Two by Twos

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 – 08.19

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)

I think the answer to Padillah's question "How important is this phrase to the study of the "Jack the Ripper" murders?" is given above by DreamGuy "the reliable sources on this topic call the writing 'The Goulston Street Graffito' overwhelmingly." If the latter statement is true, then there is IMO no reason not to use the term in the article and significant justification for using it.

What do people think of as 'the reliable sources on this topic'? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would this catchphrase be of any particular importance when the most cited[1] authors do perfectly well without it ? But of course, on the other hand, perhaps the "reliability" of the sources ought to be judged by their use of that phrase ? In that case, why not replace the references made to the work of Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, and Philip Sugden by that of a number of "overwhelmingly more knowledgeable" figures ? ΑΩ (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alpha Omega. (Great name.) I decline to be drawn into a discussion on the importance of this "catchphrase". I reiterate, what do people consider as reliable sources on the subject of Jack the Ripper? Can I take it from your comment, Alpha Omega, that you consider Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, and Philip Sugden to be high on the list of reliable sources? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If what you said were correct and citable, AlphaOmega, you'd have a point. But it's not. You've never provided any sources to back it up. On top of that, the absence of a term in a published book can have more to do with an editor deciding to remove jargon that in what the author actually says. I see nothing from those authors that they oppose the term, and most expert sources use the term (as my row of cites earlier plus more that were removed shows), so the term is definitely what the experts use.

Frankly, the only person in the field I am aware of who opposes the term is one Howard Brown, who has only written some minor pieces of work on this topic, and he is in the distinct minority. I also note that AlphaOmega's edits seem almost overwhelmingly to be to add claims made by Howard Brown to the article regarding D'Onston and his Juives belief, etc. AO's edits here almost certainly are trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions of some minor individual... And, as one of my earlier cites pointed out, even Brown's major article on the topic was published with a headline that used "Goulston Street Graffito", so his editors clearly felt the term was necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few months ago you seemed to take more or less for granted that I would be Howard Brown.[2] You're wrong. And I'll say your repeated suggestion here amounts to harassment. I am certainly not acting on behalf of Howard Brown. I am fairly well aware of who Howard Brown is, as you also would seem to be. I became aware of his website about a year ago. But at that point I already had been studying this case for about six years. My views, my opinions, are certainly my own, and they have not changed much over the last year or so.

And, like I've said before, Sugden, Evans and Rumbelow do not use that term in their major works about this case. That is not the same as to say they are "opposing" it. I would guess the situation here might be much the same as with the term 'Ripperology', as noted by Stewart Evans: "I guess we're stuck with it". As for myself I find there's reason to be critical of it, and I see little reason why more common words would not do just as well. ΑΩ (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Has no-one learned anything from the previous attempted outing? - please stop now, even guessing, it's just disruptive. Kbthompson (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to second KB's plea to stop the outing before it gets too far. I'm not interested in who's who. If Lyndon Johnson said "Call it GSG" I'd still be forced to ask "Why?" So far the only answer I've seen is "because everybody else does" and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Let's see if we can get more discussion... or less if it deserves less. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Wording

QUOTING the article:

"Six other Whitechapel murders were investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the time, two of which occurred before the 'canonical' five and four after. Some of these have been ascribed, by certain figures involved in the investigation or by later authors, to have been victims of Jack the Ripper."

This is badly worded, IMO. Murders cannot be "victims". I changed it to:

"Six other Whitechapel murders were investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the time, two of which occurred before the 'canonical' five and four after. Some of these have been attributed, by certain figures involved in the investigation or by later authors, to Jack the Ripper."

The phrase "certain figures" is very vague. Would it be accurate to say: "Some of these have been attributed, by investigators or by later authors, to Jack the Ripper."

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The case was closed??

The paragraph about Frances Coles ends with this sentence:

"After this eleventh and last "Whitechapel Murder" the case was closed."

I find this unconvincing. First of all, after the eleventh murder occurred, no-one (with the possible exception of the murderer) KNEW that it was the last murder.

Secondly, "the case was closed" suggests the police stopped trying to solve the eleven murders. Surely they continued for some time trying to solve them.  ???

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is true in that Frances Coles was the last name entered into the Whitechapel Murder file and that no other murder victim names were entered into the file afterwards. I am not aware of any further police investigations after the collapse of the Sadleir case, though I may be wrong. I get the impression that the police really thought that Sadleir was the Ripper and did not change their minds afterwards, even when he was found not guilty of the murder of Coles. Colin4C (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Whitechapel murder file was eventually closed with no other known additions that survived to modern times (a great deal of the file was thrown out and pilfered by police for souvenirs over the years, what we have is just an accident of being saved before it was about to be discarded as well), but the case most certainly was not closed. William Grant Grainger, for example, was investigated for stabbing a woman in the stomach many years later and they brought in Joseph Lawende (main witness in the Eddowes murder) to try to identify him as the person he saw with Eddowes outside Mitre Square minutes before her murder. All that can really be said is that no other entires in this file survive, not that the case was closed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Natural Causes!!!

Quoting the article:

"Annie Millwood, born c. 1850, reportedly the victim of an attack on February 25, 1888. She was admitted to hospital with "numerous stabs in the legs and lower part of the body." She was discharged from hospital but died from apparently natural causes on March 31, 1888."

Really? It strains credibility to say that someone who was stabbed numerous times died five weeks later of apparently natural causes.

Who gave the opinion that she died of "apparently natural causes"? I think this incredible "diagnosis" should be attributed to someone, or else not included here at all. (I realize a reference is given. I don't have access to it.) Wanderer57 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Being stabbed in the leg is not necessarily fatal...Being stabbed in the 'lower part of the body' can be serious, though maybe this is a euphemism for being 'stabbed in the bottom'. If that is the case, then this is not necessarily fatal, bearing in mind also that Victorian women, through lack of excercise and general laziness, did have quite large posteriors. Colin4C (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a euphemism for the backside, I think it's a euphemism for the "front side". And the Frontside has several important arteries running through it. The closeness of death to such a violent attack does cause one to question. Yes, it could happen but you gotta wonder if it actually did. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a doctor in the house??? Colin4C (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural causes could include sepsis from the wounds - or indeed, the treatment. As far as the hospital was concerned she had survived her wounds. Obviously they had performance statistics even then ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to track down and quote the original testimony (doctor report, inquest, press report if that's all we have) or cite another reliable source instead of just wasting our time hypothesizing here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question I posted, there is comment on this topic here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Apparently Natural Causes?. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By definition - under English Law, an inquest would not be held for a death by natural causes. Deaths of the poor were rarely reported in the press - and for much the same reason, the poor were rarely attended by a doctor in the late 1880s. (The reasons for the terminally pedantic, too little money, too few doctors for a population that had expanded 250% in the previous 20 years, and the death age was not actually unusual for a demographic living in grinding poverty). There may be a hospital admission report, but before the Ripper hysteria, would it necessarily be that detailed, or out of the ordinary. Obviously, some details eventually made it to the police blotter. Kbthompson (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that according to the latest medical opinion 'Ripper hysteria' is not necessarily fatal, though straight-jackets are sometimes needed when the patient starts frothing at the mouth and seeing red. Colin4C (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Straitjackets) Wanderer57 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you correcting Colin's spelling or suggesting a personal prescription? ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing out what I think is the usual spelling. However, based on Google searches, the tide seems to be running strongly in the other direction. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of levity - but could people making a joke - or spell checking a joke - please at least make the effort to make a substantive point in relation to the article. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair point. I'll go back to a couple of earlier comments.

• "Natural causes could include sepsis from the wounds." It seems to me sepsis from earlier stabbing wounds does not count as a natural cause of death. However, as Kbthompson pointed out, the death of a woman in a poor section of the city may have passed with no medical attention whatsoever.

• As suggested earlier by DreamGuy, it would be a good idea to track down and quote the original testimony (doctor report, inquest, press report if that's all we have). What record exists related to the death of Annie Millwood? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Begg says that the coroner Wynne E Baxter attributed her death to "sudden effusion into the pericardium from the rupture of the left pulmonary artery through ulceration" and that jury then returned a verdict of death through natural causes. As for the stabbing it seems that she reported that she had been stabbed by a mystery man using a clasp knife, though nobody else saw this person. One theory is that she was stabbed by the same person who inflicted similar wounds on Martha Tabram - though Begg thinks they may have been self-inflicted. She was admitted to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary, got better and was released back into a main Workhouse ward. 10 days later she was chatting to the Workhouse messenger (one Richard Sage), who went away for 3 minutes and returned to find her lying on the ground. He then called for a doctor, who pronounced her dead...RIP. (Jack the Ripper: the Facts (2006): 25-26). Colin4C (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

dates per WP:MOSDATE

People might be interested in reading the latest deus ex-machina about date linking ... WP:MOSDATE. Executive summary, full dates will now appear unlinked - be prepared to (a) standardise pages, and (b) defend your local date preference.

I would suggest, that date links be removed any time you edit a section. There is however, a script that will eventually get here. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Last Jack the Ripper film

I have restored correct information about what was the last Jack the Ripper film. Please no not restore factually incorrect information. Colin4C (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Movie "appearances"

OK, first off, I believe the appropriate course of action when someone reverts your edit is to take it to talk. That being said how can you possibly think that trivia about trivia is supported here? To think we need to keep a record of when a fictional account of an ostensibly fictional character appears is beyond trivia. This is the very definition of fan cruft. Does this stuff need to be removed to a list of some sort? If any character could support a "List of fictional references" it's JTR. The mention of him being portrayed in movies is one thing. Trivia about the movies he's portrayed in is quite another. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This statement you have restored "While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell" is not true. Please do not not foist untruths onto the wikipedia. The last film in which the Ripper appeared is 'Shanghai Knights' in 2003, two years after 'From Hell'. Truth being so 'trivial' you prefer untruths?Colin4C (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To represent the movie "Shanghai Nights" as being a movie with Jack the Ripper in it is the ultimate act of fandom. Movies about Jack the Ripper are trivia, Movies where Jack the Ripper got bumped into are cruft. I can support movies about Jack the Ripper but movies where he get's kicked are just too much. They are petty and demean the article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you I think the entire section needs to go. We're talking about Jack the Ripper and the best you've got is getting bumped into? Give me a break. This has the makings of a "List of portrayals regarding Jack the Ripper" or some such. Heck this is trivia for the movie "Shanghai Nights" wich makes it worthless to note in this article. Of all the things we have to work on in this article you want to argue about getting bumped into? Cuft. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement you have restored "While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell" is not true. It is incorrect. It is a lie. Please do not foist untruths onto the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement you have entered "Jack's most recent movie appearance appears to be in Shanghai Knights (2003)..." is trivial in the highest regard and completely inconsequential to the article. Please do not add trivia to WP. Now, what guideline are you going to cite? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think it doesn't matter if the information in the wikipedia is true or not if one particular editor has no interest or knowledge about it and thinks it is trivial? Colin4C (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think trivia doesn't belong in Wikipedia. What part of "That appearance doesn't mean squat" are you not getting? Do you honestly intend to put every single reference to Jack the Ripper in this article for the sake of "completeness"? You must be joking. What other movies are you going to put in here? I'm sure there are movies with characters named "Jack" you could find a way of squeezing in. How about an unwieldy reference to Rupert Giles being nicknamed "Ripper" when he was a teen? I'm sure there are three people left that don't know that one. It's trivia and we don't support trivia here. I can't think of a more lucid or concise way of saying it. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<TexasAndroid walks past, casually whistling and reading WP:3RR, which is fast being approached.> - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically he's past it. This would be his third revert of the same content, I tried to change it up and throw a compromise in there that didn't call it "...his latest apearance..." but didn't feel the need to mention him getting bumped into on a bridge. Colin4 has simply reverted for the sake of including as much trivia as possible (about an already fictitious character). I have never reported a 3RR before, and this is really blatant... Where do I go from here? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to give the warning first, and then see if that's enough to stop the warring, rather than launching with the block. That said, if you feel the need to get another admin's opinion on this, WP:3RRN is the place to go. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you continually restored UNTRUE information. Colin4C (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you didn't quite get to the 3rd revert. I almost jumped the gun there. Glad I checked. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You restored UNTRUE information:

While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer."

I restored TRUE information:

"The most recent film in which the Ripper is a major protagonist is From Hell (2001) based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer. In a subsidiary role, Jack's most recent movie appearance appears to be in Shanghai Knights (2003) in which Fann Wong's character "Chon Lin" kicks him off a bridge into a river."

Therefore you have the moral highground. Makes sense....Who cares what the truth is...its only the wikipedia... (IRONY) Colin4C (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "restore" untrue information, I edited out trivia. Besides, is there a more recent movie in which Jack the Ripper is a major protagonist? Are you trying to say that Jack the Ripper is the major protagonist in "Shanghai Nights"? Then what I have put forth is true: the most recent movie in which the Ripper is a major protagonist is From Hell. What part of that is untrue? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you will see that you reverted to this UNTRUE statement twice:

"While the Ripper has appeared in a great many films, the most recent is the 2001 film, From Hell, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer."

You only changed after I told you, you were wrong. Colin4C (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutly right - and that is why you bring conflicts like this to Talk right away. If you would have brought up this particular distinction before I would have tried the rephrase I did and we would have avoided all this animosity. Talking is always better, especially when you are right. ;) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's done is done. Noone actually breached 3RR, noone got blocked, and we have a version that is now standing, for a few minutes at least. Continuing to harp on arguments that Padillah has already moved past with his rewrite will not really get this thing moved anywhere. Trying to move this forward....

Colin. Other than the absence of the reference to your movie, do you have any remaining complaints with Padillah's latest wording? If not, then can the discussion please focus on that one remaining issue. If you *do* have remaining problems with Padillah's rewritten version, please let us know what those issue(s) are.

As for Padillah, it was only with your latest rewrite that you incorporated Colin's "Major protagonist" text. Before that your text was just "appeared in", which does fit Colin's film. He's still complaining about your earlier edits. But continuing to argue about versions that are no longer (I think) under debate.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help TA, I'm finally seeing what he's on about. I hope this rewrite works for him. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Padillah is getting so worked up about the supposed 'triviality' of 'Shanghai Knights'. I didn't mention it because I am a fan nut movie trivia buff but because it is, as far as I know, as a matter of fact, the last film in which Jack the Ripper appears. I thought that therefore, in that respect, it was worthy of record. If a film is released tommorow about JTR then that film in turn will be the last in which JTR appears and for that reason IMHO worthy of record here - and 'Shanghai Knights' can be cast into deserved or undeserved oblivion...'Triviality' is in the eye of the beholder but facts are facts and more important IMHO than subjective feelings about whether or not something is 'trivial'. Colin4C (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, that's an argument you'll have to take up with them. I am not arguing that his appearance in film is not noteworthy, I am arguing that a trivial (and, for what it's worth, apocryphal since JTR wasn't active until 1888) reference should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. As I mentioned above, we can't be expected to note every little thing regarding the subject, and in fact, that makes for a very boring and random article. But my question still stands: Do you accept the rewrite I've suggested? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at what you wrote:

"One of the more recent films in which the Ripper is a major antagonist is From Hell (2001) based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell and directed by the Hughes Brothers. The film posits Stephen Knight's theory that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, offering Sir William Gull as the murderer."

It is more accurate to say (as I said) that 'From Hell' is the the latest film (not 'one of the more recent films') in which the Ripper is a major antagonist and that 'Shanghai Knights' is the latest film in which the Ripper has role, making his exit from screen stardom in the way I have detailed: viz being kicked him off a bridge into a river by a Chinese tourist. The information is not random, as you allege, but completely logical. It details the last appearance of the Ripper on screen - not one appearance selected at random. In the Sweeney Todd article a similar mention of the last screen appearence (the Depp movie) is made of that chap. Triviality is subjective as is what is boring. IMHO labelling something 'non-notable' is a great insight into a wikipedia editor's personal mindset and cultural preconceptions and values but less useful as a criterion of what is in fact notable or interesting to other people. You are the only editor here who has labelled the info I gave as trivial... Colin4C (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any particular significance in a film being the "most recent" film with a JTR character. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Modern Perspective"

When I read the "Modern Perspective" section, I was expecting to read about what modern criminal profiles etc thought of Jack, instead the section simply states that modern forensic techniques etc. did not exist at the time. This is similar to going to an article about a dinosaur and saying "they didn't live in houses, because houses hadn't been invented". Isn't the information in this section somewhat obvious? I say it should either be removed, or rewrittin with actual analysis of Jack. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As per lack of objections, removed. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)

I've just come to this article from "On this day" on the front page, and found another article called The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). This is a bad name: per MOS:NAME it should be Whitechapel murders, possibly with capital M. More importantly, the content of that article is an almost complete duplicate of parts of this one. It consists of these sections:

Whitechapel 1888-91

similar to Jack the Ripper#Background

The victims

similar to Jack the Ripper#Victims but (1) arranged chronologically instead of canonical vs. other. (2) includes only victims in the Metropolitan Police Ripper files, i.e. excluding Jack the Ripper#Other alleged Ripper victims

Investigation timeline

similar to Jack the Ripper#Investigation, but as a timeline rather than a narrative.

The article appears to have nothing relating to Jack the Ripper#Suspects or Jack the Ripper#Media. Nearly all the citations are from one book: Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, which is also a major source in this article, but one of several. Basically the article is a synopsis of that book, presenting the Ripper murders as a police case. This is a WP:POVFORK. I concur, different article [Stanton70]

These complaints have been raised before on Talk:The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91), and there was a merge or completely rework request in May. One proposal was to turn it into a timeline article, which might be justifiable. As I read it, those opposing the merge wanted to separate the historical facts of the crimes from the media hype and mythology of the Jack the Ripper character. The debate then, as I read it, agreed that there was a lot of overlap between the two articles and that work was needed to make them more separate. I don't agree that the subjects are sufficiently distinct to make such a separation practical; but in any case, no such work has been done since the debate concluded. My contention is that as things stand the second article adds nothing. If you think it potentially could add something you have an obligation to bring it up to scratch (perhaps in your User: space) before presenting it in the article space. jnestorius^(talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After a very long discussion the overwhelming concensus of long-time editors here was that the two articles are distinct. Only one editor disagreed or 'complained' as you put it. 'Jack the Ripper' is mostly a media construct whilst the Whitechapel Murders really did happen. To confuse the two is to jump on the 'Jack the Ripper' hype/entertainment bandwagon which I don't think the wikipedia, as a serious encyclopedia, should be part of. Your statement that "Nearly all the citations are from one book: Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates" and that "Basically the article is a synopsis of that book, presenting the Ripper murders as a police case. This is a WP:POVFORK." is factually incorrect speculation and deliberately misleading. I invite you to go back and count how many sources are used in that article. The Whitechapel Murders are the primary, factual, datum. Most of the rest is just the spin and hot air of media savvy 'Ripperologist' cranks. Colin4C (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Against merge the reason there is a separate article is that 11 murders were committed in Whitechapel between 1888-1891. It is documented fact and a cursory glance at the metropolitan police website shows that they themselves regard it as an important historical sequence. Within that sequence there were five murders which are the Canonical Five attributed to JtR - the reason why an additional article was required was that six murders in the sequence were inadequately covered here, and a number of editors agreed that both a timeline of the eleven, and coverage of the police investigation was worthwhile. It is separate, as six of the murders were not attributed to the subject of this page; this page is essentially about what is known about a particular murderer(s) (hence the title), rather than calling it Whitechapel Murders, incorporating Jack the Ripper - although there might be an argument for incorporating his activities into the Whitechapel murder article - since he (they) is just one of a particularly nasty bunch of people. However, that said, he is considered infamous enough to have his own article - which should concentrate on just 'him', and the investigation and brouhaha surrounding the ripper hysteria.

Agree rename -> "Whitechapel Murders (1888-1891)" per WP:MoS. I wouldn't be inclined to drop the dates, as there may be other sequences, or individual murders in a different timeframe that should not be included.

There is currently no such other article. If there ever is, it will probably result in a hatnote on this article something like "this article is about the 1888-1891 murders, for the 1957 murders see Whitechapel Murders (1957)". The common name does not have dates. Prematurely disambiguating is bad. jnestorius^(talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1966, actually - see George Cornell. Kbthompson (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the bad name of that other article is because Colin first tried to put his opinion that there is no canonical five into the main article, then when he didn't have consensus and it was removed he made a fork file to make that argument at Whitechapel murders, and then that got deleted and redirected and then eventually locked with people telling him he simply could not do that because it ws the same topic. The current name, with the dates, was just his sneaky way of coming up with a new article with the same POV fork info on a title that wasn't locked. The only reason it still survives at all is he made some friends with other people who express outright hostility to the published conclusions of well respected Ripper authors and they gang vote everything. Look at the tone of their comments here... it's amazing. All these people who think they know more than the experts, saying Jack the Ripper never existed, etc. These people aren't even trying to pretend to follow Wikipedia policies anymore. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree work needs to be done on both articles to enhance their unique characteristics. Kbthompson (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - Colin is and Kevin are right, and their reasons are pretty much that which I would argue, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There were far more than 11 murders of marginal women in Victorian slums; most of them will never have a Wikipedia article. What links the canonical five and the other six is Jack the Ripper . Other than that, the six non-Ripper victims are no more notable than the countless victims never ascribed to him. Wanting to ringfence the historical facts from the spin and hot air and brouhaha of the Ripper is the essence of a POVFORK. The historical facts belong in this article: taking them out of this article wrecks this article, and copying them elsewhere while keeping them here is redundant.

The other article is also perhaps unique among Wikipedia articles dealing with crimes (compare e.g. any of Category:Unsolved murders) in that it makes almost mention of media action or possible suspects (only Pizer and Sadler). This indicates to me that the other article is also an unnatural half-story that should not have an independent existence.

With respect, if longtime editors have agreed among themselves that the two concepts are distinct, then they have done a very poor job of making this clear to longtime readers. Will you agree at least that, at present, almost all the material in the other article is contained in this one, albeit in a different order? If so, please outline what changes you intend making in the next few weeks to better separate the two articles. Saying this article "should concentrate on just 'him'" is rather vague: what are you going to remove from here? jnestorius^(talk) 19:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are also many Victorian murders that are documented within wikipedia, as they were early cases of the Metropolitan police; or - like these - were considered pretty macabre, even by the standards of the day.

Oh, yes, the metropolitan police: "What has to be understood is the fact that the 'Ripper' murders and the 'Whitechapel murders' are not the same thing, although the latter does include the 'Ripper' murders." - of course, they do have an axe to grind, but they're not amateurs at the business.

{As above) You have whole hearted agreement (from me) that both articles need to be improved to concentrate on the particular subject of their topics - there is inevitable overlap, but the subject of this article is a particular murderer. If the two were to be merged, it is normal to merge the smaller topic (ie this one) into the larger - you would then have a rather large article and lost the object of this topic; the subset of murders, attributed to the ripper.

To be fair to long term editors, I would commend you to the archives of this article, where every change is argued to the n-th degree - to death, as it were. For myself, I would welcome suggestions as to how to improve the articles, and indeed achieve that separation of content. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice the Met does not have separate pages for the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders; while asserting the two are separate it discusses both in a single page called "The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper". I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot do likewise. As to the size of the combined article: since almost all the info in the other one is already in this one, the combined article will be little larger than this one. jnestorius^(talk) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm still against merging them. The Whitechapel murders' file is essentially fact; while Jack the Ripper is 'socially constructed' - mainly from the press, but with some support from police evidence, as to the existence of such an individual. Much of this article, is of necessity, conjecture - and about the later continuance in popular culture. The non-canonical murders are essentially clutter here, but have a historical significance for the period. Kbthompson (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The eleven Whitechapel Murders as well as being real and documented in police files etc had greater social significance in terms of London history than the parlour game of Hunt the Ripper. Whole streets (Flower and Dean Street) were demolished and social concern was manifested in the East End. The Ripper by contrast is a mostly a media construct (owing a lot to Jekyll and Hyde) and the supposed 'canonical victims of Jack the Ripper' are mostly a construct in the brains of contemporary Ripperologists, they do not have official or legal or compelling evidential existence. The eleven murders caused terror on the streets of Whitechapel at the time, with some of the later 'uncanonical' murders actually creating more terror than the 'canonical' ones. As for doing more work on articles, one is not encouraged to do so by being given lectures by editors who sole occupation is criticising other editors work, wikilawyering, general negativity and misrepresentation and who never contribute anything constructive themselves to wikipedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:POT calling the kettle black again... You disagree with experts, and we should care, why? We don't. Go write a book if you want to dispute the canonical five, and when you get people to respect you as an expert on the topic then you can get yor opinion mentioned as your opinion as one of several opinions of Ripper experts. Until then you're wasting everyone's time trying to make your personal beliefs take over the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Against One is about the murders, the other about the person (or persons) who committed them. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment ... and only some of those murders ... there appears to be an emerging consensus here, not to merge - however, the proposer also issued a challenge to improve the respective articles and focus them. So, how about it? Kbthompson (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge. I feel we would be taking two steps back if we were to merge them. It was progress to get the other article and keep it. Would like to see other improvements and hear other suggestions however. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge for the reasons stated repeatedly in previous discussions! --Jack1956 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree to long overdue merge -- It was a POV fork from the very beginning, and will never be anything but. Colin's longwinded posts above show exactly what his intent was in making it: WP:SOAPboxing his own WP:ORiginal research/opinions to compete with what the experts say. And, frankly, I get the feeling some of these editors only exist here to be pulled out of a hat whenever any vote comes up, as they never make any actual contributions here and seem to have no knowledge about or even an interest in the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note how tolerant the admins are of Dreamguy's personal abuse of me and unfounded allegations. The only person who has been found to consistently violate the wikipedia guidelines he is so fond of quoting is him. He has a block log which far exeeds in number all the Whitechapel murders put together. I have never been blocked, not even once. Draw your own conclusions. Colin4C (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a big boy and expected to take it on the nose, offering the other check and politely proffering suggestions on how to take the article forward. Try not rising to the bait, it really will extend your lifespan, and he will get bored and stop attacking you. As, to blocks, if you're feeling left out ...? All parties really should address the content.

That said, some of these editors only exist here to be pulled out of a hat; needs to be addressed. That would be those same editors who have been driven away from making a contribution to the article space by constant contention and put downs.

As a point of fact, it's not a vote, DG. It's developing a consensus in a collaborative workspace. The emphasis there is on collaborative, it's not a competition, and there's not some winner takes all - or, even, the last one standing when everyone else is bored to death. Do try making some substantive points on why Jack the Ripper - who is attributed with five murders - is the same as eleven murders. My formative years were spent as a mathematician, your own WP:POV doesn't add up; and doesn't appear to agree with the Met. Kbthompson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. It's a bunch of people who don't even try to act like they know anything about the topic trying to run off the people who do. Arcayne and Colin's actions have been nothing but pure obstructionism, and most of the other editors havbe contributed nothing to this article except rubber stamping their statements.

It's not supposed to be a vote, no, but that's clearly how you and others are trying to treat it. It's supposed to be a discussion about how to follow Wikipedia policies and improve the articles on the topic. That hasn't been happening for well over a year now, thanks to people like simply ignoring policy when it's inconvenient for their own personal reasons. The two articles discuss the exact same topic, as the experts on the topic describe that topic. Math skills aren't as important as basic reasoning. Jack is not attributed five murders, the prevailing theory is that he had at least those five murders, but also perhaps some of the rest of the 11 as well. It's all the same topic. Show me an expert, reliable source that treats the Whitechapel Murders as completely different topic from the Ripper murders, and then show me that the majority of them say that, THEN you have a point. Until then you're just ignoring a pretty blatant fork file and thumbing your nose at the experts who have studied the topic out of sheer stubbornness and a desire to promote the POV of complete amateurs on the net who took over the article to advance their own personal opinions. DreamGuy (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DG, the prevailing argument isn't about the number of murders (sorry Kb), it's about the existence of Jack the Ripper. There is nothing that establishes the identity of Jak the Ripper much less how many of which murder he committed. And, due to the enormous amounts of information we have on this quasi-fictional character and the fact that he has grown beyond the "confines" of these murders, we should separate him from the facts of the murders. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous argument ever made. Jack the Ripper existed. Read a book. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to do this but... In making sure I didn't say something magnanimously stupid I went looking for Area 51, and found it. In there it mentions the UFO stuff, but to a lesser degree. I also went looking for other stories to bolster my position... and couldn't find any. I am then forced to question why JtR isn't simply mentioned in the Whitechapple article and the bulk of the speculation done away with? We are not supposed to speculate here so is it better to state that other people speculate? Aren't we just speculating by proxy? Is there another article we could look to to see how they settled this contradiction? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We did agree before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one and that this should be a subsidiary...Colin4C (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The eleven Whitechapel murders are a precise historical datum, most of the rest, including the supposed 'canonical five' is speculation. We should hold on to the definate facts in this case not get lost in a maze of speculative figures as to how many people the Ripper might have killed: maybe it was four...maybe it was five...maybe it was ten...maybe it was twenty...maybe he emigrated to the USA and killed twenty more...who knows...The Whitechapel murders, by contrast, were real, were documented by the police and all occured in or near a specific location (Whitechapel) 1888-92. With or without the Ripper they are historically significant. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a venue for Ripperologist cranks to spout their absurd theories. If you want to do that go to the Ten Bells with like-minded fantasists and do not bore us with it. Colin4C (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by such comments, Colin. It almost sounds like you're abandoning "Jack the Ripper" as a lost-cause hopeless magnet for cranks, and heading off to craft "Whitechapel Murders" into a dispassionate scholarly historical article. That's not really what you're saying, is it? Saying the Whitechapel murders would have been significant without the Ripper is like saying World War 2 would have been significant even if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia. Just as it would have been a completely different war, so it would have been a completely different 6-murders-in-Whitechapel. (I know "6-murders" assumes the Ripper did 5 and none of the others were copycats, but the point holds regardless, unless you believe there was no Ripper and eleven different murderers.)

The Jack the Ripper article can, should, and does say that there were 11 murders in the police file, that there is no consensus about how many were the work of a single serial killer, that many theories have been put forward, that many of these are utterly discredited, that the Ripper hype was fuelled by the press of the period and kept going by subsequent popular treatments. I don't see a need for a separate article to make these points; what points are to be made in "Whitechapel Murders" that cannot reasonably be made in "Jack the Ripper"? Of course, parts can be refactored out, as has been done already with the suspects; but the Whitechapel Murders article is not a single section refactored, it cuts across whole swathes of the article. As has been suggested already, it could work trimmed and renamed as a timeline of the investigation.

There are many articles which discuss both the uncontested historical elements of a topic and the mythical aggregations; e.g Nostradamus, Bonnie and Clyde, Saint Patrick, Spanish Inquisition. What makes this case different from those?

I am making these comments not as an editor but as a reader. I know no more about Jack the Ripper than the average person: that is to say, I'm the kind of person who will read these articles seeking to learn from it rather than seeking to critique them or find errors. While reading "Jack the Ripper" I noticed the far-from-prominent wikilink to "Whitechapel Murders" and clicked through, and I was confused by the article I found there. To my eyes, it reads like a partial repetition of the main article. It could be deleted and no reader would miss it (though of course five or ten regular editors would). Clearly a group of you believe there is an important point to be made which would be lost by deleting "Whitechapel Murders". I am stating in all sincerity, having read both articles and all the Talk pages, I have no idea what that point is. I don't believe I am terribly stupid, so at a minimum, you will need to express your points more clearly. You have expended a lot of effort creating a page which, I believe, few readers will benefit from reading.

Finally, since nobody has yet offered suggested improvements, let me offer a suggestion: a matrix of victims and experts, flagging which expert believes which victims were definitely/probably/possibly/definitely not murdered by the Ripper. jnestorius^(talk) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Saying the Whitechapel murders would have been significant without the Ripper is like saying World War 2 would have been significant even if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia."

Eh? Come again? I don't think that has the effect that you were after...but I do appreciate your efforts. Your last idea about the matrix sounds good. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what does Colin4C's sentence mean: "With or without the Ripper they are historically significant." Does "without the Ripper" mean, "even if there had been no panic at the time", or does it mean, "even if it had all been forgotten and blown over afterwards", or does it mean "even if there had been no serial killer in Whitechapel in 1888". jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"There are many articles which discuss both the uncontested historical elements of a topic and the mythical aggregations; e.g Nostradamus, Bonnie and Clyde, Saint Patrick, Spanish Inquisition. What makes this case different from those?"

I'll say there could be a significant difference. In the first three cases, the articles have simply been named after the persons in question - Michel de Nostredame, Bonnie Parker & and Clyde Barrow, and the latter of "the two St. Patricks". As for the Spanish Inquisition it was, originally, merely a descriptive phrase, pretty much as would be The Whitechapel Murders Investigation

The name of an article is not relevant. MOS:NAME handles that. What is important is the content. Deciding whether information should be in a single article or split between two articles is a separate question to deciding what name to give an article. We could have had Saint Patrick (historical figure) and Saint Patrick (mythical figure) but we don't. What is different about the concepts (as opposed to their names)? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is another article about the "other St. Patrick", the reason being that "many of the traditions later attached to Saint Patrick originally concerned Palladius". So, there's not merely the question of separating historical fact from myth, but also of disentangling one historical figure from another. And that could perhaps be compared to the possible fact that the Whitechapel Murders were, most likely, committed by more than one murderer. The question then would perhaps be if the least relevant murders do warrant another separate article, or if there should be one article about each of these cases. Either way, I would agree that from the naming conventions (choosing the most easily recognizable), it would seem fairly inescapable that the main article ought to be called 'Jack the Ripper'. ΑΩ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The crimes of "Jack the Ripper" are so inextricably intertwined with the Whitechapel Murders that often one is mistaken for the other. The reason for this is that the police files on the so-called Whitechapel Murders began with the murder of Emma Smith on 3/4 April 1888, and did not finish until the murder of Frances Coles on 13 February 1891. In all, eleven murders are included in these files and, in the opinion of the authors, as few as three or as many as six may have been the work of a common hand, that of the criminal now known to history as "Jack the Ripper". A full and true picture cannot be obtained without looking at the whole series of murders and the relevant facts that have survived the passage of time to reach in the twenty-first century. Herein may lie the vital clue as to the identity of this mysterious killer - or it may not. (Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook, p. 3.)

If their intertwining is inextricable why are you trying to extricate them? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I am. But I do think it could be right to downplay the less relevant cases, and expand the parts about the cases most commonly attributed to "Jack the Ripper", and that would seem most important for the understanding of the serial murder case. Perhaps that could be done by placing some of the info about the Whitechapel Murders into a separate article. ΑΩ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The main problem encountered in any serious study of the Whitechapel Murders and the subject of "Jack the Ripper" is the plethora of myth and misrepresentation that surrounds the case. Although some of this obfuscation can be traced back to its contemporary origins, most of it has gradually developed, feeding on itself over the years in books and other media so that any new student of the crimes understandably begins their study with preconceived ideas, either conscious or subconscious, on the matter. (Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook, p. 1.)

I'd say the 'Jack the Ripper' name may, in itself, tend to perpetuate the preconceived ideas of myth. And please note the double quotes... applied to that questionable name. I'll say that they are, quite literally, clear signs of critical consciousness. I would guess a similar willingness, and ability, to keep a critical distance could have made a merging of these two articles possible. ΑΩ (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So if "Jack the Ripper" appears in quotes in this article then you would countenance a merger? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure what would be the best solution. I do however find it odd that so much weight has been put, in this article, on the victims that would seem least likely to have been killed by "Jack the Ripper", in particular as this article makes no mention of any of the witnesses that may in fact have seen him. It seems to me that the "canonical" victims section ought perhaps to be expanded, with at least some further information about the particulars of each case. On the other hand, some of the information about the "other victims" could possibly be placed into an article about the Whitechapel Murders file. ΑΩ (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• As one ' of these editors [who] only exist here to be pulled out of a hat' [despite having started 10 JtR related articles] and being 'not a real editor' [despite having started 144 articles and contributed to hundreds more], I feel that my contribution to this discussion is perfectly valid DG, and that opinion is that the Whitechapel Murders article is entirely encyclopedic and an important contribution to the topic. If you take out the canonical Ripper murders you would still have an article here, as I have said in previous discussions. --Jack1956 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying this article would be complete even with no mention of the canonical murders? That's absurd. jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was actually referring to the Whitechapel Murders article. --Jack1956 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not quite as absurd, but still weird. I thought from earlier comments by others that the "Whitechapel Murders" article was supposed to be about the police investigation into the 11 murders around Whitechapel. Removing 5 of those would leave that article with a big hole in the middle. Do you mean removing them just from "The victims, or would you also remove the relevant bulletpoints alluding to them from Investigation timeline? And, conversely, should the other 6 victims be removed from the "Jack the Ripper" page? That would certainly reduce the overlap between the two articles, but it would render both of them almost unreadable. jnestorius^(talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We agreed before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one and that a subsidiary articles should be devoted to such vague entities as 'Jack the Ripper', 'The Torso Killer' etc etc. The 'canonical five' is not a fact - it's just speculation. The Whitechapel Murders article by contrast is rigorously factual. Also overlap between articles is only a crime if you are an anally fixated bureaucrat. Entities in the real world do overlap. See also Venn diagram for a mathematical expression of this idea. The Ripper killed an unknown number of people. Some in Whitechapel and some maybe out of Whitechapel, some maybe in other countries. Nobody knows. Is it really so traumatic to admit that we just don't know and stop feeling compelled to invent unproven 'canonical five' etc factoids to cover our ignorance? The Whitechapel Murders by contrast were eleven murders which really did happen in real Whitechapel and nearby between the real dates 1888-91. The real police documented these real murders in a real file entitled 'The Whitechapel Murders'. This is a real, tangible document which it is possible to inspect, read, touch etc. The business of the wikipedia is record such realities and not get lost in a wilderness of unproven factoids and dubious notions and speculations. It would have been helpful if the Ripper had pinned his name and address and phone number on all the murders which he committed, but he didn't, therefore we are left in ignorance and should not pretend to know things that we don't know. Ripper killings = X. Whitechapel Murders = 11. The Ripper presumably committed some of the Whitechapel Murders and was possibly responsible for an unknown number of unsolved murders elsewhere. To equate 'The Whitechapel Murders' with 'The Ripper Murders' is just plain incorrect, unless you don't care about truth at all and want the wikipedia to be part of the all singing and dancing (see the opera 'Lulu' in which the Ripper sings) Ripper entertainment option as sponsored by the masons and the royal family and Ripperologist con artists and spin merchants everywhere. Colin4C (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"We agreed before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one" No, no we didn't. Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. The problem here is that Colin wrote that other article as a content fork file based upon his anti-Jck the Ripper theory when he couldn't get consensus to change this article to give his own opinions on the topic, and now he's continuing to try to toss out expert opinion on the topic and replace it with his own. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"We agreed before that the Whitechapel Murders article should be the main one" -- In what sense is "Whitechapel Murders" the main article? There is no Category:Whitechapel Murders; the article is currently only in one category. It is however in {{Jack the Ripper}}, listed under "other", so presumably it should at least be in Category:Jack the Ripper. If you want to rearrange the categories and series templates to make "Whitechapel Murders" the main article, that might be possible, but as things stand it's the "main" article only in the minds of a few editors, not in Wikipedia.

"The Whitechapel Murders article by contrast is rigorously factual." -- Are you saying that the "Jack the Ripper" article contains untruths? If so, then please remove them from the article, they have no place in Wikipedia. However, stating that some people believe X is not the same as stating X. There is no requirement to remove all statements of opinion from an article, as seems to an extent to have been done in "Whitechapel Murders"; there is a requirement to flag such statements as being opinion rather than presenting them as undisputed fact.

"To equate 'The Whitechapel Murders' with 'The Ripper Murders' is just plain incorrect" -- I agree. But discussing two different though related things in one article is not the same as stating that they are one and the same thing. Indeed, pretty much all the sources used in the "Whitechapel Murders" article have the words "Jack the Ripper" in their titles. It is easier to make the difference explicit by stating it in clear prose than to leave the difference implicit by having separate articles.

Would you agree, at least, that "Whitechapel Murders" is at present a very poor article? In your efforts to keep it "rigorously factual" you have reduced it to a pair of lists. "1890: June 21st - Sir Edward Bradford replaces Monro as Commissioner." -- so what? Why should the reader care? Mentioning where Mary Kelly was buried is important in Mary Jane Kelly, but why in the timeline? And so on. These dry facts devoid of context or interpretation make the article read like a murder-mystery game: are these the clues from which the reader is supposed to deduce the murderers' identities? jnestorius^(talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmhm, that is something that seems to have escaped the best efforts of the Metropolitan Police, so it would be rather a good game. I think you're missing the point - the Whitechapel Murders happened - they remain historical fact. Jack the Ripper is socially constructed. There is little actual evidence for someone named 'Jack' - see the Yorkshire Ripper for a comparison of the media hysteria created over fake letters (and tapes). Personally, I think both are worthy of an article, but if you'd like all the JtR stuff changed to be within the superset of murders, then I'd certainly give that some thought. I'm happy to concede that the articles, as they stand, are both deficient and do not stand up to that basic dichotomy of reality and fiction. What you're essentially deifying here is a fable of a monster who did unspeakable acts to women - maybe I should join Reclaim the night in consigning the fiction to deserved anonymity - but then again, people remain interested in Jack the Ripper - and maybe they should be made aware that he was just an insignificant abuser amongst many, many others. BTW: I lived in Leeds during that period, and organised safety buses for women from the University. So, there's just a possibility my feelings about serial killers are a little tainted. Kbthompson (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point, and quite dramatically. You are certainly entitled to your theories on social constructs and whatnot, but this article, as I have to repeat for the umpteenth time, covers what reliable sources have to say, not what individual authors thought up. There was a serial killer at that time. Jack the Ripper is the name historians and criminologists use for that serial killer. We can't use the real name, as he has not been identified (and if he had we'd probably still use Jack the Ripper by Wikipedia's article naming rules). Saying that there's no evidence for someone actually named "Jack" is completely off topic and pointless. It's an absurd straw man argument. We are here to describe the historical character by the only name we know him by and the things he was most known for, which are the murders, and then to give encyclopedic information on the topics that tie in with that. Your whole fable argument is horribly misguided. The article already dispenses with the fiction to focus on the history. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Break

A couple of things are getting forgotten here. The big one being - The is no Jack the Ripper. Not in the context of reality we are trying to use. The closest that we can come is saying that "most people believe between 3 and 6 of the murders were committed by one man". That's the best we've got. We can't even say how many murders were committed by this guy, how can we argue for his existence? That being said there are articles on Frankenstein's monster and Count Dracula (separate from Vlad Tepes) so to make a character article about Jack the Ripper is well within our means. I even think making one based on the Vlad Tepes article (or Count Dracula) would be a good starting point. They both address the fictionalization of a real figure, which is, I believe, what we have here - the fictionalization of a real figure. We just don't know who the real figure is. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there was a Jack the Ripper, per the conclusions of a great number of expert reliable sources. We can't name this Otherwise unidentified killer of prostitutes in London's East End between August and November of 1888 and possibly other times as well. The article with the title of Jack the Ripper must be about the real historical figure and not the fictional version. We already have a separate article for fictional refs, and that should not take over the main article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'real historical figure' is mostly a construct of Ripperologist mythologising and hype. Some of the Whitechapel murders were presumably committed by a single unknown serial killer, though there seems to have been another serial killer, the so-called Torso Killer, in on the act in Whitechapel and beyond and we still can't rule out the possibility that some of the murders were committed by a gang. If Ripperologists have the great detective skills they credit themselves with why don't they apply themselves to current unsolved serial crimes? I was reading about some city in Mexico where a wave of serial killings of women has gone on unchecked for years without anybody having the slightest clue as to who is doing it or if there is more than one killer or gangs of killers. If Ripperologists could solve such murders happening here and now rather than in 1888, I would give them credit for being great detectives, but they can't and aren't. They are idle dilettantes who are full of pretence but no real knowledge or insight. Lets stick to the facts please, such as the factual Whitechapel murder victims, who are not products of speculation but real people who really were murdered at specified times and particular locations and the records of whom are preserved in the historical archives. This may be boring, but this is an encyclopedia - not Fantasy Island. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"The article with the title of Jack the Ripper must be about the real historical figure and not the fictional version." Do you realize that's like saying the article on Count Dracula must be about the historic figure, not the fictional one? Jack the Ripper is only the name because of two letters that are now believed to be sent by some journalist. How can there possibly be a "historic" reference to a person that's never been confirmed to exist? There are people that have studied these cases for years that cannot confirm the existence of a single entity having committed a specific number of killings. With that much being that vague how can you speak of an "Historical figure"? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent proposal

Okay, here's a proposal to at least stop the discussion going round in circles:

• One root article named either Jack the Ripper or Whitechapel murders — parking the question of the name for the moment; in either case, both terms would be mentioned in bold in the intro. The article would have the following sections, some of which would be subarticles:

Background

based on The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)#Whitechapel 1888-91 and Jack the Ripper#Background

List of alleged victims of Jack the Ripper

the main article summary should give a short description of the circumstances of the 11 casefile murders, and mention that there are other unofficial alleged victims. The subarticle would be based on The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)#The victims and Jack the Ripper#Victims, taking more care to say which authority grouped which victim with which killer.

Whitechapel murders investigation

I suggest beginning with a summary of the important points of the case; then the The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)#Investigation timeline as a section; then more detail from Jack the Ripper#Investigation: "Writing on the wall", "An early instance of criminal profiling", and possibly "Letters to the police", although the letters each have an article already.

Jack the Ripper suspects

It might be worth stating more vigorously in the summary how much (little) credence is attached to any of the preferred suspect-theories. Also, since it's mentioned in the popular culture section, the royal-conspiracy should be mentioned in the summary (in language that avoids elevating it to a higher status than the others theories)

Jack the Ripper in popular culture

As well as Jack the Ripper fiction, Jack the Ripper#Media, Jack the Ripper#Jack the Ripper in popular culture, this is where Colin4C et al can let rip about media constructs, crackpots, etc. (with good citations of course).

jnestorius^(talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be the first to admit that the structure of the both articles is deficient. Within any putative JtR article, there should be an explanation of both the letters and the subsequent media hysteria that created Jack.

The (further) problem has always been that this article doesn't know whether it is about Jack, or the murders. Teasing out that conflation would go some way to restoring some sanity to the article. Kbthompson (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ripper mania is not as easy to cure as some might fondly imagine. Cold baths and beating with sticks might be worth a try for some editors, mentioning no names...Colin4C (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A better cure would be if certain editors stopped confusing Wikipedia (an encyclopedia presenting informed reliable expert conclusions on a topic) with a blog (where they can rant about whatever personal beliefs they have and attack all those nasty people who actually know what they re talking about and are recognized for their expertise). DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Jack AND the murders. It's the same topic. That's how we treat most serial killers in this encyclopedia, and that's how this one has to be treated as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, DG, 'Jack' is the author of the letters, and the subsequent media hysteria. You say it's about Jack and the murders, but really you only want to discuss some of the murders. There don't seem to be that many established historians, or criminologists, amongst the "experts" on the subject. I don't necessarily agree with Jnestorius on everything, but that person is making genuine attempts to improve the article. The advantage with most other serial killers is that they were caught, and so the wikipedia article is somewhat easier to write with the benefit of hindsight. Just get on with trying to achieve a consensus and improving the article. Kbthompson (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do you one better KB, 'Jack' may or may not be the author of some, if not all, of the letters and a wholly media-created construct whose only basis in reality is his signature.

@DG, the reason we can write other serial killer articles that way is because we can tell that they are, in fact, serial killings performed by the same person and belong to a distinct group. Can you provide such proof for these killings? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

In the section on the Ripper in popular culture, it suggests From Hell is based on absurd and bizarre theories - surely that's bad form? They might well be absurd and bizarre, I don't know enough about the topic, but it's hardly encyclopaedic to say so with no references. The film also features a truly dreadful Cockernee accent from the great Mr Depp, but that's by the by. Pitt the elder (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular section got "clarified" into oblivion some time back and had managed to remain unnoticed until now, thanks.

Wikipedia 0.7 release

Just wanted to leave a note to inform anyone who wasn't aware. This article is one of the 30,000+ chosen to be part of the Wikipedia 0.7 release, as one related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force. In looking over the articles chosen, it was noted that this page has what seems to be a core group of editors who work on it. The Editorial Team for version 0.7 has set an October 20 deadline for any clean-up, polish, etc. If there is an earlier version of the article besides the present one that you would rather they use, please make note of that at the project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7 or at the serial killer task force talk page. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) all written by ben hughes aged 13

What is Wikipedia 0.7? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Editors here may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories, a discussion about whether Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories should be promoted to featured status. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Murder count contradicting?

So, I was looking on the image

from the article, and it has 7 murder locations marked. Yet, the table at the top of the article says Jack the Rippers victim count is "5+ ?".

Is it just me, or should the victim count start at 7?