Talk:Jack the Ripper

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Note: The official spelling of the formal name is correct with the -ize ending, which had been discussed in the past.

Archives
January 2003 – February 2007 February 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 – November 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 December 2007 – August 2008 August 2008 – November 2008

Jack-the-Ripper.org?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Samson Kobral?

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

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

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

jill the riper?

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

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

Martha Tabram rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Newspapers 1800-1900

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

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

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

Not a serial killer?

We're probably going to have to work Andrew Cook's theory in somehow [1][2][3]. Thought I'd better mention it here first. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fred Best

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royal society for the protection of this page

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

Location of the graffito

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

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

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

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

Final paragraph of "Canonical five"

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

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

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

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

Murder of John Gill

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

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

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

The press speculation is mentioned by Evans and Skinner in the reference at the end of the paragraph. See transcripts of these reports here: [4][5] You can also find press cuttings with the opposing view: [6][7]. George Bagster Phillips was called to Bradford to examine the body, which he did on Wednesday 2 January 1889. Afterwards he announced to the press "his conviction that the Bradford murder had no connexion whatever with the series of fiendish crimes which have recently occurred in the East-end of London" (Times, 4 January 1889).

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

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

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

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

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

Number of Victims

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

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

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

GAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of points of confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge from Emily Horsnail

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

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

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

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

Third quarter

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

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

Comparison with the Yorkshire Ripper

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

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

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

Miller's vs. Millers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well here the The Whitechapel Society (or at least the person writing this article calls it Miller’s court) [[8]] Here however they call it millers court [[9]], this does not install me with confidence that they check their facts.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Whitechapel a "slum"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Shaw quote is used in Whitechapel murders#Legacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of Booth's map of Whitechapel 1889. The red areas are "well-to-do"; the black areas are "semi-criminal".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoax diary

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

You were the one that wrote "hoax": [10]. If you wish to alter the wording then you will need to provide a source and balance it against the others. I suggest discussing any alteration on talk before any changes. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Legacy section

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed Odell [11] because he was being used to cite a statement which I could not find in his book. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What is going on here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily Ruth Chapman, murdered Saturday November 1, 1888.