the resistance to its inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'policy' on external links is quite clear, they are permitted if consensus on the talk page is for inclusion. Something is not SPAM, or conflict of interest if it is discussed. The gentleman who added the link had the good grace to discuss their addition, let's give him/her the benefit of doubt by not calling it spam and discuss whether it should be retained. Keep the discussion to the topic, not the editor. Kbthompson (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, wouldn't the conflict of interest go away if someone else added the link? And it seems that it's only considered spam because it has ads in it. So do hundreds of legitimate online newspapers that are used as sources on Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My main point was meant to be that, having read a bit of it, I thought it was a valuable contribution to the subject. There is so much re-hashed rubbish on the internet that it is a pleasant surprise to see something worthwhile. The info on prostitution connects with some other articles on the wikipedia I have edited concerning W.T. Stead and the Eliza Armstrong case. Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud here.... Colin4C (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking aloud is fine, Colin - in other fields, we call this an aspect of Brainstorming. It often leads to new ideas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why it is a spam link (and violation of WP:COI and WP:EL) was included above. Continuing to insist that it has never been explained is a pretty odd strategy to be making. The person who put it there even admitting to running the site. But, hey, unfortunately after all the blind reverting I don't expect them to look at it rationally later and admit they were wrong, so they need to justify to themselves why it belongs. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have explained, twice, why it isn't spam or a conflict of interest and therefore warrants discussion before being removed. Discussion has occurred, with the end result that most parties feel that the link should remain. --clpo13_(talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, DeamGuy, if someone says they cannot find your previous comments, it is up to you to provide them again. If you could be troubled to re-explain for us your specific issues (why a certain link is spam, why an image is a copyvio, etc.), I think we would all appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my link to the "external links" portion of the article. Rather than encounter a potential conflict of interest issue, I will just place the link here and hopefully if another editor considers it a worthwhile addition they will add it. The site is http://members.tripod.com/~Magpie_IX/ripper/ Revmagpie (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those transcripts of the original 1888 newspaper articles look useful. Colin4C (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Assessment (2008-03-19)

There is one big problem with this article from the very start. Its title is "Jack the Ripper", yet I find a "The Ripper Murders". It is understandable the criminal has almost become synonymous with the murders, but it is an incorrect name for the article at hand. There is another article dealing with the murders, The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), but this Ripper article has became more detailed than the Whitechapel article regarding the murders, becoming a WP:CFORK issue. This is a big factor in my decision; it indicates the article has gone beyond its scope, losing its focus.* I recommend splitting the article into one dealing with the case in general (dealing in detail with the murders, and investigation, and legacy), and one dealing with the Ripper himself (dealing in detail with the suspects, his characterization, legacies specific on him). No doubt there will be a certain amount of duplicated content between the two; but one article would deal with the duplication in general and the other in detail, and vice versa. Regardless, the following is my assessment of how the article stands without factoring the name into account.

Prose

• As the subject deals with events taking place in London, I advise adopting British English. If this was the step taken, then a few American English has slipped through the editors' work. "Analyze", "capitalize", and "rumors" should be "analyse", "capitalise", and "rumours".
• Sentences in the lead could be shortened or made clearer. "The victims were earning income as casual prostitutes" is practically the same as "The victims were casual prostitutes". "Newspapers, whose circulation had been growing during this era" -> "The growing newspapers". "[W]ere first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of" -> "were first strangled to silence them, which would explain the lack of".
• Consistency is a good thing but instead of sticking with "born on", a few victims are stated to be "born circa" and "born c.".
• One sentence paragraphs (The Ripper letters and the Jack the Ripper in popular culture) are discouraged. Please merge or turn these sentences into minimum three-sentence paragraphs. The Suspects section can list the most prominent of suspects with short backgrounds.
• Avoid very long sentences. "This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper." is a particularly long "snake" which is also slightly confusing. Break it up.
• Do not question the reader as in "The Pinchin Street Murder" paragraph. State it as the article bringing up a question on the identity of the murderer or a quote. *
• Do not use "(see above)". The illustration's caption should be stating the picture and its relevance to the article.
• Do not use "and/or".

Factualness *

• Avoid "weaseling" the way out. "Perhaps more interesting were ...", if they were not interesting, why should they be mentioned here? "[P]erhaps genuine, either by period or modern authorities", those authorities did consider them as genuine. To state the dispute of their authenticity, bring in the opposing forces' views instead of using "perhaps".
• What is the relevance of Albert Bachert's claim to the presidency of the committee (Investigation)? Was he a prominent man of society then? Citation?
• Although there are inline citations used, several other cases require them, such as:
  • The Goulston Street Graffiti messages (both of them)
  • The other authors besides Stephen Knight in the Graffiti section (it is also weird to see Stephen Knight being outed here)
  • The "Saucy Jack" postcard, curiously the only one among the three bulleted to not have an inline citation
• It is advised

Images

• Free images of the victims should be moved to the Commons, or have their rationales as public domain properly sectioned or templated. Refer to Image:Marthatabram.jpg for an example.
• Whitehall mystery image's caption should expressly state its origin *
• Caption for "The Nemesis of Neglect" should follow that of the Punch cartoon criticising the police, and state it is a commentary on the society's neglect of the poor. *

I am failing this GA nomination. If the critical issues(*) have been addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAC. If there is a disagreement with my decision, please bring it up for discussion at WP:GAR. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think it was unwise to nominate this for GA just yet (a peer review would have garnered us essentially the same information, if not from a wider range of editors), Jappalang makes several god points. What say we get cracking, and do the fixes recommended? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, "god points". That made me laugh. Anyways, I agree. This article definitely needs to be fixed up. --clpo13_(talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I support Jappalang's judgement that the The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), and Jack the Ripper are separate areas of concern and should have separate articles. I will try to beef up the former article in line with this judgement, so that this article can more strictly concentrate on the great mystery man of all time: JTR (and his legend). Colin4C (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank the reviewer for a thorough review, personally I would have failed it for a lack of stability 8^). Some decision needs to be reached about the treatment of the murders, the Whitechapel murders are a superset of the Ripper murders. To my mind, contemporary Whitechapel still needs attention - it's not wrong, just a little offset; and I think the structure needs attention (what the reviewer calls 'refactoring'. Although premature, I think that was worthwile, as the reviewer has not been involved in the usual arguments. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) You know, until Jappalang said it, and Kbt reinforced the message, I completely missed that we've been focusing on the killings and not the killer him/her/themselves. If the acts of the killer are notable in and of themselves, then they should be in a standalone article, and the article about the killer should focus upon the person extrapolated from the crimes (if uncaught) or the fuller view of the killer based on not just the nurder information, but accounts on who the person was outside of the killings (much like there are articles for the tenures of many US Presidents in addition to their personal articles).
I agree with Kbt and Colin that a more attention to the Whitechapel murder article would benefit this one, and be able to link info about the actual killings from there, so as to not replicate info. As well, discussions as to the identity of the killer would allow us to more closely connect this article (acting as transit hub) to the Ripper Suspects article, and only note the suspects given the largest amount of concurrent agreement from Ripperologists and scientific folk.
I actually now feel good about the GA eval (I had been disappointed that it had been nominated too early), and now think - through leaner compartmentalization between the related articles that this will work out a lot more effectively. 'Til now, the diferent editors working this article might have been working from differing points of view on how the article should look. We don't have to do that anymore. This article doesn't have to be a clearinghouse for all things JTR; it can be a info portal of sorts from the killer to his deeds, possible identity and maybe even Victorian England. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed over to British English those terms mentioned by Jappalang (analyze, capitalize and rumor), but I haven't been to ol' Blighty in a while, so the mental muscle I used to use to switch spellings over has atrophied somewhat. Could one of our resident limeys (heh) address this issue more fully than I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also addressed the circa issue, standardizing all of the daes as "c.", as in Skippy von Thud, born c. 1842. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Its title is "Jack the Ripper", yet I find a "The Ripper Murders""' -- Wikipedia naming conventions are to use the most commonly known name. In this case it's Jack the Ripper, pretty clearly. I don't understand what that's even trying to get at.

But, as he said the other article is a WP:CFORK violation, and I agree, I have redirected that article to this one. It's the same topic, two competeing articles is a major violation of policy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that sentiment, DreamGuy. Two editors other than I agree that the Whitechapel murders article is not a content fork, as evidenced by the discussion on that article's talk page. What's more, the reviewer was referring to this article as the WP:CFORK issue, as he goes on to say that this article has lost its focus.

To elaborate: this article is about the murderer: Jack the Ripper. His murders, however, are a different but related topic, especially since there isn't widespread agreement regarding the murders actually committed by Jack the Ripper. --clpo13_(talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly, the redirection has been undone in the Whitechapel Murders article, which still has a great deal of content to it that differs from this article - content unseen by using hte redirect. It might be worth discussing merging the two articles, so that future redirects don't overlook content from one or the other.

Something else we might want to consider - after such a merging - is renaming the article to The Whitechapel Killings or the Ripper Murders, and place numerous redirects in place (Jack the Ripper and the other title) so it all comes toa single article. This way, we are not endlessly debating cntent forking and the like. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Whitechapel Murders article - in an augmented and improved version - should be the main one with a Jack the Ripper article as an (important) subsidiary. The Whitechapel article can state the facts leaving the Ripper article to cavort gayly in speculations about which murders are 'canonical' or not. Ripperology has its place in a democracy but I don't think its peculiar concerns should pervert an encyclopedia. Colin4C (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After having read the Whitechapel Murders article, i guess I agree with you; were the murders a Venn diagram, the Ripper murders would, while far more sensationalist, be a subset of the larger series of murders. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have started to improve the various articles on individual Whitechapel Murder victims - a lot of which were in a very shoddy state and unreferenced etc etc.(Colin4C (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Torso Killer"

I am wondering about what references there are to back up these statements in the article about a mysterious Serial Killer No 2:

""The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the work 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." Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we would have to determine if the debate is notable enough for inclusion. Without extraordinary citation, an extraordinary claim like that cannot be included, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of there being a mysterious Serial Killer No 2, active at the same time as Jack, intrigues me, but I would like to see what the references are. The Pinchin Street Torso, The Whitehall Mystery plus Elizabeth Jackson were all examples of dismembered female corpses found at various places in London at the time but whether this is sufficient to link them to a serial killer even more mysterious than Jack I wouldn't know - not being a policeman, detective or forensic scientist myself. Colin4C (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Only When Necessary

Explain reverts. "If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round." Calling a bold edit "mass alterations" hardly amounts to an explanation, in my view. The article even contained fairly obvious factual errors - also reverted: "The Ripper murders were perpetrated in public or semi-public places towards the end of the day..." ? They all happened past midnight. "Constable Alfred Long discovered a bloodstained scrap of cloth..." ? PC Long's report says "portion of an apron", at the inquest he said "a portion of a woman's apron". So much for caring about historical accuracy. I say these faults were symptomatic, and still are - after the revert.
I'll leave it to you. Sabina F (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sabina. We are quite willing to accept justified alterations but please give the other editors here the courtesy of explaining your reasons in the edit summaries and here. We are not mind readers. And just to add that this article has an unfortunate history of 'bold edits' which make us all very nervous one when is launched on us without warning from the sky before we have had time to duck for cover...Colin4C (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations are always nice, even if just in edit summaries. An edit without any explanation at all is usually deemed suspicious. --clpo13_(talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JTR edit

Colin, I was wanting to discuss with you, relatively unobstructed, your revert in JTR, linked here. While most of the revert was solid, I think I should point out a couple of problems that need to be addressed (and just a few of them are created by your revert):

• "Some believe that the victims were first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of reported blood at the crime scenes." This is a weak sentence, Colin. 'Some believe' is what WP calls weasel words, and we are to avoid them at all costs. If this is a direct quote, we need to note with both attribution and quotation marks. At best, it needs rewriting. At worst, it needs to be purged.

The strangulation hypothesis can be traced back to the inquest testimony. Some Ripperologists accept it, some don't. I usually depends on the suspect you're putting forward.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we should note that, with citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "sometimes missing the murderer at his crime scenes by mere minutes" Honestly, the other version, noting escape, is a better paraphrasing of the source.

• "Rumours that the murders were connected intensified in September and October, when a series of extremely disturbing letters were received by various media outlets and Scotland Yard," - the rumors need citation, as well as for the growing intensity of them.
• "The original police investigation focused on eleven murders, of which five are generally accepted within the "Ripperology" community as almost certainly having been victims of the same serial killer." We need citation that these five are generally accepted within the Ripperology community.

It's not without controversy, but they are known as the "Canonical 5", and almost every Ripper book acknowledges at least that those 5 are an identifiable group.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am not doubting it, Rev; I am suggesting that a newcomer to the article isn't going to know why only five are generally connected, or who proposed that they are. I am thinking we should say that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• (section title) "Goulston Street Graffiti" I think that not that many people (outside of Ripperologists) would even connect Goulston St. with the writings. The other version was a bit sensationalistic, but I think its going to be more accessible to the reader.

Brief note. It should be "Graffito" rather than "Graffiti".Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mores the point for an alternate section title. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

'The Writing on the Wall' seems like a vague cliche. Magpie's suggestion 'Goulston Street Graffito' has the benefit of precision and accuracy. And maybe we could hyperlink it to a new article: Goulston Street Graffito where all the theories about the Jews, the French and the Masons (and some detail on the steet itself?) could be aired in detail. Colin4C (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Martin Fido stuff should be included, since we aren't supposed to show a preference for any particular author or theory (just the notable ones).

• "The perhaps most ingenious explanation of the sentence was presented by Robert Donston Stephenson (20 April 1841–9 October 1916), a journalist and writer known to be interested in the occult and black magic." Is there a way to cite why he is known to be interested in the occult?

He wrote at least one article on Black Magic, and moved in Theosophist circles where he had a (probably unearned) reputation as a Magician.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We should cite that, then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Some believe that 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, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper." This whole paragraph simply reeks of uncited OR. First of all, the weasel words 'some believe', then the supposition that the name was created to sell more papers. Then, the supposition that this is 'standard media practice' before making a lot of synthesized connections between Jack the Ripper and the others listed. -

The "some people" in this case are various members of the Police Force. Robert Anderson, Henry Smith and Walter Dew, for instance.Revmagpie (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, we should be specific instead of speaking in generalities. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Er...just to say that I merely restored the status quo ante before the Anon number and Sabina made their mass alterations. If the Anon number and Sabina do us the courtesy of explaining their edits and providing references I might very well agree. Colin4C (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to say that you created the mistakes. Sorry for the inference. Those were just some issues I noticed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempting to explain my "mass alterations"

First, I was adding a couple of sentences about Robert Donston Stephenson's idea about the writing on the wall. I also added a link to a website - JTR Forums. As the link was removed with the explanation that "we" do not allow linking to any kind of forum I'll simply have to assume there is such a rule. A main reason why I did make the link was that there is information relating to Stephenson there, otherwise not that easily available (as far as I'm aware).

After making those (in my opinion) rather minor edits I noticed that there was expressed a need for citations concerning the theories about the writing in Goulston Street. So, I thought, why not make a quote from Stephenson's article in the Pall Mall Gazette. And so I did. Without explicitly mentioning Stephenson's main idea, about the French word juives. And just in case there should be any doubt (as it would seem to be from one comment in the list of edits): JUIVES is indeed a French word. An extract from Wikipedia:Juifs -

langues juives traditionelles. des cultures juives très diversifiées. les communautés juives. les différentes sectes juives. la cacheroute (lois alimentaires juives). persécutions anti-juives. au cours des diasporas juives. lois anti-juives de l'empire des tsars. des masses juives. les personnes (...) juives. les populations juives. Congrès d'Études juives.

The perhaps most famous instance: Robert Garnier's tragedy Les Juives. (Originally: Les Juifves) And there's also the (strictly speaking) grammatically wrong use of les juives instead of les juifs. (as mentioned by Stephenson) A fairly large number of instances can be found by specifically Googling for it.

And then I began reading the whole article from the start, and immediately found at least one rather glaring error: It said (and still does say) that the murders happened towards the end of the day. Very odd that nothing has been done about that error. Or perhaps not odd at all.

I also changed the expression "Ripper murders" into "murders". Mostly in order to simplify. And I removed this sentence:

"Some believe that the victims were first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of reported blood at the crime scenes."

Some believe... And I think inferred beliefs like that should be mentioned further down in the article, if at all. I found the next sentence to be rather terrible:

"The removal of internal organs from some victims led some officials..."

I just felt like doing something about it. I'm not saying my attempt cannot be improved upon. I also removed this:

"This has given rise to the term Ripperologist to describe professionals and amateurs who study and analyse the case."

I think perhaps it would be better to mention it later, if at all. There are a couple of other words coined from the Ripper nickname. Ripperana, Rippermania. Perhaps a couple of more words like that can be found. In my view it is a phenomenon expressive of the same mindset responsible for the Ripper nickname. And Ripperologist is in fact also the name of a magazine. Perhaps these words could be worth mentioning in a separate paragraph. It might also make it easier to discuss the relevance of it to an article about the murderer, possibly also to the understanding of the case.

In the next paragraph I made a change to there was at least one fairly obvious error. The murders did not happen in rapid succession from the beginning of 1888. There was one murder in spring, later to become associated (to an extent) with the series in autumn. I'm not saying my edit was ideal. But I'll say one ought to be made there.

I also changed my intial text about Stephenson. Attempting to be more precise. And then I altered the last part of this sentence:

"These mushroomed later in the Victorian era to include mass-circulation newspapers as cheap as a halfpenny, along with popular magazines such as the Illustrated Police News, making the Ripper the beneficiary of previously unparalleled publicity."

That just sounded wrong to me. Perhaps the murderer did find the publicity "beneficient". Perhaps that is the best way of putting it. I'm not quite sure.

And I made an edit to the question of why the nickname was invented. I'm not saying my version necessarily was much better. But that sentence also started with "Some believe..."

Finally, I also made a few changes to the list of additional reading. Casebook.org was mentioned under "Further Reading" and "External Links" so I removed it from the first list. Instead, I added the book by L. Perry Curtis - Jack the Ripper and The London Press. And I pushed Evans & Rumbelows book about the Scotland Yard up the list. Sugden, Evans, Rumbelow, these are, in my view, the best place to start. 80.203.34.227 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also this:

"The authority of this list rests on a number of authors' opinions, but the basis for these opinions mainly came from notes made privately in 1894 by Sir Melville Macnaghten as Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police Service Criminal Investigation Department, which came to light in 1959. Macnaghten's papers reflected his own opinion, which was not necessarily shared by the investigating officers (such as Inspector Frederick Abberline). Macnaghten did not join the force until the year after the murders, and his memorandum contained serious errors of fact about possible suspects."

I say it is at best a much too general claim. It would have to be argued that the authors in question where in fact basing their opinions on Macnaghten's notes, and not on a more general impression gathered from a variety of sources. And I say that calling the apron piece a "scrap of cloth" is an easily recognizable attempt at twisting the facts of this case. The apron piece found by PC Alfred Long never was referred to as a "scrap of cloth" at the time of the murders, as far as I know. It is a fact that the apron piece has been referred to as a "scrap of cloth" at the Casebook website. Repeatedly. But repeating an error doesn't make it any less an error. Can a book be found wherein it has been described as a "scrap of cloth" ? I very much doubt it. And even if it could, it would still be a misrepresentation of the historical facts. PC Long explicitly stated that he found "a portion of a woman's apron."

The same problem tends to turn up with the interpretations of the writing on the wall. Quoting Stephenson without making any other citations may of course seem unbalanced. But why not come up with one citation more instead of suppressing the one that was there ? It surely can't be that difficult to find a quote from Martin Fido ? And if there are no citations to be found for the other alternatives they could perhaps be slightly expanded upon instead.80.203.34.227 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you sign your name (doesn't have to be real one) so I can address you properly? 80.203.34.227 sounds like something out of a science fiction nightmare and besides I can't remember it...When an Anon number editor turns up here we usually have good reason to suspect the worst. Colin4C (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction nightmare... Well, Arnold will do fine. That is a real name... I guess there may have been more vandalism to this article than I suspected. And I am aware of the problem with anonymous editors. A few weeks ago I made a small repair to the article about David Canter. Some mischief there, possibly relating to a similar field of interest. But there were no other edits made from that anonymous address. Though I can see the problem, I would have thought the edits I have made would make it fairly evident that I most probably was acting in good faith. In my experience the worst kind of vandals quite often happens to be acting under the guise of their own name. However odd that may seem. 80.203.34.227 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Arnold, I think that Colin was suggesting that - because you are new - you might not know that the best way to sign your posts is by typing four ~ after them before hitting enter. As well, there is a button at the top of the editing symbols box that can shortcut it for you, called: Sign your username. That said, your contributions are thought out - you should create an account (t's free, btw), so that way you can start accumulating an edit history. Anon accounts are usually not seen as more credible as someone who has taken the step to build an edit history. You don't have to edit more after you do so, but every edit you do will build your rep. Also, becoming established allows you to edit in semi-protected articles.

I am going to mull over your post before responding. I have some issues, and agree with you on others. Allow me to think on it some more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnold 80.203.34.227 is still not providing edit summaries for his mass alterations and I don't like his naff 'Chalk Writing on Wall'. Could we discuss that? Colin4C (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it bears discussion. Mebbe send him another request to discuss his edits, and if we gt no response, we'll discuss it without him and take action accordingly. Let us give the lad (or lass) a chance to ante up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"My personal opinion is that the Whitechapel Murders article - in an augmented and improved version - should be the main one with a Jack the Ripper article as an (important) subsidiary. The Whitechapel article can state the facts leaving the Ripper article to cavort gayly in speculations about which murders are 'canonical' or not. Ripperology has its place in a democracy but I don't think its peculiar concerns should pervert an encyclopedia. Colin4C (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)"

I may tend to agree with the first part. That was one reason why I made one of my alterations - i.e. removing the reference to "Ripperology". I don't think it warrants mention at the outset of an article about this case - that is, first of all, the murders and the contemporary investigation. But neither do I think there should be any place in this encyclopedia for "cavorting gayly in speculations". The contemporary investigation should perhaps be more strictly separated from any modern perspectives. But that is also an argument against calling the writing at the Model Dwellings in Goulston Street 'graffiti'. It is a fact that various ways of describing this possible clue has become part of certain controversies relating to the "modern perspectives" on this case. Calling it 'graffiti' tends to be more common among people seeing it as "just another piece of graffitti", and thus of no real value to the investigation. It has been argued that chalk writing would have been quite common in the area, thus warranting the use of the word 'graffiti'. That may, for what I know, to some extent be true. But downplaying the significance of the writing/graffiti/message would seem to stand in contradiction of how the police officers at the scene was reacting. It seems modern historians and researchers with some greater belief that it might have been written by the killer, tend to call it a 'message'. Sugden, Evans and Rumbelow keep to this version. The contemporary description was however 'writing on the wall'. Perhaps some might wish to avoid the associations relating to that phrase, but these certainly would have been part of the contemporary perception of the case, and thus of the writing on the wall... I say any encyclopedic article ought to reflect that in some way, instead of replacing it by a seemingly neutral, modern description.

And I actually added (the word) 'chalk' to make the headline less striking... Though I think 'writing on the wall' would be, historically, the best way of describing it.
ΑΩ (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 'Graffiti' or, more properly, 'Graffito' is a perjorative or NPOV word. It is a descriptive term for 'that which is written'. It is commonly used in lots of academic contexts for messages scrawled on walls, e.g. the Roman graffiti at Pompeii. Graffiti can be as important or as unimportant as anything else in this world: according to Simon and Garfunkel' 'the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls'. What do other people here think? Colin4C (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting, for great justice) Why not leave it simply as writing on the wall? It's more accessible to the reader that way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Goulston Street Graffito" is the term it goes by in the field by the authors who are experts on the topic. "Graffito" is in no way misleading or POV-pushing, as it is a word that accurately and unambiguously describes the thing being discussed. If you object to the term as used in the field, go see about getting the term changed there. Wikipedia is written to reflect outside reality, not to try to change people's opinions by inventing up our own terms. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map image/placeholder image

I have moved the Reynolds map image of (presumably) Whitechapel from one of the placeholder images to the section on background, where I think it better belongs. I think - personally - that a streetmap featuring the spots where the murders took place would be far more informative. Sorta like this, though less lurid and dramatic. Or, as an alternative (to the rather unpleasant thumbnail images of the victims, we could use photos of the crime scenes instead. Photographic technology of the period (mostly B&W and sepia tone) would be a nice effect on the tne of the article, also showing some of the blight that Whitechapel suffered through.
I am also going to move the Puck image lower into the article, likely into either police investigation or media, replacing the placeholder image with the 'suspicious character' image discussed earlier. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. I much prefer the suspicious character in the hat to the Puck image. Colin4C (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Now, with A's addition of a murder map, I've removed the Reynolds map as redundant (and kinda off-topic) as well as the canonical 5 textbox (also redundant, as it appears in the section about those very same five).

I'm feeling bold - should we talk about the individual images of the murdered women? I am pretty grossed out by the excessively large image of Kelly's mutilated corpse. Of course, that's just my feeling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the post-mortem picture of Kelly is very grotesque. Not sure what purpose it serves displaying pictures of horribly mutilated corpses in an encyclopedia which can be accessed by people of any age or gender or sensibility. As for the other images we could always substitute artists' impressions of what the women looked like when they were alive (like the smaller Kelly image). Colin4C (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All kinds of pictures can be accessed on the web, that might be offensive, disturbing or unhealthy to some. The Kelly photos are easily accessible at the Casebook website mentioned in external links, and without much of a warning. I can however see that it might be wrong to present the photos without a warning. So, I have replaced it with a link. I do think those photos are relevant to the understanding of the case; more so than some of the other information in the article.
ΑΩ (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I looked a the Vietnam war article, and found this:Media:Deadmanandchild.jpg. I say it would have been wrong to remove it. ΑΩ (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But as another comparison the Yorkshire Ripper article contains no pictures of the mutilated corpses of his victims. Colin4C (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too think that the removal might have been premature, considering that Wikipedia is not censored. While I thought the initial sepia image was a bit too large (thereby enhancing the graphic nature of the image), its demonstration of the sheer brutality and monstrosity of the murder clearly defines why it captured the fears of Londoners by the throat. I think that, without that image, the horror that JTR represents would be lost in the drone of the daily ickyness that we can turn on CNN or pick up a magazine to see. We've seen this stuff before. The people of Victorian London had not.

With that in mind, I would ask that the image (either sepia or b&w) be reinstated, albeit at a smaller size. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, being bold, I have removed the images of the victims, as the article isn't about them. As well, I have resized the murder map image so it didn't overrun the article. Lastly, I have moved and re-sized the Puck image and placed it in the victims section, so as to have an image there, that, while unrelated, shows the concern/fear that was brewing in London due to the killings. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note the date of the Puck Image: Sept 1889 - in the year after the 'autumn of terror' and immediately after the non-canonical murder of Alice McKenzie. So maybe it needs to go down a bit into the next section. Colin4C (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. I was unsure as to where the Puck image belonged, but didn't want to remove it. Do you want to move it, or shall I? That is, unless ΑΩ moves in his blindingly speedy way. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Colin's comment above (09:05, 9 April 2008), I'd like to register my disagreement with the decision to remove the photographs; I feel the modified version is less encyclopedic.

"Not sure what purpose it serves displaying pictures of horribly mutilated corpses": I would argue that the very reason that this article exists is because "Jack the Ripper" murdered women and "horribly mutilated" their corpses. If he hadn't, he would have been forgotten. And for that reason, pictures of those mutilated corpses belong in the article.

"which can be accessed by people of any age or gender or sensibility.":I don't see that the gender of the readership is any way significant. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia and editorial decisions should not be taken with a view to making it suitable for children. I would argue that an adult (of either gender) of average sensibility would find the images disquieting, but not inappropriately so.

I'd also disagree with Arcayne's assertion (19:21, 9 April 2008): "it isn't about them". I'd say it's very much about them. Without them, this article would not exist. Why, if not for them, would anyone be interested in JtR?

A balance needs to be struck between the crime itself and the folklore that it engendered. It's clearly a very subjective decision but, for me, the current set of images leans too heavily towards the folklore and away from the crime. --81.86.40.39 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be more about the folklore. It is, after all, titled after the murderer. The murders themselves are best discussed at The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), which deals more with the murders than the murderer. --clpo13_(talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the encyclopedia would be better served if the two articles were one. Either way, I disagree that "this article is supposed to be more about the folklore". It's about Jack the Ripper, who murdered and mutilated prostitutes.--81.86.40.39 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absent any concrete information about the murderer's identity, folklore is all there really is. There's plenty of evidence regarding the murders. But no one person has been pinned as being Jack the Ripper. There's even an entire article about the suspects. --clpo13_(talk) 06:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that 'Jack the Ripper' does in a sense represent 'folklore'. But there was a real investigation and there are facts relating to that investigation. And these facts certainly do relate to the identity of the killer, perhaps more so than any 'folkloristic' aspect. 'Folklore' may contain truth, but in a double sense, covering or even glossing over the reality of the case and any fact relating to the identity of the killer. I'll say it is quite significant that 'Jack the Ripper' was most probably not an alias, as stated at the outset of the article; not in the sense of being a name assumed by the killer in order to cover up his real identity. It was most probably a name assumed by someone falsely claiming to be a murderer. And it became a 'given name' as it was appropriated for what might perhaps be called journalistic-folkloristic purposes, strongly contributing to the building of myth.

Folkloristics is the formal academic study of folklore. What actually constitutes folklore is disputed even within the discipline, but generally folklore focuses on the forms of artistic expression communicated within groups. Historically, folklore has directed its attention towards oral narratives such as fairy tales and mythology, but in recent years has gained a strong focus on social science research and no longer limits its study to strictly oral communication.

What would be the 'artistic expression' ? The way I see it, the press coverage would perhaps be the most relevant folkloristic aspect. ΑΩ (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just been reading a very interesting piece on Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Christopher Frayling in his 'Nightmare: The Birth of Horror' (1996). Apparantly the premiere London theatrical performance (at the Lyceum on the Strand) of Jekyll and Hyde was August 1888 - just before the first of the canonical murders (Nichols). According to Frayling some popular ideas of the Ripper were influenced by J&H: making him a respectable doctor (Jekyll mode) by day and a lunatic madman (Hyde mode) by night. Hence the Ripper's mythical black bag and mythical top hat and the idea that he might be operating (in all senses of the word...) from the London Hospital in Whitechapel. Conversely, according to Frayling, our image of Hyde in all the film adaptations is mediated by the Whitechapel murders. In the film adaptations it is apparent that Hyde is consorting with and killing prostitutes in the East End. By contrast in the book the location of Hyde's crimes are unclear and there are no women characters of either the nice or naughty variety (the only female characters in the book are a maid who looks out the window and sees Hyde killing Carew and a young girl whom Hyde tramples on - but doesn't kill). Colin4C (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two distinct strands in the article. One strand covers the crimes themselves. The other strand covers everything that has grown up around the crime. It doesn't really matter what term we use to describe the second strand: popular culture, myth, fiction, folklore but my point is that the images over-represent the second strand and under-represent the first.

I'm not saying that one strand is more important than the other, they are both at the heart of the article. But I am saying that the article is unbalanced in that the images favour the second strand at the cost of the first. --81.86.40.39 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, this article is about 'Jack the Ripper' the assumed perpetrator of some of the eleven Whitechapel murders, whoever he or she or they might be. The murders (not all of which were committed by 'Jack') have a separate article. There were eleven Whitechapel murders. Some of these were possibly committed by an individual or gang whom we denote by the term 'Jack the Ripper'. Almost all we think we know about the latter is a mythical construction - which has, however, its own importance. The real 'Jack' is situated at the vanishing point of knowledge. To assume more is to participate in the myth oneself. Colin4C (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You make my point in your very first sentence, Colin. The first and only thing you mention in trying to describe JtR is the crime, the murders. You also say: "Almost all we think we know about the latter is a mythical construction" well it's true that the sketches of JtR are imaginary, but the photographs of the victims are not. --81.86.40.39 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Folkloristic/Mythological Perspectives

The 'Map image/placeholder image' headline seems misleading considering the direction of the above discussion, so I'm making a new one here.

And I'll say... any rational investigator (and architect) will be well aware that reality contains no actual vanishing points. They are indeed mere imaginary constructions. I suspect that is why Ressler and Shachtman[4] were quoting Nietszche, a "mytho-logical thinker" - "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss the abyss also looks into you." Surely, some deeper understanding can be attained by situating oneself at a certain kind of threshold. But if I were to apply that to this article I would say that one image, that of Mary Jane Kelly's remains, ought to be enough when it comes to the question of illustrating the truly monstrous character of this murderer. "Monstrous", that also means, the way I see it, that "folkoristic/mythological thinking" must, literally, be part and parcel of any deeper understanding of this case. I guess that also may be why Stevenson's Strange Case has been described as "one of the best guidebooks to the Victorian era".[5] There is, on the one hand, the 'folkloristic' attempt to contain the monstrous within a "mythological case/parcel". But there is also, on the other hand, the fact that many serial murderers (according to David Canter) tend to be acting out "inner narratives of evil". In cases of extreme narcissism/playacting/hypocrisy the character of these narratives may not easily be separated from that of myth. Perhaps some fitting quote may be found, from Canter's Criminal Shadows - Inner Narratives of Evil. ΑΩ (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To be candid, I don't think this heading is an improvement. My point relates simply to the photographs, to how many should be included, and to what level of prominence they should be afforded. My feeling is that if you open the article and scroll through it,it should be very clear that the heart of this article is a series of brutal murders. Pursuant to those murders, a fug of stories and fictions and conjectures has emerged. That fug is just as important as the crime itself, but not more so. In my view the images are imbalanced. They do not give appropriate weight to the crime and the nature of the crime.--81.86.40.39 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ΑΩ (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, some time has passed since I made that heading now, and I still think it is an improvement. At least a general improvement, in the sense that the question of realism vs myth/folklore needs to be explicitly raised. As for the question of the images, I may agree that there is an imbalance. But I'll say it is first of all caused by the two "Ripper illustrations"; perhaps in particular the one from Puck. If it had been up to me none of them would have been placed in the first half of the article. Personally, I would rather have preferred a black square inside the infobox. I somehow doubt there would be much support for the idea though. But I'll say it might have been the best way of presenting a realist NPOV, whilst perhaps also conveying at least some of the original fear and bewilderment.

Reply to the above:

I think the "suspicious character" illustration captures very well the confusion and ambiguity of this case. To the left is a person in the hat who might or might not be Jack the Ripper and to the right you have the representatives of the eternal disagreements which the question of the identity of Jack the Ripper generates. And just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, the 'Whitechapel murders' have an article for themselves for the very good reason that they are not all necessarily connected with 'Jack the Ripper'. Imagine 11 deer were found mysteriously shot with arrows in Sherwood Forest and the Sheriff later got a hoax letter written by a bored monk claiming that the mythical 'Robin Hood' was responsible. Would you report this on the wikipedia as 'Robin Hood' or as 'The Sherwood Forest Shootings'? Would the bodies of the deer be integral to the case against 'Robin Hood'? Maybe they were all shot by different archers? How would you track down the mythical 'Robin Hood' who according to the hoax was responsible? Maybe suspicious looking men in green seen in the company of merry men and a noble lady would fit the bill? But hold...wasn't this stuff about 'Robin Hood' all a hoax by the disgruntled monk? Lets have a look at those deer again...and whilst we're about let's spread some rumours that King John was responsible and make the subject into a sell-out play...and use it to drum up the tourist industry for Sherwood Forest... Colin4C (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analogy. I applaud you. --clpo13_(talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The carcasses of eleven slain deer, some grossly mutilated, with the best parts callously left to rot... I would think a fairly conscientious Sheriff might report it all as 'The Sherwood Forest Shootings'. But, I'm quite certain, he would also have been taking due notice of the fact that some of them did not at all seem to have been killed by the usual poachers. And I suspect that may be why he would, in the first place, have been making that file for all of the eleven shootings. Though he might see rather clearly, that perhaps half of them may just as well have been the work of the regular runners robbing the wood. Troubled by rumours about the twisted habits of King John's second cousin. Possibly to be found among the representatives to the right. ΑΩ (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Body moved

I am a bit curious as to this edit by Colin, wherein a change was made to the section 'Other victims in the police files' with the edit summary:

"This is a list of victims, not incidents - and besides the body was only dumped at Pinchin street - the murder was not commited there".

While it seems obvious that someone wouldn't be dismembering a person on the street (although it seemed like there were Big Bags 'o Crazy™ being passed around Whitechapel at the time), would it be prudent to cite any statement that the body had been dumped at its found location? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Info from Evans and Rumbelow, who are already cited in the paragraph devoted to the Pinchin street torso. Everything in that paragraph can be referenced from Evans and Rumbelow apart from the intriguing assertion about Serial Killer No 2: "The Torso Killer". I have thus put a {{Fact}} tag after sentences which refer to that particular item. Colin4C (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If the same info is present in a previously noted citation, post the same reference; I think it ibid's the reflist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. Colin4C (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Silver

I should strongly advise that mention be made of this character, whom Charles van Onselen recently exposed in The Fox and the Flies (Jonathan Cape, 2007) as Jack's most likely identity. For myself, I think the evidence overwhelming. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, overwhelmingly bad!

Small excerpt of review from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/03/arts/04book.php:

"Energy and persistence, rather than criminal genius, marked the career of Joseph Lis. Van Onselen tries to leap this hurdle by blowing clouds of smoke, elevating his subject to arch-criminal status through numbingly detailed accounts of his numerous crimes and, in a drastic case of overreaching, by arguing that he might very well have been Jack the Ripper."

More bad reviews

http://extra.rippernotes.com/?p=62

..and from Kirkus reviews

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Fox-and-the-Flies/Charles-Van-Onselen/e/9780802716415/:

"The author bases his assertion on descriptions, names, access, personality, coincidence and other circumstantial evidence. "I never did find," the author concedes, "the one piece of incontrovertible evidence that could convince everyone."A vast canvas painted in florid detail, but the climactic indictment certainly is not documented enough to persuade a jury or even an especially skeptical reader."

..sounds almost as fruity as Patricia Cornwall blaming Walter Sickert

..if you have $35 to burn this book is for you. Berean Hunter (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Look, this article is going to tend to attract crufty, non-notable madness (it already has done that). With respect to RG and BH. there is an article for the Ripper suspects. Perhaps we need to set up a discussion as to what precisely this article should be about. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)