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.

Alice Walsh: a Ripper victim?

There's been some talk about deleting a page for a New York prostitute that may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper. THere hasn't been any real recent mentions of her as a victim, but the papers of the day were quick to comment that she could've been a victim. I've got the following paragraph written up, so if anyone wants to go over it and potentially add it to the "alleged victims" category, feel free.

Alice Walsh, a prostitute known to frequent Thompson Street in New York City, New York, was found unconscious and mutilated in the hallway of a tenement house on April 21, 1895. She was taken to St. Vincent's Hospital where she died several hours later. Walsh died of a stab wound that ran from “the base of the abdomen and upward to the hip” said to have been inflicted by a “strong hand” with a sharp knife that was at least 5 inches long. Three local men were investigated and cleared of the murder, but newspapers of the day voiced theories that she was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

references

Do yuo have a suorce saying this was a ripper killing?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(agreeing with Slatersteven)...a modern source that is.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's multiple papers from the day that theorized that she was a Ripper killing, but no modern sources that I'd consider official. There's some Jack the Ripper themed sites that mention her, such as this one and this one, but I'm not sure of what else there is out there. The blog reviews a documentary, but I haven't seen it so I'm not sure if Walsh is mentioned in the documentary at all. There are a few more links under an alternate last name spelling of "Welsh", [2], but not anything that would be considered beyond a doubt reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be deleted outright as non-notable and would not recommend leaving a redirect because it is misleading. I did some looking but didn't come up with anything. Good effort by the way. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured that I'd ask before adding it because I just couldn't help but feel that there just wasn't enough to warrant adding it to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

O agree there is not enough here to warrent a mention. I also note (headline asside) that all oif the material about this says that the killing reembled or was similar to the ripper, nit that they were carried out by the ripper.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a suspect called dr T who moved to America and the murders in london stopped after that jack day killed them!

He was a freemason,whose murders resembled Masonic rituals

this is true,why this is not mention?most belive know and belive that.he left masonic symbols over victims. (sorry my english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentagonshark666 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you find a credible source, it can be put in. MrZoolook (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a well known theory, but has also be largley discredited.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Vague description of times of "canonical" murders

We are told that "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." This seems pretty vague.

• 'Perpetrated at night' - This could cover almost half of any day.
• 'on or close to a week-end' - This may be interpreted as Thursday night to Tuesday morning, and in fact, only disqualifies Wednesday.
• 'at the end of a month or a week or so after' - The murders on the 30th and 9th (earliest and latest date-of-month wise) cover 10 days, a whole 3rd of a month.

Shouldn't vague descriptions like these be avoided on Wikipedia? MrZoolook (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are these statments sourced or are the OR?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They are (The Ultimate Ripper Sourcebook - about half the article is citing that by the looks), but my point was that these statements cover a large enough time (about 10% of total - 6 days in a week, 10 days in a month, approx 8 hours a day) that I just don't see the merit of their inclusion. MrZoolook (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The murders were committed between 1 a.m. and dawn (5–6 hours); from Friday morning to Sunday morning (48 hours); on the 30th, 31st, 8th and 9th (4 days). As these details are spread out across four paragraphs, I think it's worth spelling out the pattern of timings in a summarising sentence. Otherwise, the pattern is not obvious. Also, the sentence clarifies that Kelly was killed at night and then discovered in the morning. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"a summarising statement" - I must be reading more into it then others. To me, it comes over as some kind of "remarkable facts about the case" statement, but one with decidedly average facts covering a huge number of killings not relevant to this case. Regardless, the wording of "at the end of a month or a week or so after" does cover 7 dates (1st - 7th) not relevant to the case. It just reads to me as some kind of assertion that, had he not been stopped and assuming he carried on killing, that ALL of them would be committed within those dates. 2 months and 4 killings is hardly enough to come to that conclusion. MrZoolook (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2012

212.219.229.252 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC) jack day killed everyone in london three blocks down from ten downing street then moved to a little town called Machynlleth.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a joke about april Jones in incredibly bad taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.59.117 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Letters

The tone of the section is slightly misleading. When the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" letters are introduced, the discussion about the authenticity makes it seem like those letters are believed to be authentic. I think it would be better to make it abundantly clear that these are confirmed hoaxes right after introducing them, instead of waiting till the last paragraph of the section. Βαll (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)