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 02.07 – 10.07 10.07 – 11.07 11.07 – 12.07 12.07 – 07.26

Was the Ripper Left or Right Handed??

Thge wiki article is missing important discussion on whether the Ripper was left or right handed. This needs an expert to properly add a section on this with appropriate references. I am no expert so will not attempt it myself, but I have heard that the the angle of the knife wounds suggested a left handed person. If this is true then I want to see discussion on which suspects were left or righthanded in the article too. Also I want to see expert opinion on which Ripper letters appear to have left or righthanded script. Can some suitably knowledgeable people, who have the appropriate references, rectify these omissions in the wiki article?Bletchley (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not omissions. They are subjective theory which have never had any pertinent conclusions drawn apart from individual theorists. There is much written on the subject but all of it is speculative and doesn't necessarily add anything to the article. Philip Sugden's book covers the subject well if you are interested. As for the handwriting, first you would have to prove one of the letters can actually be ascribed to the real Ripper...until then, exercise in handwriting analysis is also subjective & quite possibly futile as the majority (if not all) of the letters were hoaxes. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A question I would pose would be whether books had been devoted to this particular question, or whether it is a constant topic of discussion in JTR books. If it were, it might bear mentioning. If not, then it might be less notable, and not needing inclusion here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this had been dealt with previously. Some early theories were based on a sparsely supported conclusion that the Ripper was left-handed (one of the doctors testified at inquest that the killer was likely left-handed. His view was in the minority). As part of the folklore of the case it might have some interest, but absent concrete evidence one way or the other, claims of the Ripper's left-handedness are just speculation. Revmagpie (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that not only was it just one doctor who said Jack was probably left-handed (on the Nichols' murder, before there were many corpses to tell by), he later reversed that conclusion and said he couldn't be sure. So there's not much to it, other than the newspapers never let go of the idea. DreamGuy (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, note it as a mostly discounted (with citations to that effect) theory, so that people don't keep adding it in article space, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. We can't bother to document every wild claim that has been discounted, however, and just because newbies wander through and add something in itself is no reason to have it in the article. Whether this point is worth raising on its own merits is worth considering, but we need to make sure we do it for encyclopedic reasons, not just for convenience. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "wild claims" is an entirely subjective phrasing. Of course, we aren't going to render undue weight on a theory that hasn't wider traction within the "Ripperologist" community. If plenty of people outside the field tend to note a hand-orientation/preference, it might be considered a Good Thing to put the theory in its proper frame of reference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clues found on Goulston street

It seems that every few months, we have to address the concerns of one particular editor. Sigh. Okay. We cannot call it by the substituted title, as we are not sure that they are "clues" or coincidence. We don't call it graffito just because some hack called it that in his profiteering venture (read: JTR whodunit book). We also don't call it such because its the wrong word - it applies to archeological scribbles and whatnot. Most people know it as writing ont he wall. It's makes no evaluations as to the weight of the writing, it doesn't unduly favor a conspiracy theorist misusing the term, and more importantly, it addresses then connection that most casual readers make when ticking the things they know about JTR off, one by one.
Of course, this was stuff already iterated a few mon ths ago, And a few months before that. Sorry - maybe I am mistaken, but it was my understanding that if you wish to change consensus, you do it here and not by edit-warring a pet version through. WP:BRD is clear; bold edits, when reverted, require discussion. Failing to do so leads to headaches, blocks and the such. Build a consensus. Don't attempt to force one. I can pretty much guarantee that it won't end happily for anyone trying to do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this advice is that you do not attempt to make a consensus, you just blind revert each and every change I ever make, assuming that it must be bad, and leave an edit message declaring that it's against consensus. To add insult to injury, you insist that I must discuss all changes first, yet you ignore all the edit comments fully explaining the reasons and, to go from bad to worse, erase all of the discussion right off off the talk page as an archive of "old and closed discussions" despite that such discussions are not old (two editors posted comments to them in the last 24 hours) and are clearly NOT closed. That's not responsible editing, that's just obstructionism. A good portion of the content you just deleted detailed step by step all of my edits that you wouldn't let me make last time around which, when you were forced to give a reason why you would't let them go in, frequently accused me of removing a source *YOU* actually removed, or making a spelling error *YOUR EDIT* actually made, or where you claim something was necessary before something could be included but it had already been there for years. You aren't even looking at the content of my edits to determine if they are good or not, you are just undoing every single last one of them.

As this has been your clearly demonstrated tactics over the past year and you show no signs of ever following Wikipedia policies on this matter, I am finally going to take whatever formal steps are necessary to get admins to force you to stop this disruptive behavior and to start following Wikipedia policies. You cannot just come here with an attitude that every published author on the Ripper case I ever cite as a reliable source is some amateur hack you can feel free to insult and set yourself up as the resident expert here instead. You do not WP:OWN this article, and you do not get to treat me as if I were banned from the article, insisting that I have to explain every single last edit on the talk page and get someone else to agree to it first, even in the cases where it's only a spelling error. I had optimistically assumed that eventually you'd grow tired of this behavior and stop on your own, or that perhaps you would end up getting blocked for similar actions elsewhere on this project, but I'm through waiting. DreamGuy (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No way DG, you are trolling here and have been doing so to see who will bite. What you do is intentional...you attempt this by starting with caustic accusations and claims using extreme language in an effort to boost the drama. You try to turn things personal. This happens when you show up & go into your little act. You refuse to follow concensus..so don't be surprised when those you slight take a set against you. You garner it. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nothing but assuming bad faith and a personal attack. Look at the edits I made. Look at them. How on earth does Arcayne justifying not just reverting some he disagrees with but ALL of them? I am really disappointed that an editor who disagreed with me over an edit would encourage Arcayne in this action. Consensus is not "we call DreamGuy names so we will just revert anything and everything he does without even looking at it". At this point I am hoping admins will step in and discipline Arcayne and clarify things for you. You need to realize that this is not how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BH, is, I feel, making an observation and much of it accords with my personal experience of your behaviour. The purpose of administrative action is not to manage your relations with the rest of the world - as it appears. It is to move the article forward and the best way to do that is to continue to concentrate on content and NOT indulge in these constant forays into purely behavioural discussions – whether your own, Arcayne's or any innocent bystander who attempts to get discussion back on track. I would suggest that you think about making incremental changes that can be discussed, rather than editing the entire article at once to bring it back to a version that Arcayne seems to have a problem with. The purpose of the talk page is to concentrate discussion on building consensus on changes to the article, not about furthering the vendetta that seems to exist between yourself and Arcayne. This talk page is not about either of you, it is about the content of the article. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

M I know you, KB, have good faith and attempt to follow policies, but it is my personal opinion that you've let a gang of a small but very vocal group of editor's constant complaints blind you to what's been really going on here. My edits were incremental edits, it was Arcayne who blind reverting them all in one fell swoop, and if Arcayne felt they needed to be discussed he could have started a discussion on anything he had a problem with before making any change at all to the article. He never does this. He erases it all, demands a discussion, and then frequently ends up admitting that most of the edits he reversed were ones he has no objections to (spelling, sources, etc.). If you think incremental editing is a good idea, then you would insist that Arcayne and others not blind revert the article everytime they see my name. I am not banned from editing this article, and other editors are not allowed to treat me as if I were. Now, please, go check the content of my edits to the article, both from yesterday and today, and tell me if you think they are good or not. If CONTENT is the issue, do that, don't just contribute to the personal conflict you say you don't want here by assigning blame to only one side. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment there was more in defence of Berean Hunter, than anything else. I personally, am more than happy that you choose to contribute here. I don't feel that I am assigning blame to any one party. I issued my challenge to both you and Arcayne, in AE; work together to get this article to GA status. I have no problem with your edits today, they are concise and well explained. I would caution that removing the Cornwall book invites some anon to add it again - better to leave it in and note it's not actually worth reading! Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A pity they've closed down most of the boxing rings in Whitechapel, then we could all take bets on the outcome of Dreamguy vs The Rest of the World. Just bought second-hand an autobiography of some Jewish guy who actually lived on Goulston Street in the early years of the twentieth century. He remarks on the local legend of 'Jack Dripper' and gives a vivid insight into what a shocking dump the whole area was. Colin4C (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "a few Wikipedia editors with grudges" and "the rest of the world". In fact, the main problem here seems to be that certain editors are opposed to letting the real world (through reliable sources of experts on the topic) be added here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stepney Boys Club could probably accommodate such an exhibition. Kbthompson (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they would, but that isn't going to help us here. I appreciate the presence of an admin here - such was the purpose of my AN/I (which ballooned unexpectedly into AE). I don't want this article discussion to turn into a bitchfest session about DreamGuy; I pointedly refuse to contribute to such a derailment yet again. Let's all of us stay calm. As evidenced by the AN/I, there are eyes here now, and maybe we can iron out some of these perennial issues once and for all.

Let's simply address the apparent dissent with the edits newly introduced, and leave discussion of the editors to a bare minimum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LEt's also discuss WIkipedia policies. Per WP:OWN, you are not allowed to blind revert the article, nor are you allowed to just decide an editor you have a personal conflict with cannot edit the article directly and demand that everything be explained on talk until you agree with it. I've said for a year now that this article cannot go forward until you and others agree tht blind reverting is not a tool for trying to win conflict. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my earlier post, DG. Comment on the edits, and not the editor. If you have a problem with an editor, I am sure you know the venue to pursue them. The article discussion is not the place to do so. Please stay focused. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread my early post, A. The main problem with the article is the actions of a certain individual or two violating policies. It would be so much faster for you to simply agree to not blind revert, and to other editors to make that a standard policy here. The fact that you don't is troubling. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you can both agree to further the needs of the article. If everyone can agree not to indulge in behaviour that is guaranteed to wind one, or other party, then we can move on. Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

quick question

I have a quick question I was wondering what school / universtiy that Jack the Ripper went to? I have been told a lot of differnt answers so I was wondering if somebody had a better knowledge than I have? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.242.39 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to know who he was before you could say, and nobody does. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Or what his profession was. I think the personnel of the Royal London Hospital, which was near the murder sites, were investigated at the time on the possibility that he might be a demented medical student from there. Colin4C (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition

The current group of publications is probably not that relevant here, but for those interested in the C19th, the British Library has a project to put a number of complete editions of publications of the period available on-line here. However, the collection is actively being added to.
There is a wider group of digital editions of British newspapers 1800-1900 accessible from the BL; or from most academic institutions. Hope that's of interest. Kbthompson (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks promsing. Thanks. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

What is needed to improve the article? Forming a to-do list could be helpful and give focus. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. It might be best to avoid blanket criticisms, but instead focus and decide via consensus how the article could be improved.

Number one would be getting editors to read and understand WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:ENC and WP:UNDUE. Most of the problem with this article is not content-related at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the wrong tactic to adopt. Historically, that hasn't seemed to actually address deficiencies in the article but instead create tangential discussions that belong elsewhere. Since you have pretty much blocked everyone from posting to your usertalk page, I am not really sure where that might be. Maybe mediation, perhaps. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• It might be an idea to mention the suspected profession of the Ripper: doctor, butcher, 'foreign skipper' etc which were profiled and investigated by the police at the time. Plus suspicions as to his state of mind, ethnicity, gender etc. Colin4C (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That one could be tricky to handle, since it's sort of all over the place. It's also somewhat something handled on the suspects page already, sort of. But if you want to create a sandbox/working doc somewhere off the article to write something up to feedback, that'd work. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the suspect section here is unnecessarily nonexistent. I think a summary paragraph could be created to talk about broad features, methods, and the fact that people proposed them back then and now, while leaving details of exact names on the suspect article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. I think the only reason it hasn't already been done is that the main article discussing it seems to see a lot of back and forth editing, and it would essentially be like arranging deck chairs on a ship in stormy seas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well what about during the months when I don't bother to post here? Don't see any back and forth editing going on, or any substantive editing to speak of, really. It's only when I start editing that anything actually moves forward. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, last time I was at a playground, see-sawing isn't really a forward movement. Maybe focus on the hear and now, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I still believe the article has structural problems - it remains a collection of unrelated facts, there needs to be a linking commentary - not much, just to turn it from a GA fail into a wiki article. The background section has some problems too - which I'll try to address when I'm in a writing frame of mind. Kbthompson (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• A number of red links could be fulfilled - mainly bio, but some like Pinchin Street will need to be quick on their feet, as the whole place is coming down for this. Kbthompson (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe someone could manufacture an excuse to include, here, this breezy little rhyme, from 'Jack the Ripper', which I think is not yet mentioned in the wikipedia:

"I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid

Nor yet a foreign skipper,

But I'm your own true loving friend,

Yours truly - Jack the Ripper." Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion of that poem. No existence of it can be found among surviving Ripper letters. It seems to be one of the early myths about the case. See Evans and Skinner's JTR: Letters from Hell, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the suggestions from when it failed GA status? The headers above link to a non-existant thread. ('Good article nominee') link. We need this as a working list. I can't find it in the archives.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Assessment (2008-03-19) ΑΩ (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Noncontroversial edits made to article

I've gone through and made more edits to the article. I did not include anything about officially referring to the Goulston Street Graffito as the Goulston Street Graffito despite all the sources because I know a certain couple of editors have a problem with that. As the other edits are not under dispute, as explained in the edit comments accompanying them, blind reverting all changes is a clear sign of bad faith opposition to an editor's work and not the content. If anyone has a problem with any individual edit, feel free to discuss it here. As the edits are made individually, each is easy to revert individually, but if the goal is to have a discussion and then have it be what the consensus says I would hope that any reverting to be done would be done after discussion happens, otherwise it's just revert warring for personal conflict reasons instead of article content reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This happened when I edited the article a while back as well. I would politely like to remind the main people active on this article that they do not own it, and to actually read and engage with the edits made as opposed to blanket reverting. Brilliantine (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliantine, there doesn't appear to be any prior edit history for you in this article before today (at least, under the contribution history for Brilliantine), so I am unsure what edits of yours you felt were blanket-reverted. DG, perhaps you will note that those edits of yours that were not controversial were not reverted - "blind" or otherwise. I thank you for finally coming here to discuss those edits that you feel might not find an initial consensus. This is what I was referring to with my edit summary comment regarding BRD.

Can I trouble you to point out where Patricia Cornwell's book was disincluded by consensus? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you'd stop "archiving" the page down to only one section all the time you could just go read it here, but I guess I have to go find it. I think both Colin (he's here, he can weigh in again if necessary) and RevMagpie, perhaps also KB (can also weigh in again), agreed to it. As far as I know you were the only one who opposed, and with you it's hard to tell if you even know what your opinion is sometimes without first knowing whether I support it or not so you can do the opposite. I'll look, and in the meantime anyone who wants to disagree and build a new current consensus can. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was logged out at the time. It was a purely factual, uncontroversial geographical comment - and I even got a warning on my IP's talk page from someone. Brilliantine (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember what the geographical comment was? We can probably trace it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I put it back in later with (rather unnecessary) citation. I don't really want to go start trawling through IP contribs as I don't really want to see what my flatmates have edited or to edit in the same areas. Brilliantine (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<==outdent I had removed Cornwell but it was returned with some logical reasoning here. Personally, I would agree with DG that it probably doesn't belong unless someone wants to spotlight the goofiness of it. My way of seeing it: Hyacinth Bucket turns into Sherlock Holmes and proves Col. Mustard did it with the pipe wrench in the conservatory.. it just isn't scholarly. Kb brings up the good point of putting it there and let people know what it is. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a general consensus that it was not a particularly worthy book - but it is a famous (publicity seeking?) book - I don't think that necessarily makes it notable. On balance, it probably rates a mention with a health warning - if only to forestall this conversation the next time around. Kbthompson (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can spotlight the goofiness of it on this article. It would be difficult to do briefly without pushing a POV and distracting the rest of the article. The Portrait of a Killer article does that well enough and in a Wikipedia-policy-friendly way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, there you go Arcayne -- proof of consensus, and proof you were wrong to say it didn't have consensus when you blind reverted the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop personal comments and move on please..trying to build synergy here. Please...pretty please...pretty please with sugar on top. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no moving on until Arcayne stops his disruptive behavior. As long as people like you and others coddle his violations of policy he'll continue to hold the article hostage and continue to try to advance his personal crusade against all Ripper authors. All it takes is for people to stand up and say that that behavior isn't acceptable. Ignoring it encourages it. You're basically being an enabler. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one coming off a 96 hour block. Keep your wiki-preaching to yourself, you aren't a good example for Wikipedians to follow. Go ahead, keep jabbing sticks at editors & admins. I've wanted to press forward with things and strangely I find that I'm being accused of "coddling" and other figments of your imagination. You can't help yourself can you? just jab away at people until you alienate them.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem on my part. All I asked fro was proof of consensus and discussion. I wasn't evaluating the removal itself, And yes, let's focus on the edits, and not the editor (third time saying that, now). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All you did was revert it without looking at it and then later asked for was proof of consensus and discussion, which you should have known already existed if you'd been paying any attention to what anyone else said on the talk page and stopped constantly removing old people's comments to "archive" them inappropriately. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Structural Suggestions & other miscellanea

Some suggestions for the structure of the article...I'm not stuck on any aspect of it but rather putting it out there to get the creative juices flowing. Generally, breaking things into Contemporary & Modern for most any header will help. Hopefully that prevents people from interjecting that a new death metal band has written another tune right behind contemporary works. Personally, I'm not crazy about the Popculture section in most articles..usually fancruft gathers and it is more a collection of tangents at best or otherwise they are distractions. Nonetheless, like it or not, JTR is a pop icon. Movies, books, magazines, and dedicated websites that go beyond simple blogs. (Hats off to Casebook!). A few possibilities...

Media (expand section with examples, most inline but some as direct image and/or quote boxes)

i. Contemporary

ii. Modern

Public reaction (new section)

A. Contemporary

i. Immediate vicinity

ii. Greater London

iii. Great Britain

iv. World

B. Modern

i. Immediate vicinity

ii. Greater London

iii. Great Britain

iv. World

v. Ripperology

Controversies (new section)

i. Contemporary

ii. Modern

a. Maybrick Diaries (we hate it but the avg reader is uninitiated and wants to know such things)

b. Cornwall

c. Stephen Knight

d. Wikipedia

Alleged eyewitnesses (new section) might need this as introductory or supporting to additional material to Suspects section; you're quoting from them after all..

Suspects - expand with general description(s) from eyewitnesses (Colin & Kb)

Investigation (expand)

i. Methods

ii. Difficulties

iii. Changes arising from case

Redlinks Summary (Stewart P. Evans, Philip Sugden, Chief Inspector Henry Moore, Osborn St., Pinchin St, Stephen P. Ryder, Paul Begg, Donald Rumbelow, Nathan Braund, Robin Odell, Keith Skinner).

Oh, and one more thing. I recommend that we either use a conventional static "To-do" List or a collapsible version at the top of this talk page. This would be useful (and helpful) to coordinate tasks and help keep us moving along with the article. We just need to form that list...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the outline at all. The proposed public reaction section seems unnecessarily detailed with breakdowns by time and extremely detailed geography and suggests that "Ripperology" is completely separate from the historical record and other reactions. I'm not sure there's any point to a controversies section, as no indication of what would be included in the contemporary section is listed (and should be put into appropriate sections of the main article as appropriate instead of singled out), and the modern section seems to unnecessarily duplicate the suspects article. Giving separate subsections to the diary, Cornwell (I presume that's what you mean, unless Cornwall did something), and Knight would only encourage adding the level of detail that has always provided a major distraction tot he main article. Mentioning them all quick in a row in one paragraph (or even sentence) is probably all that is needed, as the mention would include wikilinks for people to go read about it to their heart's content. The investigation section should also probably be split more logically, especially as "Changes arising from case" is more the realm of urban legend than actual fact... I can't think of a single actual investigation technique that was changed in policing as a direct result of the Whitechapel Murders investigation, though many unreliable sources have made claims to the contrary. I also think that the pop culture section is more than sufficient the way it currently stands, and that the separate article we have for those matters handles the kind of details that should be somewhere in Wikipedia but are wholly inappropriate for an article on a historic event.DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you recommend? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find a few problems with the points that DG raised. I don't think there is anything wrong with the proposed structure, as it presents a neutral view of the subject. Point by point:

1. Ripperology is separate from the actual historical record. It isn't even a science, but instead a collection of disparate folk with a variety of educational and vocational disciplines (like, for example, Creative Writing, or car salesman), and the tag refers to them as an identifier, not a definition of academic accomplishment. Every ripperologist has a pet theory about the identity. etc of the victims. I am sorry, but "ripperology" isn't going to be used to provide any academic or notable weight to those folk self-identifying themselves as such. For crying out loud, I could read two books on JTR, and trawl a ripper website and - poof - I am suddenly a ripperologist. Sorry. When they establish advanced degrees in ripperology from the U of C system, then we can start giving these folk the same notability and weight that we give actual scientists.

2. The controversies section addresses these differing viewpoints and alternative theories as to the identity of the killer (the subject of the article).

3. If the changes in forensics are in fact an urban myth, then we cannot have it. If they can be cited, then it should stay.

4. I think the Pop culture things shouldn't be done away with but touch on concisely those things that can be expounded on via linked remarks.

Lastly, I keep seeing the gaffito stuff being sneakily reintroduced. We can note it, and note that some folk call it that, but saying that most call it such is speculative (at best). Some is better, and that's what should be used. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Ripperology absolutely is not separate from the historical record. Continuing to insist so is just advancing your bizarre little bias you have against the recognized experts in the field. I still don't know why someone so opposed to everything well respected authors have written about the topic is even doing on the article, or an encyclopedia for that matter. Your personal beliefs are not relevant. Only the conclusions of the experts are. Badmouthing all the experts and hoping that somehow means we'll treat you as if you were an expert instead simply will not work. The claim that every Ripeprologist has a pet theory about a suspect is false, as many do not pick suspects. And frankly, everyone having a theory isn't any different from the experts in other academic fields. Opposing experts with opinions isn't a justification of throwing it all out... if it were then the entire WP:RS policy would be gutted.

2) No, the topic of the article is not the identity of the killer, its the full spectrum about the killer, of which the arguments about identity are really only a small part and which already has a full article about it plus several other articles discussing individual suspects and theories. This article cannot start trying to reargue all those different controversies on this page.

3) They are an urban legend (urban myth is an incorrect term). It'd be possible to cite them, but what we would need is not jsut any cite but a reliable source, of which none making that argument exists, because it's all rumors from people who don't know what they are talking about.

4) The pop culture section shouldn't be done away with, and wouldn't be, as they have a whole other article. We also do already discuss the most important parts on the article specifically about the Ripper in fiction and music, etc. You seem to be arguing that that section must be expanded or else it'd be the same as doing away with it completely. That's a false comparison. It can stay the same length and still be a full separate article and do what Wikipedia is supposed to do, and as it has been doing per consensus for several years now.

Overall the kinds of edits being suggested to try to improve the article seem to be ones that would make it less of an encyclopedia article and more of just a random collection of facts and rumors. We ought to instead focus more on the police invetigation and the items identified by outside editors as needing an improvement to get the article to GA status.

Per the graffito topic, which doesn't belong in this section: it's not being sneakily reintroduced, it's being sneakily (by AlphaOmega) removed (he took it all out with no justification) and not so sneakily (by you) removed, despite it being fully cited per Wikipedia policies. If you have a problem with the way facts are cited in this encyclopedia, please try to get those discussed on the policy pages. Don't just ignore policy to try to push your own POV. What YOU think is better isn't relevant. We're documenting what the experts in the field think is better. We already know you opposed use of the term "Ripperologists" and even "serial killer" in this article in the past, but you lost those fights because it was, just as now, your belief versus what the sources said. Reliable sources always win. Please stop edit warring to try to advance your own personal opinions. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DG, to not understand that the study of history is separate from the actual actions committed by historical figures is the height of naivete. And I would think you would revel in the opening to create a well sourced article regarding the study of JTR and it's conclusions. Also, I think we need to recognize that there is no real measure of expertise in the study of JTR. If a person were a chemistry professor they could provide thesis papers and such to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject, there is, unfortunately, no such process with this subject matter. Yes, there are a few well respected people in the field but the one overriding fact about this field that makes it different is that we know that we will never be able to know. As for the topic of the article, I think I'm seeing something... This might be where the crux of a problem lies... We need to decide what this article is about. There are other articles that contain speculation and investigation and there are articles that have nothing in them. Now, if we have other articles to expound on the victimology and investigative theories then we should agree to put them there, not here. As for the graffito stuff, if it's cited put it in. If it's not leave it out, but stop the arguing. This isn't about who took what out, it's about getting the article to GA status (as you so rightly put it). Let's see what you've got and we'll talk about putting it in (and please try to do it as if I'm someone asking you a question aboutt he article and not as someone giving you an opening to attack Arcayne). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

" to not understand that the study of history is separate from the actual actions committed by historical figures is the height of naivete" And to label people as naive by accusing them of saying things they never said is the height of pointlessness.

There certainly is a measure of expertise in this field, just the same as in any other field. See WP:RS. It's pretty basic and clear.

"we'll talk about putting it in" seems to be tacit support for Arcayne's history of not letting me edit the article directory and insisting that I have to explain things to his satisfaction before it gets there. That phrasing is peculiarly similar to Arcayne's goals, especially when your edit history is examined.

You appear to have no edit history on this article at all (which makes the "we'll talk about putting it in" especially odd), and have only shown up now to make what are essentially straw man attacks. Your only previous history with me or Arcayne that I can see was showing up on Arcayne's talk page to out of nowhere accuse me of violating policy and encouraging him to try to get me blocked. You appear to have no actual interest in this topic or article and only an interest in furthering Arcayne's personal conflict. If appearances are deceiving, then you might try to show good faith by establishing an edit history of your own and not merely showing up to act as, at best, a meatpuppet for Arcayne's wishes.

Also, your sig line is completely unhelpful in doing what sign lines are for: directing people to your talk and user page. Instead it links to the Wikipedia article on the word "user", and an article about someone named Padilla. Please consider fixing that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, "Ripperology absolutely is not separate from the historical record" this direct quote from the post above mine clearly states that you see the study of a subject (Ripperology) is inseparable from the actions commited (historical record). This is the statement I was working under, since it had been made by you I figured you supported it's meaning. If this is not the case then please let me know which statements you make you believe and which you do not.

Nobody is arguing against expertise in the field of forensics, we are cautioning against declaring someone that has written a book as an expert. I can write a book on JTR, but, as you noted, It wouldn't contain much and I would hardly call myself an expert. The level of speculation in this topic (as with Loch Ness Monster and quite a few others) is quite high due to it's sensationalized status. With that in mind we should be vigilant about whom we declare an "expert".

Sorry, but I have not got the talent for saying things that I don't mean and meaning things I don't say. I've seen others do it but I can't seem to get the hang of it. When I suggest talking about putting something in the article I mean, strangely enough, talking about something to decide what the arguments are and opining regarding including it in the article. To expect someone to give carte blanche to edits that, by your very admission, are being contended is quite naive. Do you think I should just agree with you because... why? No real reason I should just agree with you? I have developed a bizarre habit of listening to both sides of an argument and making up my own mind. I appreciate the offer, but I think I'll keep doing it my way. That is if you will deign to offer your arguments and allow me to hear them.

What significance does my edit history of this article hold? I wasn't aware of a "contribution criteria" in Wikipedia. I was firmly under the impression that anybody could contribute in any way they felt necessary. Did I miss something? Could you please provide me with the contribution limit criteria, I must have missed it.

As for providing straw man attacks, I addressed that by providing the quote with which I determined your argument. If you'd wish to provide me an actual argument I'd be more than happy to review it and provide feedback, it's kind of what I was asking for in the first place.

As for the meatpuppet accusations, I don't know why I would expect differently from you. My involvement in your banning is still fresh and I'm sorry if my tone came across poorly. I was trying to put forth that if you wish to provide your statements and their citations I will put forth my opinion, as unbiased as I can. In point of fact I think I agree with you, but I'm reluctant to say so since I am unfamiliar with the argument (hence the request to have it raised again).

As for my sig line thank you for pointing that out. I had a pipe character instead of the colon that should have been there. The rest is my own personal crusade. The "someone named Padilla" is my father, I don't want to be the only editor on his page so I'm trying to encourage other editors to contribute. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that Ripperology has many books that are by fringe authors, but those have not been used in this article, and a simple application of WP:RS standards usually works. It's not too difficult to sort the experts out from the cranks most of the time. Number of publications, reviews in the field, etc. often clear that all out pretty quickly.

The rest of what you say doesn't get anyone anywhere, other than further demonstrating what appears to be an attempt to continue a personal dispute you jumped into. If you have a serious interest in improving this article, then I look forward to you actually doing so at some point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So we're just going to ignore the heaps of personal attacks and logical fallacies you are introducing? Well, are you at least going to post your arguments for including the graffito stuff so I can review them? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we're going to ignore the false accusations, personal attacks and logical fallacies that you have made with the expectation that you might be here to do what you say, which is to work on improving the article instead of trying to escalate the personal conflicts.

Graffito arguments have already been made on this talk page. I shouldn't need to retype them every time some editor refuses to look at what's already here. But, based upon the editing of the article and the lack of objections to the current wording it looks like that whole section is no longer under dispute anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Colin4C (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you just randomly link to policies you haven't read? Because you sure don't follow this one yourself either. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources removed with no rationale given (Goulston Street Graffito, again)

Arcayne is once again edit warring to oppose the fact that the Goulston Street Graffito is called that by the authors in the field and trying to remove both the fact and the cites proving it. When it had no sites, he, per policy, removed it and demanded some cites. Fine. Anyone who has read anything in the field should know it already, but if he hasn't and wants proof, fair enough. When three unquestionably reliable and important sources representing the spectrum of view across the field of Ripperology (a popular best selling general Ripper author, a well-respected academic historian, and a world famous leading criminologist) he tried to pretend that it somehow meant that only those three people used the term and insisted on wording that only "a few" authors use it. So I provided five more' reliable sources further across the spectrum of Ripperology, and then he just went back to his old editing tafctic: reverting, insisting it be discussed on the talk page first, while ignoring that it has been discussed on the talk page and that if he opposes fully cited info then he should be the one to discuss it on talk and get consensus of people who can justify their complaints with references to policy instead of just pushing an anti-Ripper expert POV before removing it. This is yet another example of Arcayne's longstanding WP:OWNership issues with the article and complete rejection of what the experts in the field say in favor of whatever peculiar beliefs he comes up with off the top of his head.

Quite simply, this kind of editing strategy does not fly with Wikipedia policies. The term in the field is Goulston Street Graffito. That's just what it is. I've provided more than enough documentation to prove that, but yet Arcayne won't allow that. In fact he won't even allow the phrasing that it is used by many authors in the field. He just wants people to think only a couple of people call it that, and the AlphaOmega person, based upon his edit, seems to want even that fact removed.

I don't think this situation is any different from when Arcayne tried to oppose the fact that people who study the field are called Ripperologists, or when he opposed the fact that the main five victims are called the canonical five. These all have extensive sources to back them up, and personal opinions that the terms aren't good and should not be used, whether expressed by Arcayne or AlphaOmega, are just attempts to use the article for Soapboxing of original research/opinions of a POV opposed to the recognized experts in the field. That's not how Wikipedia works. Reliable sources and representing the views of those who know what they are talking about is paramount. If you want to push your own opinions then you should get your own blog or something along those lines and stop trying to put them into an encyclopedia article... DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed remove the sentence saying that this piece of writing is called the Goulston Street Graffito (by some, or many). But that was mostly because I found (with some feeling of irritation, I admit) that it was badly placed. The flow/readibility of the article surely ought to be the most important thing. I would not be opposed to a separate article called 'Goulston Street Graffito', as it no doubt is an expression with some widespread use. But I'll say it may be wrong to present this subject to a first time reader with an unknown and unhistorical expression. And, I'll say it would be better to mention the fact that it is a current expression after quoting PC Long's version of the writing. My objection here is mostly directed against this attempt to remove any other description of the message found in Goulston Street. It would be wrong to say that 'graffito' or 'graffiti' is the chosen expression "within the field" when authors such as Rumbelow, Evans, and Sugden show otherwise. Sugden's book was first published 14 years ago, not 40 years ago. And Evans and Rumbelow's Scotland Yard investigates was first published in 2006. And I'd say it is an ascertained fact that these three men surely are among the handful most respected authors in this field.

I also removed one instance of calling it the "writing in Goulston Street", as it simply seemed unnecessary in that context. Arcayne did however reinstate it. And I do find this bickering somewhat tiresome. Could that be why rather few people take much active part in the editing of this article ? Contributors ΑΩ (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's this 40 years thing coming from? Anyway, I don't mind you moving the reference, I mind that your earlier editing removed it completely. Based upon your earlier comments that you personally dislike the term, doing so was a clear violation of our WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well,then, I'll say your behaviour here is practically indistiguishable from trolling, as stated by BereanHunter further up this page. Intentional or not, it hardly matters. If you have been allowed to act this way ever since you made your first edit to this article I suspect you may have driven off several others. Contributors And from what I understand, you have been warned on several occasions. Like I said, I removed that sentence in part due to sheer irritation. That means, of course, that you may have, to some extent, succeeded with your tactics. Tactics, that is, to drive off any other editor that might disagree with you. I'm sorry to have to say this, but if another complaint is made against you at some future date I will be giving it my full support. ΑΩ (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You need to tell the difference between people wikilawyering and making false accusations so they think they can get their way (which admins have stated the other people on this page are doing when those same people have filed their false accusations in the past) and someone trying to enforce encyclopedia policies on conduct and content. If you removed the sentence you were pushing your POV and edit warring on top of it. Trying to rationalize that as being someone else's fault is ridiculous. All these accusations of trolling are just a smokescreen people use to try to make this about attacking me instead of focusing on the edits. In fact, I was discussing the edits and why they violated policy, your response was basically just to attack me and try to ignore that I am right about the policy. Don't pick up bad behaviors just because you see Arcayne and others using them. If you pull that stunt on another article and an admin sees it you'll find yourself in a heap of trouble. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering... I would call it arguing - in good faith or not, honestly or not. Perhaps much the same way I would prefer to call a piece of writing on a wall for a text, a message, or writing on a wall. And it is not always that easy to separate honest argument from provocation. I'm quite certain that "regular lawyers" would do that sometimes too, in more or less good faith, and for a number of reasons.

Perhaps you're simply very fond of certain ways of expressing yourself, such as "plain wrong", or "ridiculous nonsense". Some people are. But there is a reason why there is a policy concerning "Civility", and "Good faith". As for "attacking", I could say the same about you: You "attacked" me by assuming (or pretending) that there was but one cause for my act. That is, assuming that my edit was made for one purpose only. I did not say that my removal of that sentence merely was somebody elses fault - i.e. your fault. I honestly thought it was badly placed, and I was surely provoked by your comments. The latter may in some measure explain, though not necessarily excuse, why I did not bother much to find a better place for the sentence I removed, or simply could not accept that it would have to be inserted in a less than ideal place. I do think it's better placed now, but I still find it slightly disruptive of the core issue. But that could of course also be caused by what might be construed as a "personal dislike" of it. (I would say I'm feeling ambivalent about it, and that there are some arguments against it.) My irritation was mainly caused by your removal - twice - of some information I had provided. In the first case, concerning "early profiling", you said it was "just wrong", in the second case that "we" know what the majority opinion at the Scotland Yard was - about the writing in Goulston Street. In the first case the source was David Canter, mentioned in the next sentence. In the second case it would clearly seem a matter of interpretation, as Philip Sugden did express a quite different opinion, as to the "most favoured view" (which is not necessarily the same as majority opinion). I can see that there may have been some need for rephrasing, to make it perfectly clear that it was a matter of their interpretation of whatever sources they may have had available.

Please note that I did not say that you actually were "trolling". But I certainly do find your personal style disruptive. It seems to me that you are, some times, assuming too much. The same thing happened when I made my first edits to this article a few months ago, and you claimed - twice - that there was no such word as 'juives' in the French language. You even repeated your "ridiculous claim" after I had provided [1] what ought to have been more than sufficient evidence. Why ? ΑΩ (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's "assuming" that you are motivated by personal dislike for the term when you post comments on the talk page clearly stating that you personally object to the term. I don't get if you are arguing I wrong in assuming that what you said should be considered truthful or if you are denying you ever said what you said. And trying to justify yourself by saying you didn't accuse me of trolling when you said it was "indistinguishable from trolling" is just splitting hairs to try to, again, wikilawyer. The other points you've raised have already been dealt with and it's pointless to keep bringing them back up. You were frustrated because some of your questionable edits didn't stay. Things you want to put in the article must be backed up by reliable sources that actually say what you claim they say. That's a pretty basic rule here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if what I'm about to say will be making much sense to you... But...

From what I've gathered, it would seem a fair guess that you would know who the late Melvin Harris was ? I would not hesitate to say that, in retrospect, it may seem that his "suspiciousness and scepticism" may have been fuelled by a need to find "deserving victims". At the same time, it would seem wrong to say that he merely was trolling for victims. For what I know, most of his work may have been truly valuable and honorable. You may find that I'm splitting hairs. I don't think that I am. I'd say there's a fine line there.

You are reducing my objections to a mere question of personal dislikes, when I have in fact been providing arguments. Arguments which have, certainly in part, been dealt with by the fact that we have been moving towards a consensus that I have shown myself willing to accept. ΑΩ (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On the wikipedia editors seem to get brownie points from the admins for rote knowledge of the wikipedia guidelines rather than for actually following them...Don't even mention common sense...I guess that there must be a lot of people in the cyber-world who have sexual fantasies about being a lawyer. Knowledge of a subject is a pitiful achievement beside the sheer joy of wikilawyering...and that weird 'diff' game - which I refuse to indulge in... Colin4C (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a bizarre comment, especially coming from you, considering your edit history. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. So you post a hugely ranting personal attack, I point out that's bizarre based upon your edits, and you try to warn me about personal attacks?! You clearly don't get the basic concept. The vast majority of the personal attacks on this page are written by you (with a few by Arcayne tossed in for good measure). Not only do you need to stop, but you need to stop pretending that other people are violating policies you don't even seem to attempt to follow yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] ... and everybody needs to stop and concentrate on the content of the article. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed the evaluative statement of "many" (which is as evaluative as 'most'), and replaced it with some. Please note that I have not reverted the mentioning of the erstwhile (and of course anachronistic) phrase. We don't need more than two citations to note that it is in fact used by some; anythin g more than that is a WP:POINT argument, disrupting the (flow of the) article to make a point. We don't do that here, or at least, are not supposed to.

Graffito is in, and it is cited, though not used by all. Let's move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move on, you need to leave the fully cited fact that many authors use it there and not remove important cites proving it. Trying to claim that "many" is the same as "most" is ridiculous, especially when what you are really doing is replacing it with a word that means "few" and improperly suggests a minority viewpoint. "Many" is fully cited by the references. If you want to say that it's only "some" then you need some reliable sources saying that people don't like that term. You don't have any. All you have is a couple of editors here saying THEY don't like the term. Once again, we need to follow what the reliable sources say and not let individuals authors use the article as a soapbox. It's also ludicrous to suggest that providing cites is in any way a POINT violation. The presence of footnotes in no way interrupts the flow of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. We don't play favorites here. Not all "ripperologists" use 'graffito', and noting many or most is evaluative. Noting some is the middle ground. Furthermore, adding 5 citations in is disruptive. Use the discussion to make your point and seek consensus. We don't use lots and lots of citations for a single fact, as per MOS. Of course, you are welcome to provide where it says we need five (or even two, which I've kept in) citations for each statement. Failing such, I would point out that doing so is a WP:POINT-type edit, ie gaming hte system to get that which you cannot find consensus for. If you feel the current consensus isn't to your liking, use discussion to create a new one. That is policy; BRD. You've added something bold. It has been reverted. Now convince us all through discussion that most is accurate, and five citations are as well. Otherwise, stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If we don't play favorites, why do you think you get to revert to your version and ignore policy while at the same time trying to insist I cannot edit the article unless you agree with me? Not all Ripperologists use graffito, only many, which is what the line in question says and what the cites support. Insisting that I prove that "most" is accurate is a completely nonsensical argument, as my edit does not say most, it says many, which is proven.

You seem to have a major problem accurately describing edits. The article for a long, long, long time said Goulston Street Graffito as a major heading. That was the consensus, and restoring back to that would not be bold at all, it'd just be restoring the status quo. But some people complained, so mnow we have a compromise version. You do not get to just remove the compromise version and claim that your view is consensus, because it's not. You do not own the article. You do not get to insist you can just remove anything you want. And you are the one starting the edit war over it, and if you continue to remove the fully cited line in question you will violate 3RR and get blocked. So, please, start following policy here and don't expect people to have to go with your version. Your edits are highly disruptive and uncivil and those actions will not be tolerated. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as you seem unwilling, unable to see where you might even possibly wrong, I am unwilling to expend further energy on explaining the obvious to you. If you are unclear as to why I assert the things I do, find someone with more patience to explain it to you. I am quite done feeding you, and your manky civility traps don't really work on me anymore. You have nothing to say that I particularly want to hear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Why don't you break down the edits in contention and see what other people think? Regardless of who is right - and who is wrong - the current way other admins are likely to look at this is to block you both for edit warring and being disruptive and/or protect the article. Put animosities aside and start by trying to find something in there that you can agree on. Kbthompson (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no animosity; I would revert anyone who chose to put a contentious edit in place without a solid consensus to do so - and that con sensus doesn't appear tyo have materialized. I believe I have made it clear why the edit cannot remain, but in the off-chance that someone missed it:

• In order to evaluate the number of "ripperologists" or authors (or whatever) who use the term "Goulston Street Graffito", DG would need to quantify that, counting all the books and work ever done about JTR and specifying what fraction thereof use the anachronistic (and archeologically inaccurate) phrase. As it is unlikely that he is unwilling/unable to do this, it is more objectively neutral to specify the number as "some." Graffito wasn't removed completely, as citable evidence exists that some writers and "ripperologists" use it. However, "many" or "most" is evaluative, and isn't supported by the sorts of citations necessary to make that evaluation.
• Additionally, adding five different citations to argue a point better carried out in the discussion page is in fact the very definition of disruptive editing. I have chosenthe first two (assuming that common sense would allow for the citation in descending order of applicability and reliability, etc). I deleted the last three, retaining the last two.

If DG wishes to build a consensus for adding it in, he should pursue that, as per WP:BRD. The edits aren't going to be included through a sheer determination to jam them in, no matter what. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

You aren't going to remove them over sheer determination to remove them either. You don't own this article.

And it's insane to insist that I need to document a percentage of authors who say anything when the statement in question doesn't specify or even hint at a percentage. The line says "many" and the sources are there to support "many", and those sources are reliable sources.

"Some" is a weasel word to imply "only a few" -- but the term is the predominant one in the field. Again, please provide a source, ANY (reliable) source that says that the term is not one many authors use. You can't do it, because you're wrong. You can't even provide any reliable source that would indicate that anyone expert in the field opposes the term.

"is in fact the very definition of disruptive editing" = complete nonsense. Disruptive editing is removing sourced information just because you refuse to accept it, or because of you long stated personal dislike of me where you said you'd revert anything I did because you don't want me to "win". Adding reliable sources that indisputably prove the thing you claim you want proof for is in no way, shape or form disruptive, and it's the height of bad faith to try to claim otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Those sources could all have been subsumed under one single footnote. And there could be other alternatives to the words 'some' and 'many'. 'Various' would be one such word. And to what extent is this really an acknowledged "field" of scientific and/or historical study ? (I have been calling it a field myself, on several occasions, but I do find it problematical) It seems to me that the standing of a rather limited set of individual authors is what matters here. And how is their relative notability and seriousness to be ascertained ?

"It is noticeable that many “Ripperologists” (a word I do not like, but I guess it is a term with which we are stuck!), are pretty good armchair detectives, or “Agatha Christie” types, whose reasoning bears little relation to hard facts and reality." Stewart P. Evans, Ripper Notes / Casebook.org

Why is it that one of the handful most notable and respected authors does not like that word ? I would say it does, quite clearly, conflate at least three categories that most certainly ought to have been kept separate: 'cranks and crackpots', amateurs with a more or less serious interest in this case, and (I would say) a rather limited number of acknowledged and professionally qualified authors. Part of the problem, I suspect, could be the fact that there would also be some borderline cases that might see themselves better served by such a muddled pseudoconcept. Evans and Rumbelow are both former police officers, Sugden a historian by profession. So, they surely would represent acknowledged fields of study - literal police (field) investigation and qualified academic historical studies. I say it is no coincidence that they have attained the standing they have, nor that they have - certainly in their published work - shown themselves to prefer the less ambiguous terms of 'message' and 'writing'. ΑΩ (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am done feeding the disruptive user, unless necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Assessment - evaluation

I've looked back at the GA Assessment, but it just appears to be the thoughts of a single individual, no more valid than the thoughts of any other editor here. It was not done as a group project, it was just a one off belief of a single person. Perhaps we should work on improving the article, resubmit it and hope to get a different editor to look at it. The minor changes suggested were mere cleanups on spelling, etc., and the major suggestions that editor wanted were just his opinion and should a complete unfamiliarity with the topic in general and how Wikipedia articles are named. His claims to want the article to discuss the Ripper as a person ignores not only that he was't identified but that all other articles on serial killers use the main space to discuss the crimes themselves. Certainly that's what all the books on the topic do as well, and also what real encyclopedias do (several encyclopedias cover Jack the Ripper and do so under that name). If that individual thinks Encyclopedia Britannica and others don't know how to write a good article, then he/she's got some rather novel ideas on how articles should be written.

I also find it funny that he explicitly said that the Whitechapel murders article WAS a content fork, which I had been saying all along, and that it's entire purpose was to try to do what this article already does better, which again I had said all along, and yet that opinion was just ignored (Colin in fact tried to twist it around as if it somehow was encouragement for his for having made the article in the first place, yikes!) while his other opinions are treated as if they are somehow goal posts we need to meet.

How about this... find some respected books on the topic, like Sugden's, and then use the chapter heading sa a rough outline for how the article should be sectioned out (actual content of those sections being new material so no copyright/plagiarism problems). Can't beat what an expert historian thinks is a good structure for covering the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sugden's book is way out of date. If you know him, Dreamguy, give him a kick up the arse and tell him to produce a new edition. Hopefully some of us here have expended their hard earned cash on the latest Ripper book: 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' (rather than following my example and giving the bulk of it to the brewery industry and loose women) - hopefully this tome will get remaindered or even appear in paperback or someone will give it to me for Christmas...hint...hint... Colin4C (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Way out of date? Not really, no. It is behind the times on a couple of minor points, but overall is still considered the primary source for anyone with a serious interest in the case. Jack the Ripper and the East End, however, has been widely panned as having next to nothing to do with the Jack the Ripper case at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Widely panned" because it has contributions from real historians rather than cranky self appointed 'Ripperologists'? Where and by whom was it widely panned? Ripperologist cranks? Or is this just another of your personal opinions masquerading as 'a concensus'? Colin4C (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Widely panned because it has very little do with JAck the Ripper but was sold under that name to get more sales, and because the content was written by people that might understand their little academic areas but that have seemingly no knowledge of the topic the book is ostensibly about. We're discussing what book to possibly use as a basis for creating an outline for what to do with this article, and Jack the Ripper and the East End would be about the worst one possible, as it's just a collection of random essays on other topics.DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote an other editor... "Wikipedia:No personal attacks Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So why are you attacking me then rather than discussing the matter of substance I have brought up concerning 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' and where and when this book was 'panned'? Maybe you have read this book and have something to say on the subject of this article?:

• Q1 Where and by whom was the book 'Jack the Ripper and the East End' widely panned?
• Q2 Who has recently said that Sugden's book is 'still considered the primary source for anyone with a serious interest in the case.'? Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As nobody seems interested in answering my question I did a little research of my own and have discovered that 'widely panned' means it was slagged off in one micro-circulation Ripper rag called 'The Ripperologist' because it did not pander to their tunnel vision obsession with the identity of the Ripper but instead delved into the to my mind much more interesting social history of the East End in the late 19th century. Must be worrying for amateur self-styled 'Ripperologists' when professional historians get onto their patch and do some real historical research for a change. Ripperologists and train spotters and other obsessives have their place in any society but I think that their witterings do not constitute valid history just weird psychology. Colin4C (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"As nobody seems interested in answering my question" must in your head equal "I posted this rudely worded aggressive demand and nobody stopped everything they were doing to respond to me right this minute." Widely panned = everyone with any knowlede about the Jack the Ripper case says the book sucks. The review you mentioned is written by Paul Begg, a well known author of multiple books on the topic, including the standard encyclopedia reference, the A-Z. And your disdain for experts who know something for the topic and assumption that they must all be amateurs is hilarious but irrelevant to this article (and especially ironic as Arcayne was trying to insist we all listen to whatever you had to say because he claimed you had something published in the one of those "rags" you talk about). DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sugden is (was ?) a historian by profession, as would not be too hard to understand from the way he was presenting this subject, and from the extensive references made to truly primary sources such as police reports and Home Office documents. I'll say Evans's and Skinner's Sourcebook ought to be, quite self-evidentially, a primary source for anyone with a truly serious interest in this murder case, as it makes a significant part of these sources available to any interested reader. Sugden's work provides some additional information and an overview. The book you're referring to here would surely be a specialist work that might paint a more thorough picture of the social backdrop to this case. I don't see why one should be preferred to the other. In fact, I'll say any serious study of these murders ought to take general pre WWI history and culture into account and vice versa: That is, the most thorough understanding of the early Modern / late Victorian period should take these murders into account. ΑΩ (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A book to provide a backdrop is all fine and good, but it's clearly not a major source to be used for writing this article. Not to mention the JTR in the East End has many errors, such as not being able to get the locations of the murders correct. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, I am not attacking you, I'm quoting you to tell yourself not to attack others. The phrase "...just another of your personal opinions masquerading as 'a concensus'..." could well be construed as a personal attack. And I wasn't avoiding you, I had to go home to my wife and kids. I'm used to people on WP giving me more than an hour to respond. I am beginning to see why no one wants to edit this article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On GA, explaining the process

GA is a process whereby an independent reviewer - who is supposed to be familiar with the standards required - reviews an article. They may, or more likely, will not be familiar with the subject area - but should provide useful comments on improving the standard of the article. Peer review should do much the same thing, but in my experience attracts few, if any, comments (It's a fine idea, but in practice, few seem to participate). Making improvements and resubmitting the article to the GA, is likely to get a new reviewer. The initial GA will give you the comments of one independent reviewer; a second GA is likely to be done by 'the GA task force' who try to enforce the standards - particularly with such a potentially high profile article. If this article made it to GA it is a good candidate for inclusion on the CD-rom version of wikipedia, that would probably attract further quality review. The intention of getting it to GA is ultimately to put the article forward for FA. That is a process that tends to attract extensive review from a large number of editors who love to enforce wikipedia standards.

It's not just about content, but providing a suitable structure that will explain the main 'idea of Jack the Ripper' to someone who has no experience of the subject, and providing them with pointers to extend their knowledge beyond the basics. Hopefully, we're now moving in that direction. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the goal, but the editor who did the assessment lacked familiarity with the standards of the encyclopedia on top of completely failing to understand the topic, either in specifics or in a broad brush of related topics. Of course he can't be expected to know the topic before reading any article he might assess, but his understanding of the purpose of explaining the main idea of Jack the Ripper was to insist that all the information about the history and crimes and etc. get cut out to discuss the person of JAck the Ripper... that's not only not what encyclopedia articles like this are for, but it's clearly an exercise in futility considering that the Ripper was never officially identified. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The process is far from perfect; it's the luck of the draw as to who carries out the assessment, but if these issues aren't clear from the article - then perhaps we're missing something anyway. The GA review can always be appealed to another reviewer. Although there is a lot of argument about it, many of the content issues are essentially settled. The wiki quality process is a target for moving the article forward, no more, no less. Frankly, the tougher the review on wiki quality issues, the better. It produces a better article to go forward to FA, which is the big target. It would be really nice if there was some input from all those task forces and projects that clutter up the top of the talk page! cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of that person's assessment, it wasn't that the topic as written about in the article wasn't clear, it's that the person for some reason thought it should be about a different topic and was upset when it wasn't. Any individual points of course should be looked at as a way to improve, but any attempt to completely change course and focus on the specific person instead of the crimes, history and effects (which is how the person is defined anyway) would be a major step in the wrong direction. DreamGuy (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could just sit here and bitch about it, or seek out a Peer Review and get some independent thought on where the article needs improvement. I am inclined to think that Kbthompson's suggestions as to format are pretty much on target, and we Should aim for that. I would like to see the article make it to GA, but I think everyone here knows that the article ain't going anywhere until the contentious editing stops. The squeaky wheel does not get the grease here, unless it is squeaking about an improvement to the article that everyone can agree to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Says the guy who just reverted the article to remove cites proving something that he refuses to believe to continue his own edit war over a minor point that is completely indisputable. Any claims that the contentious editing needs to stop should be backed up with an honest good faith effort to stop them instead of trying to continue a petty disagreement through reverts instead of accepting policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, address the edits, and not the editor; it is uncivil to act otherwise. Good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad or contentious behavior. Find a consensus for your edits, and they can be included. If you do not have a consensus, and are unwilling to try and create a new one, then you cannot reasonably expect your edits to remain. And no, edit summaries are not at all an ideal place to sustain a rim-shot argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Again, address the edits, and not the editor; it is uncivil to act otherwise. Good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad or contentious behavior." LOL -- you just seem to be parroting stock phrases you picked up to try to wikilawyer through things and do not even realize that you've contradicted yourself. Yes, good faith in fact does not mean overlooking bad behavior, so I am focusing on your highly disruptive behavior, and demanding that you stop instead of playing this insane little game of yours. You pretend that you get to set consensus without any discussion, say that I need to discuss things (even the most obvious and uncontroversial things) while you just ignore the discussion, delete it if necessary so people have to go to the archive page to find it, pretend no discussion ever happened and continue merrily pushing your views onto the article and posting rants about how you think the experts in the field are all hack that you want to ignore so you can put your own thoughts there in place of them. You've got the strategy down to rote now, saying the same thing over and over while not following any of them yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, try a bit of discussion. Both of you are edit warring and it needs to stop before the article is protected. Kbthompson (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you and others have allowed Arcayne to act like he owns this article by obstructive editing over the past year and have never called him on it.As a general principle, if he always gets to say what goes in or not and declares what consensus supposedly is or isn't, he's held the article hostage. I even pointed out that that's exactly what he was doing last year and said that the only way the controversy would ever go away was insist that Arcayne follow the rules, yet you for some reason refused. How difficult is it to tell him point blank that he doesn't own the article and can't act as a gatekeeper for anything I want to put into the article? If you are unwilling to say that, then you are just as culpable as he is in holding the article hostage. DreamGuy (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are just so full of bull! You've been slinging accusations at everybody. Truth is, I have yet to see you participate in a proper concensus. Shut up with your bellyaching..nobody here believes you. Kb was bending over backwards to avoid conflict. How many troll lines did you set today? You're the disruptive one attempting to hold things hostage. Padillah was trying to communicate logically with you but you had to pull out that pointy stick and start jabbing. I think in another time and place, friendly fire would be the end of you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this guy not banned for over the top personal attacks, a huge violation of WP:AGF and major uncivility yet? "Friendly fire" -- delightful. Honestly, I don't know how this article attracts so many people who just want to try character assassination instead of following policies. I follow the policies, I expect others to do so as well. If you can't be bothered to, that's your problem, and all the name calling isn't going to make you any more correct. DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm no fan of DG, as he can attest to, but you have just crossed a line, BH. I just removed your last two edits here from the history. Please visit WP:OUTING. This is your one and only warning on the subject. I have no idea if the information you posted about DG is right or wrong, nor do I really care at this point. Outing the real-life identities of people like you just tried to do is grounds for swift blocks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a clear history of his trolling...from many people on the web.. According to WP:Outing, if someone publishes their identity and ties it in with their user handle it is ok..well, (How-to redacted)) ..And I'm sorry but it is like a criminal record and follows him. No good faith for him anymore! Period. It is proof that he is a chronic troller. Whole chapters worth of writing dedicated to his trolling ass. Too much energy loss has been due to this fool. Spare me the old "pay attention to the edits and not the editor", we have surpassed that it no longer applies! He just hides behind that and we get no where...for months and months and months! We should show him the door now. He isn't redeemable and I don't care to try. With him, I now assume bad faith based on a LONG standing history and WP:DUCK. Outing him was the right thing to do (I don't give a damn if harm befalls him or not, that is what you get when pick fights on the web, Just deserves.). The fact that he is still here is a testament to a piss-poor policy process. I JUST PROVED HE IS A DAMN TROLL. (as well as a crackpot author). There is also WP:COI issues with him. Drum him out! NOW! ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the completely unapologetic tone here, I think he could use a good block so maybe he could learn from his mistakes. He obviously isn't going to understand otherwise. Troll accusations are just attempts to attack people personally, especially when they come from people with such obvious calculated intent in making the accusations. BH hasn't proven anything about me, he's proven that he has no business editing an encyclopedia. (Crackpot author? Hmm... Not sure who he thought I was, but that's certainly not accurate. But then he doesn't care about accuracy, just name calling.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"According to WP:Outing, if someone publishes their identity and ties it in with their user handle it is ok..well, google Dreamguy and you will see that he published it."

I'm sorry, but I don't see how being able to use Google to find DG can possibly be interpreted as conforming to WP's "outing" guidelines. Did DG publish his personal info on WP? No. Has DG posted a link to that information on WP? No. I think the WP policy is pretty straightforward--if the individual choses not to make their personal information known on WP, then no-one else can do it for them. Where the information came from is irrelevant, as is the accuracy Revmagpie (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't publish ANY of these things directly on Wikipedia. I posted two links. The policy is explicit about what not to publish and I didn't. DG himself put his name out there along with his handle. ...and also for the record, WP policy is ONLY about the publishing of what is found on Wikipedia. Looking it up has nothing to do with it. Moreover the the User privacy policy states "The Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee against unauthorized access to any information you provide. This information may be available to anyone with access to the servers." Now, if the average joe can come along and do it, why is it any different for a Wikipedian. I've been using search methods long before being a Wikipedian. Exactly how do people roll out and expose Conflict of Interests? I don't believe policies that are designed to protect the innocent apply when someone is intentionally disruptive, vandalizing, etc. The spirit of Wiki policies has been clearly consistent with that. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what? No. Several admins have told you that you DID in fact violate policies, and of course you DID put the info on several pages here (or in such a way that trying to claim you didn't is just wikilawyering nonsense). The fact that you don't get it and refuse to acknowledge it is disturbing. Your edits are the problem here. Your actions are the ones that constitute trolling. You are assuming bad faith and making up false accusations instead of providing any evidence of it. Simply put, your entire concept of how Wikipedia works, what it is for, and what is acceptable here is completely out of whack with reality. You dodged the bullet of getting banned by a mere hair on two separate occasions related to this incident now, so you'd think you'd maybe get a clue by now that you can't do this. DreamGuy (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT put your name, address, or any other personal piece of info into Wikipedia consistent with WP:OUTING...I thought you were allowed to look at it? If so, then you'd know that is true. I provided two links. I was responding to Revmagpie but you just went and declared on TexasAndroid's page that I'm making personal attacks...where??? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DG cannot see the deleted edits. At this point only admins can see them. Someone in the AN/I thread said they requested oversight, which would even more drastically limit who could see them. If DG wants me to do so, I can Email him the offending edits so that he would know exactly what was posted. Assuming that they have not been oversighted by the time he makes the request.

As for you, BH, you are really pushing things, so consider yourself warned. Coming into a talk page and laying out accusations that he is only a troll like you have been doing is crossing another line. Consider yourself warned, particularly about this talk page. If you must pursue your WP:COI concerns about DG, there are places to do so. WP:COIN and WP:RFC are two such avenues. But you need to stop with the accusations against DG here on this talk page, at a *minimum*. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I'm forced to ask - do you understand who is supposed to be giving the consensus? The consensus Arcayne is talking about is to be gained from us, the WP editors. Not from the JTR community. The trick is getting several editors to weigh in on the issue here on the talk page and see how many editors will agree with you. This leads to discussion and compromise. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do. Do you? There are two issues here. The first is that the article is supposed to represent the consensus of experts, not a consensus of amateurs who feel like they want to edit an article. That's what WP:ENC, WP:RS, WP:OS explains. The second is what to do with certain editing concerns, and that's where editor consensus comes in. Arcayne doesn't use that, either. HE just states something as consensus because he believes it before ever discussing it. He's got a permanent assumption (or at least editing strategy to label it this way) that any edits I make automatically must be against consensus because he didn't make them. That doesn't fly. On questions of fact and presentation of the topic, experts on JTR are what the article is there to present. You understand that, right? DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are incorrect on at least two points. Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't represent a consensus of our opinion (whether you consider yourself an expert is a matter of uncited opinion at this point), but rather a cited form of third party opinions. What I think or youy think doesn't matter at all. If you think that many or most authors call it one thing, you need to cite that, as you are evaluating that assessment, and you aren't citable. In the absence of that reference, we cannot say most or many (or few if any); your inclusion of those authors that do call it such are always going to bne in the minority - it wouldn't matter if you listed a dozen citations of authors that say such. Theere are going to be books that don't say that. For that reason, we stay objectively neutral and say some.

Secondly, you feel that any edit you add has to be refuted before it can be removed. This is untrue. If your edit is contentious (and we had previously arrived at a consensus that we weren't going to use it at all as a section lead), it will be reverted. When reverted, your next task is not to revert the revert, but to demonstrate good faith and discuss the matter in the article discussion page. If you were to even once approach the discussion page with an edit that you were reasonably sure was going to be disputed, you might find people's reactions far more positive than after having accused them of being part of some massive plot to "get" you.

I am an enormous believer in group consensus. It isn't always correct, but it does allow for continued discussion and continual improvement. By acting like the article sheriff, come to clean up the article after all us varmints done shat upon it, you are isolating yourself. That you haven't found yourself blocked far more often is a testament more of how ruiled up you can make your fellow editor rather than to the defensibleness of your own behavior. When you ignore requests to discuss your edits (instead using the abrupt 2-line edit summary), you are effectively telling us that you don't care what we think, and you are going to do whatever you want, the rest of us be damned. This is why you tend to face a unified opposition - you aren't seeking to work with others, but rather in spite of them. As WP is a community-based encyclopedia and not a private JTR site or fan forum, you may have forgotten that.

Lastly, there is no strategy on my part to block you. I don't consider you a factor in my decision-making process at all. When you make edits after having achieved recent (and not some dim past) consensus for them, they have been left alone. When you add them in, and call us all blind for daring to question them, you put yourself into position for a civility block. Its easy: if you don't want someone to "trap" you into breaking your civility parole, work extra hard to stay polite, and if they are rude, report them. Don't attack them in article discussion space. Again, you are not on my radar; I consider you less than a bump in the road, so there isn't any Grand Scheme to get you. I promise you that.

That will be my last word on the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to take yet another arbitrary break

There's still way too much discussion of editorial behaviour over article content. As I continually bash on about, the way forward is to concentrate on content and moving the article forward - not to dwell on issues of who did what to whom and when - and with what - and sometimes with whom. Those are side issues that really have no place here and do not go anywhere. If I'm bending over backwards, it is to give everybody a chance to have their say on the article content; and to accommodate quite different viewpoints.

You all need to put the snippiness aside and concentrate on the article. That includes all the sarcastic edit summaries - just because they don't appear in the talk page, they still appear in the history and remain a clear attempt to provoke a response. Can I also remind editors on multiple blocks that eventually the community's patience will be exhausted and they become indefinite blocks, rather than time outs.

Do take a deep breath and do try to move forward in a spirit of co-operation rather than expressing a rhetoric of assuming good faith - but actually demonstrating the worse kind of obstructionism. Do try to apply a little bit of patience and not immediately rise to the constant baiting - just ignore it and get on with the article. Do try to apply a little of that not inconsiderable brain power to the article, rather than sniping at each other. Thank you, here endeth the sermon. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

KB, of course everyone would agree that the way forward is to avoid personal conflict. Unfortunately Arcayne and others have made it clear that they have no interest in moving forward if moving forward means they can't just dismiss everything I say. Arcayne's had a clear strategy for at least a year, and it includes tagteaming with firneds he makes who obviously have no interest in the actual article itself but in gaming the system. Saying over and over that people need to move beyond that doesn't help when the article is held hostage by people gaming the system. When i focus on the article itself, they don't care, they just revert the edits, say I need to discuss first (although they never feel the need to discuss their edits first), and if it had been previously discussed they even delete the talk page contents and pretend they never saw it. OF COURSE we should move forward. But even with all the intent in the world on my part to do that (I have over and over just given up on thins in the article I know to be wrong but which Arcayne was entrenched over) it can't happen when Arcayne et al are pulling the POV warrior/"civil" POV-pushing (though even there their edits are much more uncivil than the ones they complain about in others) gameplan.

Saying we should get over it is pointless. We need something else. Something that can't be gamed. Something that might involve getting some people who clearly are not here to edit an encyclopedia removed so they can't keep this nonsense up. Something that involves a clear concentration on what the reliable sources say and not whatever weird bit of amateur nonsense Arcayne and others insist has to be in the article. Sermons don't help in situations like this. Brainstorm something else up, because we have 18+ months of what DOESN'T work under our belts already. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this intriguing article, I'm going to put in my two cents worth. I'm probably crazy to do so.

Reading the above discussion about the value of various books about JTR was an extremely depressing experience. If a book does not cover the topics you are interested in, find another book (there must be a fair number). Don't waste your time and that of others by complaining about the books and denigrating the editors who suggested them.

Without some level of "assuming good faith", editing this article is going to be a painful experience for all editors. If it is "too much" to AGF, then as a rock-bottom minimum, be civil to each other. If you don't agree with an edit or a note in talk, say what you think is wrong with it IN FACTUAL TERMS. Do not talk about the ancestry, motives, character, etc of the other editor.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Osborn Street - red link

I read somewhere that in the past the postal address of the red linked Osborn Street was Osborn Street, Brick Lane, so maybe it should be subsumed under Brick Lane. This is what I originally did - by the way - until some pedant changed it...Colin4C (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Osborn Street is the short lower part of Brick Lane, where it meets Whitechapel HS - what you propose actually makes sense. Today, it consists of a few small warehouses and walk up machinist premises (tailoring). There may be one, or two, small electronics shops. Somehow, I doubt if it would ever be notable enough for its own article. Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This advert for a trendy cafe where I never hang out seems to indicate that the postal address of Osborn Street is still subsumed under Brick Lane: http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/pubsandbars/cafe-suki-info-15048.html Colin4C (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created Osborn Street as a redirect to Brick Lane. The ripper cat tags are on the redirect page. Kbthompson (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Colin4C (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to talk about the "Goulston Street Graffito"

I'm gonna give this a shot. DG, I'd like to offer that the problem Arcayne has is not with calling it by that phrase, but with the ambiguous qualifier "many". This is one of those qualifier words that people have used to shore up an argument when they don't have an exact number and want to look important. The issue comes when you ask, "How many"? Colloquially many implies more than half (otherwise we would use "few"). But how can we demonstrate that more than half of the people that have written about Jack the Ripper have used said phrase? The phrase is used in the study of JTR, and should be refereed to in the article, but the many qualifier does not appear to be appropriate in this instance. By extension, the article doesn't need so many citations to support it. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't believe the amount of wikilawyering going on here. No, "many" implies "lots," not necessarily more than half. The line does not say "most". Arcayne's preference for "some," on the other hand, suggests anywhere from hardly any to only a few, which is clearly not at all accurate. The bottom line is that we look at the sources that are reliable, see the broad range of them (well respected Ripper experts, historians, general criminologists, academics, etc.), also see that the leading website on the topic has a forum category by that name, and keep in mind that I could provide some 20 more sources bu Arcayne would just try to claim adding sources is bad. "Many" is clearly cited, and it's only a couple of editor's WP:OR-style personal concerns with the name that makes them want to ignore the experts and try to minimize it. Wikipedia is a reference on expert opinions, not a place for people off the street who may have read something on a website once who think their opinions are more important than the experts. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is more objectively neutral to specify the number as "some." "Many" or "most" is evaluative, and isn't supported by the sorts of citations necessary to make that evaluation. Despite CoI concerns on DG's part, I submit that he is actually in amongst the trees,and might not be aware of the forest he is within. He cannot speak neutrally to the number because he is too close to the subject.

Additionally, adding five different citations to argue a point better carried out in the discussion page is in fact the very definition of disruptive editing. We don't need more than two to define thaty the term is used by some editors. I have chosen the first two (assuming that common sense would allow for the citation in descending order of applicability and reliability, etc). I deleted the last three, retaining the last two.

If DG wishes to build a consensus for adding it in, he should pursue that, as per WP:BRD. In fact, BRD was created to specifically address what to do when reverted, ot avoid edit-warring, When reverted, the time to discuss is then, not revert back then discuss. Preventing the introduction of edits that are not part of an existing or emerging consensus is to be expected. Find a con sensus first - edit-warring out the pre-existing consensus is not a very intelligent way to address dissent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're going around in circles. Flimsy, incorrect arguments you made the first time around are still wrong, and already proven to be so by Wikipedia policy, no matter how many times you repeat them. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I've stated my points, which are in fact accurate. One can make a bold edit. When reverted, one goes to the discussion page to build a consensus. One doesn't refer to one that went the way of the dodo long ago. I am done feeding this particular user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) two problems here. One is that this section in Talk does not make it clear what the discussion/argument is about so it is difficult for someone else to provide informed input.

The second is that, based on the article history, the discussion is about whether to say:

• The writing is referred to by many authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito". OR
• The writing is referred to by some authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito".

I won't say this decision is totally unimportant, but it is certainly not worth the amount of agonized attention it is getting.

When the main actors in this little discussion have both made their arguments in favour of the word they prefer, it is time for them to step back, be reticent, and let some other editors review the matter.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with dropping the qualifier altogether?

• The writing is referred to by authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito". or even
• The writing has been referred to by authors as the "Goulston Street Graffito".

It shouldn't be that hard to find a phrase that is acceptable to everyone. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I just tried a rephrase without "many" or "some" on the article. I don't know if Arcayne reverted it already, but it wouldn't surprise me. You can check the history there. I would go for a rephrase that doesn't suggest that it's a tiny minority viewpoint, as Arcayne seems to be trying to do. Your suggestions make perfect sense to me as an alternate to "many". In fact the way it is now is in fact already a compromise over the past, when the whole section used to be titled with that phrase and Arcayne and A-O tried to remove it entirely so it wasn;t mentioned at all.

I would agree with the comments above that it's not worth the attention it's been getting, but then I think it's important to stand up to an editor who is trying to bully his way into owning the article. He's gamed his way into winning every conflict over the past year and a half, and it needs to stop, especially when his explicit stated goal is to ignore the experts in the field, while making highly uncivil comments on the field in general. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. I will sidestep the barbs of the above post, as I said I would stop feeding the user's need for attention. We do not need more than two citations, and I think that even two is stretching the importance. That said, "a number of authors" is an acceptable substitution. A pity that couldn't have been discussed earlier here in the discussion page, as was suggested a half dozen times.

Just so we are all clear here, there is no such thing as an "expert" on Jack the Ripper. There are informed folk, which is not quite the same thing. When folk start graduating from the very liberal U of C system with a degree in "Ripperology", we can start referring to Ripper enthusiasts as experts (the U of C system has graduated folk in thaumaturgy, so "Ripperology", shouldn't pose too much of a hurdle). Until then, they aren't experts. Period. Let's all try to remember that, and keep things in perspective, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, but (and not to belabor the point) actual, practicing historians do represent a particular case for us. They are historical experts in that they understand, academically, how to process historical evidence and what weight to give what leavings. This may not make them expert "Ripperologists" but could a case be made for one being an expert on Jack the Ripper? Much as you have Egyptologists that are experts on Amenhotep. (Hmm, FF has Amenhotep in the dictionary but not Imhotep, weird) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "there is no such thing as an "expert" on Jack the Ripper." is just complete and utter nonsense from someone who simply refuses to accept reliable sources. There are plenty of experts on all sorts of topics that do not have a specific degree by that name at any university. To suggest otherwise is just completely out of the realms of even reasonable argument. Otherwise there'd be no experts on, say, the Nixon resignation, or marsupial breeding habits, or schizophrenia because those people were too busy actually studying the specific topic and having a background in the broad topics instead of getting some meaningless extremely specific degree cooked up. Ripperologists include historians, psychologists, criminologists, police, forensics experts and other people with similar backgrounds. They aren't suddenly not experts even though everyone treats them as such because Arcayne decides he hates everybody in the field and thinks his own amateur thoughts should be treated more seriously than the people who do it as part of their professions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First, no one said there are no experts in Jack the Ripper. It was put forth that there is no such thing as an "expert Ripperologist". Seeing as a Ripperologist can describe anyone that has a significant interest in the Jack the Ripper story, I don't know that I support what is essentially "expert hobbyists". Second, the gist of your argument was exactly what I was putting forth, only with much less vitriol. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that line I put there was an exact quote of what Arcayne said, so he did in fact say that. Nobody is saying any old person who calls himself a Ripperologist is automatically an expert (and certainly not a WP:RS for this article), but Arcayne is saying that no Ripperologists are experts. I know this because he has said those exact sentiments in the past several times, and he says so in clear, indisputable words above, which I quoted word for word. So if you agree with me, then you agree that Arcayne is just plain wrong, which of course should be obvious but for some reason has been seemingly controversial on this talk page for a year or more. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct, he does state that there is "no such thing as an 'expert' on Jack the Ripper". Then I must disagree with that Arcayne. There is every bit as likely (in fact more given it's "celebrity" status) an expert on Jack the Ripper as there is on Amenhotep or Cleopatra or any number of historical figures. You mean to tell me that a British historian, no matter how well accredited, could not be an expert in Jack the Ripper? I have to agree with DG, that's ridiculous. Why can't historians and forensic scientists study Jack the Ripper? Are you trying to codify the inherent lack of information on the subject? That no one can be an "expert" because there just isn't enough information about the subject? Again, in light of the fact that there are expert in historical figures that are several thousand years old, I can't support that. But what say you, other than the "there's no degree so there's no expert" (which I hope you see is false logic), what are your feelings on Ripper experts? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins! Can I ask you a question? Under what circumstances is it acceptible on a wikipedia Talk page to accuse another editor of being:

• A bully?
• Gaming his way into winning conflicts?
• Aiming to ignore the experts in the field? Colin4C (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the need, Wikipedia has a robust conflict resolution system. Please use that instead of posting comments to the talk page that could be misconstrued. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that recommendation. Personality issues can be resolved elsewhere, be it mediation, DR, ANI or ArbCom Enforcement. If it doesn't specifically deal with JTR, it doesn't need to be here. Keep the comments on point, and off the editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not in dispute with anybody and I have not mentioned any personalities. I was just asking whether any editor on the wikipedia calling any other editor on the wikipedia a bully, a gamer, or aiming to ignore experts is perfectly entitled to do so in certain circumstances. If it is perfectly okay so be it, if its not its not. Or does it depend on whether the other editor 'deserves it'. I.e. has had his name so blackened that the other editors think he is 'fair game' for any slander and abuse? I personally have been subject to sustained campaigns of personal abuse on this page and rather than being supported by other editors they have cowardly refused to get involved. Colin4C (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is a bit rich coming from you considering your edit history. DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of blood?

QUOTING the article:

"Theories suggest the victims were first strangled in order to silence them, which also explained the reported lack of blood at the crime scenes. How would strangulation result in a lack of blood? Wanderer57 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that would seem misleading, and perhaps we need to rephrase that. If someone is strangled to death, their heart stops pumping blood throughout the body. When the cutting happens, the blood would apparently ooze, and not spurt - not as much blood all over the pavement.

Of course, it could also mean that JTR is a vampire. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How morbid am I that I instinctively understood that? (shudder) I creep myself out. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on yourself, Padillah - "a number" of ripperologists have mused over that very possibility, too. Depending on who you ask, you are either in august or sad company. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Just to remind everybody that "I am not the person who won't be blamed for nuffin". Hope that is clear...Also I am in no way related to Jack the Ripper nor do I represent his interests. As for being seen 'groping a melon' in a Shoreditch strip-club, that was my twin brother. Honest. Colin4C (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, what you talkin' about, Willis? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Rumbelow" :
  • Donald Rumbelow (2004) ''The Complete Jack the Ripper'' ISBN 0140173951
  • Donald Rumbelow (2004) ''The Complete Jack the Ripper'': 12. Penguin
• "Vanderlinden" :
  • Wolf Vanderlinden, "The New York Affair" ''Ripper Notes'' part one issue 16 (July 2003); part two #17 (January 2004), part three #19 (July 2004 ISBN 0975912909)
  • Wolf Vanderlinden, [http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html "'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman"], ''Ripper Notes'' #22, ISBN 0975912933

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The burning, itching need for multiple references?

Why do we need more than a single reference to note that some writers refer to the writing as the GSG? Seriously, the multiple references continually being added don't even support the statement that "a number" do use it. I think its okay to note that it is used by some, indicated by noting one that does, but as it is such a minior point, why is there a burning need to include all of the extras, especially when they fair to support the statement more specifically? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a result of the previous discussion regarding "most" vs. "some". It was an attempt to demonstrate the numerous authors that use the phrase. Since that issue has been resolved I'm not sure we need to maintain the multiple references. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is that issue resolved? No, it isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a reasonable compromise would be to combine all the sources into a single reference (that which is tagged by < ref > tag.) There still seems a dispute as to whether multiple sources are needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have put the second one back in, just because it seems ridiculous to me that people would think that one reference somewhere is better than having two. It doesn't seem to be cluttering the page unusually, and it doesn't damage the article, so why not just leave it there? Brilliantine (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental argument seems to be between 'many' and 'some'; so DG was trying to make a point by adding multiple references. Ultimately, it's about how many ripperologists can dance on the end of a dagger, so, I really don't think it's (a) worth the argument between them and (b) worth blocking either of them over. Kbthompson (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not tyring to make a point, it's using the reliable sources to back up and prove wwhat this article needs to present to the world. The term is overwhelmingly used by authors in the field. Arcayne has not found any evidence to the contrary and wants it removed because HE HIMSELF opposes the term. We need to follow WP:RS policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, 'many' and 'some' are both weasel words anyway. Just to clarify - I have no point of view on all these ripper theories at all. All this senseless to-and-froing is clogging up my watchlist and probably a lot of other people as well, so if the both of them could stop edit warring, that'd be great. Brilliantine (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Two is a good compromise between the one that is standard for a contentious addition and the 5-7 that were there at one time. Let's leave it at two. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Two are ample enough to make the point. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just thought it bears pointing out that none of the proffered citations actually refer to the statement that "a number" (or many or even some) authors refer to GSG. As the citation doesn't say what the statement says it does, its synthesis to use a lot of citations to bolster the argument that a number of authors use the term seems a clear definition of synthesis, using published material to advance a position, and its presence is - as noted before - was a vestigial remainder of a WP:POINT argument regarding the term's usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the most transparently ridiculous claim I've ever seen. The cites (all nine of them that were previously provided and you removed in various combinations) show that many authors in the field use the term, by virtue of them including it. It's 100% spot on proof of what it claims, no synthesis involved in any shape or form. Anyway, before you go talking about WP:POINT violations and what sources are for, you may want to go actually read the policies, because they don't say what you are claiming. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the sentence in question in the section above

"The writing has been referred to by authors such as Curtis(ref) and Douglas(ref) as the Goulson Street graffito."

For me, the main positive is that it avoids WP:WEASEL. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? Brilliantine (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. It avoids all the problems previously noted. Would that such a solution had been thought of earlier. Thanks, B. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Much better than my suggestion above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: we would be using the authors' full names, unless they have already been noted previously, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so - it was mainly the structure I was thinking of. Brilliantine (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I had presumed, Brilliantine. Should we await the yea or nay of others, or be bold and swap it out now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to be sure that all parties involved above have a chance to comment (to avoid any more edit warring on the article). Brilliantine (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Clean, unambiguous, direct... Very nice job Brilliantine! padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Padillah solicited DG's opinion, as he is unable to respond here currently. I presume he will respond on his talk page regarding the proposal. Is this okay with others? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read the talk page here and read DG's user talk - I had no ideas that things had got this dramatic here. I am watching his user talk for his opinion on this. Is there any more information (ANI stuff, etc) that I should read before getting too involved with this topic, as it looks to me at first sight that everybody involved is in need of light trouting and a cup of tea. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You pretty much have the gist of it; the drama is done for the time being. Intransigence and failure to discuss is usually at the center of it; proposals like yours are nice ways to avoid the friction. Again, thanks for the assist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Very well done Brilliantine. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This "solution" offered above is nothing of the sort. The point of that whole section is that the term is used by MOST authors in the field. Citing only a couple of authors by name gives an entirely false impression of how widespread it is... it makes it sound like just those two or three use it. If we are going to name names, then we should name ALL of them, or default to "most authors" or even "many authors". I had added multiple sources to prove that it's THE term used in the field, but Arcayne refused to accept it and kept removing the valid, reliable sources. Trying to remove all of them, or put misleading wording, is a clear attempt to confuse the reader into having a distorted view about what the experts actually say, and it's simply unacceptable. The term as used in the field is Goulston Steet Graffito, period, and as such it needs to be used in the article in that way. Reducing the mention to only "many authors" was an attempt at compromise, but it's clear that compromise is not something Arcayne wants, because after he "compromised" he then went in and removed all the sources. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually addressed below in more detail, but the gist of it is that if it is a term used by "most" authors, then surely, there exists a citation that specifically says so. As it hasn't been added in over six years, I think the alternative, suggested above, is a better solution. It addresses that some authors use the term, and some don't. The term itself isn't immediately accessible to the casual reader, which is why we don't use it as a section header. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Goulston Street Graffito

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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