Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

RFC discussion

Since we seem to be at an impasse above as we have a limited number of people discussing the topics under dispute, I'm going to try to open this up to more editors. This section is intended to cover only the two areas that seem to have not been ironed out so far. I'll give each its own subsection. My main argument on both topics is that this article absolutely needs to reflect the opinion of the majority of well-respected published authors on the topic (following WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies) and not merely reflect the opinions of individual editors with views quite distinctly at odds with what the noted experts in this field say. To do otherwise is to basically dismiss all of their views as meaningless in favor of the original research of random people off the street. DreamGuy 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Canonical five versus Whitechapel Murders file in Victims section

User:Colin4C and I do not agree on how the Victims section of the article should be organized. I think it should stay roughly as it currently is and has been for many years: with the five victims now known as the "canonical five" being the main focal point of the Jack the Ripper murders, and with mention of other murder victims who have been possibly linked to the case by some theorists following along later. This is not to take a side, and in no case do we say that these victims were the only ones, but just to reflect that organizing the Ripper murders is handled this way in virtually every modern book on the topic. In fact the only official police document discussing which victims were the victims of Jack the Ripper argues that it was these five victims. Colin wants to lead off with the Whitechapel Murders file, which contains a list of every unsolved murder in the area during a specific couple of years and only mention the canonical five within that list. I think this gives both undue weight to his views versus the experts and police opinion and also unnecessarily highlights a number of victims who are not considered to be victims of the same serial killer by basically any reliable source.

A quick link to the major Ripper website discussing the victims is here, but I also encourage anyone to look at the above discussion, look up books in a library (or if they happen to own some on the topic, great), troll through Google Book Search, etc. Even those authors who do not 100% support the canonical five (by adding or subtracting one name to the list) still frame their coverage of the case on those five main victims, as should we. DreamGuy 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting on Victims section

• Lead the section with the main five (with other possibilities mentioned afterwards), per above reasons. DreamGuy 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - all the authors mentioned in the bibliography mention the uncanonical Smith and Tabram before the 'canonical five'. Readers are not stupid - if we put a sub-heading before the canonical five saying that they are the 'canonical five', people will get the idea...Colin4C 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Only when they go through and cover various events both thought to be by the Ripper and not in strictly chronological order so they mention those two before the others, because they happened before the Ripper murders. There's a difference between a several hundred page book spending a page or two to give some background on murders they themselves think have nothing to do with the Ripper murders (other than that the press originally falsely thought they were by the same killer) and an encyclopedia article going through and giving proper context. If we were going to go through and give that level of detail, and leave the sorting of the context out for a bunch of chapters later, sure... but this article can't be a 300 page tome. DreamGuy 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Facts (like the bodies of the even victims) should have priority over speculation. Colin4C 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Macnaghten said it was only those five and the fact that most sources highlight those five are more important facts than the discoveries of dead bodies nobody thinks has anything to do with the case. DreamGuy 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Macnaghten's theory was connected to his main theory that the Ripper commited suicide after the Mary Kelly murder, therefore couldn't - being dead - have commited any more. Other policemen, including some intimately involved in the investigation disagreed with him on both counts of the numbers and identity of those killed and whether the Ripper committed suicide. Colin4C 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is partially true, but not at all for the reasons you think. The police who didn't think the Ripper committed suicide also almost overwhelmingly agreed that the Ripper string ended with Mary Kelly. Abberline thought the Ripper left the country, and Anderson and Swanson thought the Ripper was locked up as a lunatic. In fact, instead of assuming that the murders ended because they had suspects in mind, the evidence points to the idea that they based their suspects on the belief that the murders were no longer happening... or at least in London anyway, for Abberline. DreamGuy 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - the current structure of the article has not served it well (another editor referred to it as a seeming 'collection of Post-It notes') and even though it has been in the form argued for for "many years", not once has it achived the quality needed to become a candidate for GA or FA consideration. I think a new route, as that proposed by KbThompson is advisable. this article wasn't working before the lock, and there is little reason to believe it would magically and suddenly work without major re-structuring. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, these sort of ill-considered decisions are only going to make the article worse and even less likely to ever get GA or FA consideration... Not to mention it'll make the article be at complete odds with what the reliable sources have to say on the matter. DreamGuy 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, I agree that the canonical five are important, but at the moment there is no context for the introduction of victims. What is needed is a quick and dirty chronological introduction, and I think linking that to an indepth chronology of the Whitechapel murders - a la Colin's separate article (just a summary here, not the full kit and caboodle). Then an intro to the canonical five to say why they're important and why authors have concentrated on them. May I say I am glad that everyone seems to be keen to obtain more opinions. It can only help the article. And I'm sorry that I haven't had the time, as someone volunteered me for to work up the outline for an alternate article. Kbthompson 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are arguing here, as it seems like your concerns are unrelated to the version you voted for. Context can be present without removing the fact that the five victims are the main ones almost al authorities agree upon and that there is no consensus among the experts that an of the rest have anything to do with the case. If you remove the canonical five from being the main focus you will explicitly lose the context you claim you want the article to have in favor of focusing attention on a number of cases most people then and now think are unrelated. Without knowing in more detail how you imagine the section going I can't respond more directly, but pushing the question about which victims were Jacks into another article removes perhaps the single most important part of this article... How can we discuss Jack the Ripper as a topic without focusing on what he actually did? DreamGuy 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have a sub-heading entitled 'the canonical five' above the particular murders dubbed 'the canonical five' and also mention the canonical five in the intro the reader will be in no doubt that those particular murders are 'canonical'. As for what Jack the Ripper did or rather who in particular he did what he did to, nobody knows for sure: it is all speculation. Rumbelow and Evans in their book describe the notion of a 'canonical five' as a myth: "unless a killer is caught and his tally proven there is absolutely no way that specific victims can be categorically stated to be the work of one hand. No Whitechapel murderer was ever identified and convicted and we simply cannot say with certainty which ones fell to the Ripper". The Ripper is mostly a figure of myth - though it does seem to be a fact that putting 'Jack the Ripper' on the title of any book is sure to guarantee large sales of the item. What we might call "the Ripper Hype". Colin4C 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, everything is all speculation... but then when we discuss what people have speculated we need to concentrate on the majority, expert opinion and not what you as an individual think. DreamGuy 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Request more info Okay, I know the info I am about to ask for is somewhere in the copious discussions above, but I was hoping maybe we could get it summarized neatly here... Could either DreamGuy or Colin please link to an example revision showing each major alternative? (i.e. one example of Canonical Five first, one example of chronological) I see an argument either way, and it's hard to tell without seeing how each one "flows." I am sure other editors would like to see the same thing. Let me know if this is easy to dig up. Thanks! --Jaysweet 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The version being voted on here called the "Canonical five version" is the victims section as it currently exists in the locked article. The version putting the Whitechapel Murders instead (aka Colin's version) is the one he placed above in the Forbidden Knowledge section. Notice in his version, the canonical five victims actually have the least amount of information of all the various unsolved murders, and some of the victims on his list (most especially Emma Elizabeth Smith and the Pinchin Street Torso) are not considered to have been by Jack the Ripper by anyone except an extremely small minority (in those two cases, I'd say less than 1% of published authors). Of the non-canonicals, Martha Tabram is the only one who seems to have any amount of support as possibly being a likely Ripper victim, and even there that's probably less than 40% of all authors. DreamGuy 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy's version is the one the article page is frozen at now. Here is mine.

Colin -- I took the liberty of replacing your cut-and-paste to a link to the revision I think you cut-and-pasted from. I know it is generally frowned upon to refactor others' talk page comments, but I hope you won't mind. If this is not the right revision, let me know and I can fix it.

It is just too hard to read the cut-and-paste in the midst of all these comments. I would rather see it in the context of the article, as in the link I presented. I hope this is okay with you. Thanks! --Jaysweet 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin -- thanks for the info. Now that I have seen both alternatives, my gun-to-the-head either/or choice is Canonical Five first, i.e. DreamGuy's version. However, see my suggestion below. (I changed Comment to bold-face "New Proposal" since I think it is more of a proposal than a comment) Frankly, in both versions, as a layperson my reaction to the Victims section is, "Why do I care?" --Jaysweet 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal I think part of the problem is that the article jumps too rapidly into a list of victims. Approaching the article as a layperson, here is my reaction to the current version (which leads with the Canonical Five): I read the lede, get some idea of the background, but I don't feel like I know the Ripper story yet -- and then all of a sudden I am presented with a list of victims which I don't really give a damn about, and evidence tossed around as to why I should believe these victims are connected, and why other victims may or may not be connected. My reaction as a layperson is, So what?

I think it would be preferable to, prior to the Victims section, have a section of prose describing the prevailing psychological climate in Whitechapel (a time of poverty and rising crime) and illustrate, without getting too specific, how a series of mysterious violent murders, followed by a letter to a newspaper, created an environment where people were eager to attribute all of the murders to a single monstrous figure, that being Jack. After all, that is the thrust of the Ripper story, is it not? While it seems likely there was in fact at least one bona fide serial killer (and debating that is the domain of "Ripperologists"), the gist of the story for your average layperson is the existence of an economic and social climate that, together with a number of unsolved murders, created a "perfect storm" for the belief in an Uber-serial killer.

Once this narrative has been established for the reader, and the layperson has been given enough context to understand why the exact identity of Jack the Ripper, and even the list of victims, is not known with certainty, then is time to start presenting evidence -- to delve into the actual "Ripperology" if you will.

I think at that point, it makes much more sense to lead with the Five Canonical Victims, because now the reader has context and understands why we are presenting a select five victims (out of chronological order) above and beyond all the rest.

To summarize, here is how I think the article should flow.

• Lede largely as it is now (though I think it could use a couple tweaks).
• New section, unsure of title, maybe "Background" or "Whitechapel Murders" or something, that follows a flow roughly like this:
  • People in Whitechapel are poor and frightened
  • Prostitutes start dying in brutal ways, resulting in Whitechapellians become even more frightened
  • Somebody writes a twisted letter to a newspaper, causing the collective bowel of Whitechapel to empty into its collective pants
  • Murders remain unsolved.
• Now the Victims section, leading with something to the effect of, "The precise victims are debated to this day. However, it is generally accepted that at least five of the victims (known as the Canonical Five) were murdered by the same serial killer:", proceeding to list the canonical five.
• yada yada, largely like it is now

What do y'all think? --Jaysweet 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple clarifications: The background section should not chronologically list victims. That would be too specific for what I am talking about. Jumping right from the lede to a chronological list of victims is no better than jumping right to the Canonical Five, and possibly worse. Anything resembling bullet points that high up in the article is just confusing to the layperson.

So, I am not really voting for either proposal here. --Jaysweet 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, but you specifically say you want to concentrate on the canonical five... how is that not voting for the canonical five version? Additions you make ahead of it should be considered separate to how you want this section to look. DreamGuy 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And you're right, after reading both versions, I'm with you: Once we get into the business of listing victims, the canonical five should be first. (I said the above striked-out comment before I was pointed to Colin's version) I think the reason so many people prefer Colin's version is that, by listing suspected victims chronologically, it almost takes the place of the narrative that I as a layperson am aching to hear first. By presenting all of the murders in Whitechapel chronologically, without regard to whether or not they are connected to a single killer, it does, in its way, give the layperson some insight into the psychological climate. However, presenting it as a bulleted list with an emphasis on the identity of the victims both dilutes the intent of the narrative, while also giving undue preference to murders that are almost certainly unrelated. --Jaysweet 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not too bad... I'd be leery of going into too much detail into the background, but it's certainly something worth trying. DreamGuy 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied the protected article into my User space and I am working on a very rough draft version of my above proposal. I'll post a link here when it is ready. --Jaysweet 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, however, that I DO list the canonical five in the intro of my version, before listing the eleven Whitechapel murders and that I give the canonical five a bold sub-heading in the list. So that is two mentions...before they are mentioned yet again as the heading of a new section...so that is three mentions... Colin4C 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mere mentions of the canonical five aren't going to do it, especially when you want to focus on the full Whitechapel Murders list and give only scanty detail to the canonical five. That's exactly opposite of how all the experts on the topic treat it. DreamGuy 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Ripperologist (and use of modern authors as reliable sources)

User:Arcayne and I disagree on whether the term Ripperologist should be used and, if so, how it should be used. Arcayne argues that it's not a real term and that using it slants people's perceptions and gives them the idea that they are "scientific" -- and he further says that the opinions of anyone going by such a term should not be treated as a reliable source and totally dismissed from consideration (I apologize if this summary is in any way inaccurate, I'm trying to pull out his basic argument from several long, winding posts above -- anyone interested can go read the original statements). I would argue that the term is widely used within the field -- two mainstream books by well-established authors use [i]Ripperology[/i] as the title of a book, and there is an electronic newsletter by one of those authors that is called [i]Ripperologist[/i] -- and thus should be used in this way. Furthermore, any argument that the term would somehow bias readers is invalid considering that the very first time we use it we define it so that people know exactly what it means -- both professional historians as well as some amateur enthusiasts in the case. And, additionally, any attempt to dismiss or discount the views of published experts on the topic is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Arcayne's claims that the term, if used at all, should be included in quotes (aka scare quotes) so people know not to take what they say seriously is highly biased and a major violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. DreamGuy 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that there is no official expertise or recognized field of study called "Ripperology", just like there is no field of study called Dahmerology or PolPotology (referring to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and brutal dictator Pol Pot). The professional credentials of the people within this field are at best uneven, and in the case of a great many, largely self-aggrandizing amateur enthusiasts. If someone studing the Ripper case is a forensic anthropologist or a former NYC police detective or a bus driver, then say so. Cloaking oneself in a professional sounding term, like oncologist or dentist or scientist imparts a level of respect and acquiescence that should not be given at face value to someone who is not a recognized expert in a recognized field.

As a coined term, "Ripperology" belongs in quotes, as its application is uneven. I can call myself a "Ripperologist" as can DreamGuy or Colin or any Joe off the street who once read a book about Jack the Ripper. The use of the term implies scientific expertise where, more often than not, is completely missing. To fail to recognize this would appear to be a WP:COI, as one of the major proponents of using this term runs a website and likely identifies themself by this term. I would challenge anyone to present me with an undergraduate or Master's degree in "Ripperology".

I am not arguing that "Ripperology" should never be used, as it would be unencyclopedic to fail to mention the self-named interest in the field by fans of the case. It should not, however be applied to the people being cited as reference, or used as a 'certification' of some amorphous and unproven expertise. If they are an author of a Ripper book, then say they are the author of a Ripper book, or simply author. If they run a website, then say that. Let the reader decide for themselves who is the expert, who is the gifted amateur and who is the utter fraud. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, the way you now claim you want things (as compared to what you argued earlier) is how the article already exists. The only problem you are missing is that it is extremely helpful to have a collective term for people who study and write about the case when mentioning them as a whole instead of per individual. Individually we can specify author, historian, former police officer and author, etc., but for the whole group you can't specify anything like that. Ripperologist is the term used in the field, all over, so that's the term that needs to be used here. This isn't any different from jargon terms used in other fields, like impressionist, spelunker, catastrophist, etc. Most terms like this do not have any sort of special training or licensing, etc., to be called by those terms either. Insisting that Ripperologists have to have that is a not so subtle bias.DreamGuy 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting on use of Ripperologist term

• Use Ripperologist term (as currently used in article, with explanation that's already there, with no scare quotes or bias) and also use the modern, respected and published authors as the reliable sources that they are per standard Wikipedia policies (instead of dismissing every modern expert), per reasons given in the above discussion. DreamGuy 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do not use "Ripperology/Riperologist" term and remove the application present within the article, as it is unreliable as a source of actual professional expertise, per reasons given in the above in disscussion. instead, identify cited folk by the field in which they actually hold expertise, and not as "Ripperologist". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• On this one, I'm split. I think the Ripperologist sobriquet should be introduced when they started to appear. I think an attempt at introducing the subject chronologically is worthwhile, and I think ripperologists only make their appearance in the aftermath and consequences. If a contemporary account names them earlier, then I'm happy to see them introduced earlier. Kbthompson 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From the thrust of yor comment here it sounds like you hope to somehow cover the topic chronologically without ever mentioning any sort of reference to who believes what about the evidence as it goes along. This is not some sterile and completely cut and dry topic where we can just go through and list "truth". All the way through the entire discussion there have to be references to who says what, because the majority of everything except the most basic facts (which could be summed up in a ouple of short paragraphs) comes from interpretation. We have to cite sources and give readers information about where these claims come from. DreamGuy 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in providing a structure to this article. I wholeheartedly agree that everything needs to be referenced, but there seem to be arguments about suitable references. The way I see it, the Ripper theory emerges out of a longer series of murders. Those murders come to be identified with the Ripper (or cast aside as non-canonical). Interpretation comes later (and it's probably worthwhile to also include a note on major sources, either in a separate article, or at the end of this one). I'm inclined to a chronological order as it helps make sense of what otherwise are presented as isolated facts. Whether the detail of the longer series of murders is introduced here, and linked to another article; or dealt with in totality in this article is immaterial. We need to provide a narrative, that narrative may lead to multiple interpretations (indeed it probably will, that's why it's such a mixed up field). The narrative needs to be clear and introduce the facts and provide the evidence for the reader to make their own minds up. Kbthompson 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's possible to do a structured article that doesn't interpret anthing until later. Anything that is included or not is a matter of someone's interpretation. Colin wanting to include 11 specific murders from an unsolved murder file instead of the main five police and experts say were the Ripper or some other list of murder victims that might possibly be related is his interpretation. For an article specifically about the Whitechapel Murder file he can list all those willy nilly, but this article about Jack the Ripper - what is known and isn't known and believed by the experts: historians, police, etc. The "Ripper theory" isn't just some theory some guy came up with that deserves a some mere mention somewhere, it's the topic of this article. DreamGuy 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, and that's a name that's not introduced until the fourth murder, and generally thought to be the result of a hoax .... the article still needs some kind of introduction to link whatever content is decided upon. You're working backwards. If a narrative supported it, I could live with it - but it doesn't. Kbthompson 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the name was introduced, it matters that this article is titled by the most familiar name of the murderer that killed these people. When we say Jack the Ripper we mean the person who killed those five women. You seem to be looking at it more like this article is A Bunch of Unsolved Murders in or Near Whitechapel from 1888-1892. It isn't.DreamGuy 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We could utilise material from the Whitechapel article for the background. That particular article is well referenced and has matter on poverty and prostitution in 19th century Whitechapel pertinant to this article. As for the former Whitechapel murders article: that now redirects here courtesy of Dreamguy, yesterday. If Dreamguy wants the Whitechapel Murders in a seperate article, why did he delete the hard researched material in it and redirect the article here?Colin4C 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want a separate article, that article is nothing but a policy-violating WP:CFORK file tring to compete with a different POV than the main article. The article only contained material that you tried and failed to get into the main article. If it was valuable, "hard researched" content then it would have been accepted here. It wasn't. DreamGuy 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Use Ripperologist but only with a source and preferably just to note that people refer to themselves as such. If it's a sourced term, it should be mentioned somewhere. --clpo13_(talk) 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am not misunderstanding you, are you suggesting citing the source of "Ripperology/Ripperologist" as a sobriquet and when it began being used, and leave it at that? If so,icould agree to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good compromise. Since it's in use, it should be mentioned, but I don't think it's the best idea to refer to people as such without giving preference to their actual expertise (ex. a historian who specializes in Ripper history should be referred to as a historian, not a Ripperologist). That's my two cents. --clpo13_(talk) 09:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do you think we should refer to people in the field as a whole when we can't go through and specify historian, former poice detective, author etc. because we are talking about many people instead of individuals? Just never mention it? That doesn't seem at all practical. DreamGuy 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That presumes there's a field at all. But when referring to anyone involved in studying the Ripper murders, why do we need to use a single word as opposed to a phrase (say, "people involved in studying the Ripper murders")? I just think the term "Ripperologist" is too unencyclopedic to use too often. But I don't feel too strongly either way. --clpo13_(talk) 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's a field. And whether you feel the term isn't up to your standards isn't really the question, it's what the people in the field think. If the name was unaccepted it certainly wouldn't be in the title of two books and a publication and referenced by most of these authors. DreamGuy 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It can get a little awkward at times. I prefer "Ripper historian" in general, because "historian" is a vague enough term to encompass everyone. (You can be an author, police detective, etc., and still be an amateur historian) However, in writing my draft proposal, I did find at least one occasion where using the term "Ripperology" made the prose flow much more naturally. I agree the term is unencyclopedic so should be avoided if possible, but it's well-sourced enough that if we use it now and then, it's not the end of the world. --Jaysweet 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:I think that's a fair compromise, too. If they have no academic credentials, but wrote a book, then they are an 'author'. Nobody gets referred to specifically as a Ripperologist, and Ripperology gets referred to once. Yeah. that can work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Prefer "Ripper historian" to "Ripperologist" I certainly think there is enough WP:RS evidence to mention that "Ripper historians are informally known as Ripperologists." However, I would think the article should generally prefer the more precise term "Ripper historian." "Ripperologist" is informal and vague, whereas "Ripper historian" leaves no ambiguity as to what precisely we mean.

Arcayne's concerns -- that "Ripperologist" implies some sort of formal degree or something -- are interesting, but ultimately I am not too worried about that. I don't think anyone is going to say, "Oh gee, these people must have all gone to school for six years to get a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ripperology" ;D But, I think to the layperson, "Ripper historian" is just much more clear, and in fact sounds more respectable to my (admittedly layperson) ears. --Jaysweet 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that I carefully chose the word "prefer." I do not think we need to avoid the term "Ripperologist" like the plague, and in fact in referring to some of the Ripper historians, it may make sense to refer to them as a "self-professed Ripperologist" or something like that, depending on context. I haven't read all of it carefully enough to be sure. In any case, I just want to clarify that I mean the article should in general prefer "Ripper historian" to "Ripperologist", but if there are situations where it is less awkward to use the latter, or otherwise more informative, I don't think it's a big problem. I don't consider "Ripperologist" to be POV, I just consider it to be a little unencyclopedic. --Jaysweet 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New draft

This is still a bit of a work in progress, but you can see the gist of what I am trying to get it. I know a lot of the prose I added is a little unencyclopedic, and it probably contains some inaccuracies since I am by no means a Ripper expert. I also want to do some tweaks to the lede and to a few of the other sections. But here is the gist of it:

Comments? --Jaysweet 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it begins to move it forward. Further expansion is needed preceding the lists. I think there's too much emphasis on violent crime. My reading of East End 1888 is that the area was largely self policing, and the murders were surprising events to locals and authorities alike. (That's not to say they weren't prepared to prey on slummers from up-west!). A step forward, accepted that it's still a draft. Cheers. Kbthompson 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great comment! As I said, I am not a Ripper expert, and actually I think the fact that I got this detail wrong after reading the current article just further demonstrates the need for a narrative section to give context to the layperson. Feel free to make edits to the draft in my User space as needed. --Jaysweet 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As in Dreamguy's version the eleven Whitechapel murders are mixed up with a lot of other murders not listed in the police files at the time. I think we should keep the Whitechapel murders in a discrete list and also abide by the majority descision here on what is right to do with respect to this...Colin4C 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing a majority decision here to ditch the canonical five in favor of the full file full of all unsolved murders in the area, whether related to the Ripper case or not. And if it were a majority, that by itself doesn't demonstrate consensus to do so by any means. Temporarily having one more vote than the other side in an ongiong discussion does not a consensus make. DreamGuy 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall I see where you are going with this and like it, but I think it can be improved.

I think the Whitechapel Murders is not quite right for a title for the new subsection, and the content seems a little iffy in parts. My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that a leading subsection can give background information, but doesn't exist to give a summary of the major events... I believe sumaries go in the lead itself. So I think some of the current content of this section might be better off in the lead, and perhaps some of the things currently in the lead might be better somewhere else in the article. The fact that people studying the field call themselves Ripperologists, while significant, isn't lead material.

So perhaps some moving of sentences around and that first subsection being "Background" or "Social something or anothers of the area" or whatever. DreamGuy 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to DreamGuy and Kbthompson for their comments regarding the new section I have suggested. Guys, your suggestions sound great -- feel free to edit User:Jaysweet/Jack the Ripper to incorporate any improvements you see. Despite it being in my User space, I do not consider that I own that page; I am simply using at as a good place to draft changes, since the article itself is protected. Edit away!

In regards to Colin's comments on the Victims section and how it shares the same problems as DreamGuy's... funny you should say that, since at the time you commented, it was a direct cut-and-paste of DG's Victims section ;p

Okay, sarcasm aside though, I had a bit of an "Ah hah!" moment reading your comments. To test my understanding, I think that:

• DreamGuy's primary objection to Colin's version is that it de-emphasizes the canonical five, in relation to the other six victims that were in the police's files on the 11 "Whitechapel murders".
• Colin's primary objection to DreamGuy's version is that it de-emphasizes the eleven "Whitechapel murders", in relation to various other crimes that may or may not have occurred around the same time period, and which are occasionally credited to Jack the Ripper.

It suddenly hit me that the remedies to these respective criticisms are not mutually exclusive. In other words, I think there is a chance we can have our cake and eat it too.

Please check the latest revision of User:Jaysweet/Jack the Ripper#Victims. What I have done here is to try to incorporate elements from both drafts. I have separated the eleven official "Whitechapel murders" from the others, as in Colin's version. Within that section, I have split it into two subsections, the first emphasizing the "canonical five" and the other giving details about the other official "Whitechapel murders."

I may have some factual inaccuracies, and some of my prose is a little redundant because of the amount of copy-and-paste I was doing, but do you guys at least see where I am going here? What do you think of the general idea? Is this a format worth pursuing (knowing full well that my draft version will need some major overhaul for readability and flow)? Or are we really stuck picking one or the other? --Jaysweet 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think separating out the Whitechapel Murders file for secondary attention probably still gives undue weight to some murders that nobody but nobody thinks was a Ripper victim versus some others that are slightly more popular, but at this point I think it's a reasonable compromise and would accept that. DreamGuy 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of terming it "Whitechapel Murders" perhaps it could be de-emphasized by instead calling it "Murders in Whitechapel". I think it addresses some (but admittedly not all) of the Undue issues you believe to be there. As for evaluating who victims and suspects are, I think a great deal of it needs to be left to the reader. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I accept Jaysweet's compromise but don't think 'Whitechapel Murders' should be changed to 'Murders in Whitechapel'. The police and press at the time called them 'The Whitechapel Murders' and the sequence of them in this particular district was noted on at the time and created 'fear in the streets' in Whitechapel up till 1891. According to Fido the (uncanonical) tenth murder (of Clay Pipe Alice) in 1890 prompted the local prostitutes to abandon the streets for the first time. I.e. they were not seen as random murders but as connected and illustrative and demonstrative of the terrible social conditions in Whitechapel at the time. And as I have said before how many of them were killed by the same serial killer(s) remains an open question. Colin4C 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'Whitechapel murders' are an accepted term for the group of twelve murders (see the Met Police museum link, somewhere above). I think the distinction is to ensure that readers do not confuse them with the accepted Ripper murders. Probably a separate article is the best place for an exposition of the detail, with a link to here to show that part of that sequence are the accepted Ripper murders, but with a summary here to show that the Ripper murders are part of a wider sequence. It's a part of getting the balance right between providing a context for these murders and the kind of focus that DG demands. Kbthompson 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had also gotten the impression that "Whitechapel murders" was the name of the police file or something. In a related note, you'll note most of the prose I added is poorly sourced -- if we are going to refer to the eleven investigated by the police using the term "Whitechapel murders," we should source that. I will add a {fact} tag at the first point I introduce it. Also, I will delete the early reference to "Macnaghten Five" if the term is at all controversial (I don't think it's necessary to introduce that controversy so early on).

Kbthompson, do you have a source regarding the "self-policing" nature of the Whitechapel area? If Whitechapel really was low crime prior to the murders, I would like to fix that in the intro.

Again, folks, feel free to edit my draft (I see DreamGuy already corrected some factual inaccuracies in the prose I added, thanks!). It needs a lot of work from people more knowledgeable than me before it is ready for prime-time. I think we've got a direction that everyone can compromise on, but the details still need hammering out. --Jaysweet 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The file of these unsolved murders is indeed called "Whitechapel Murders file", but it's not to say that the police thought one person was responsible for all of them. The Macnaghten Five reference was a footnote, but I think the draft added it to the main text, and I tried to reword it so it was better for main text, but I think it works better as a mere footnote as we had it or not at all.

The idea that Whitechapel was self-policing, however, is incorrect. It was by far one of if not the highest crime area in London before the murders and after. Booth's poverty maps, for example, colored many sections as having outright criminals as the major type of person in many of these areas. DreamGuy 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, ironically, around the time you posted this, I had just changed my draft to reflect the "self-policing" notion. I'll change it back. Do you have a proper cite for the Booth poverty maps? Either way, I want to source the "Background" sections assertion on the level of crime in Whitechapel.

I think if we are careful to refer to the "Whitechapel Murders file" as opposed to the "Whitechapel Murders," then it will be clear to readers that we are talking about what the police investigated, not what they and future Ripperologists eventually concluded were the most likely victims. I do think there are three distinct tiers here: The canonical five are almost certainly Jack's victims. The other six in the "file" were murders that indisputably occurred in the area around the same time frame, and which police did at least some cursory investigation into whether there was a connection. The remaining "murders" are events that either a) quite possibly didn't even happen, b) were violent attacks rather than murders, or c) despite being unsolved, were clearly unconnected to Jack and so therefore didn't even warrant consideration by the police. --Jaysweet 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I see you beat me to it on the self-policing vs. high crime thing. Good job. I'd still love to get a citation that Whitechapel was high crime even prior to the autumn of 1888... --Jaysweet 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have put some comments on the draft version at User talk:Jaysweet/Jack the Ripper. --Jaysweet 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that the name of the putative serial killer 'Jack the Ripper' was derived from a seeming hoax letter to a news agency after the double event of the Stride and Eddowes murders (the third and fourth of the canonicals). Before that the murderer was known as the Whitechapel Murderer. The Whitechapel murders were known by that designation by both police and press and if you press Whitechapel murders you will be redirected here...'Jack the Ripper' is mostly a figure of myth and legend and a great way to hype-up books on the case. Putting 'Jack the Ripper' as the title of a book almost guarantees sales whereas 'The Whitechapel Murders' would be a dead loss to the publishers. Hopefully we of the wikipedia are in the business of facts rather than media hype. We are doing this for free aren't we? Colin4C 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but also the name of the article should, in general, be the most commonly used term -- in this case, that's our friend Jackie. There are exceptions, of course, when the commonly used term is clearly inaccurate..

I definitely think there should only be one article, as per WP:CFORK. So the only question you are raising in my mind is wether Whitechapel murders should redirect to Jack the Ripper or if Jack the Ripper should redirect to Whitechapel murders. You'll be hard-pressed to convince me of the latter, even though the name "Jack the Ripper" is taken from a letter of questionable authenticity. But I suppose if you could cite a similar precedent in Wikipedia... --Jaysweet 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...a good example is the West Port murders committed by the notorious duo of Burke and Hare. Burke and Hare redirects to the West Port murders rather than vice-versa. Colin4C 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. That is indeed a good example. Google for "Burke and Hare" turns up a lot more hits than "West Port murders", so the analogy seems sound.

Let me ask you: How strongly do you feel about this issue? I think you have a potentially valid point, but I hate to throw such a big monkeywrench into the works when we are making such good progress towards a compromise... --Jaysweet 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to abide by the majority decision and don't want to make a big issue out of this. If everybody else is happy with 'Jack the Ripper' as the name of this article so am I. Colin4C 11:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't grab a random Wikipedia article title and use that to try to prove that this one should be done the same way. As a matter of fact, since the Burke and Hare murders are far better known by their names than location, it's clear that that title is incorrect, by the standard Wikipedia MOS article naming conventions.

On top of that, Colin himself admitted as such on the talk page of that article: "Just to say that despite reading more than one book on Burke and Hare, the title of this article: 'West Port murders' means nothing to me. Wouldn't 'Burke and Hare' be a better title, and one that people would recognise?. Colin4C 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)" So why he is making the opposite argument here is beyond me.DreamGuy 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, I did ask Colin for an example, so that's why he "grabbed a random Wikipedia article" that showed it being done a certain way. That said, I really don't want to open this can of worms, and it looks like Colin is okay with "Jack the Ripper" as the title. While I think one could make an argument to call it Whitechapel Murders, it doesn't sound like a single person here is really interested in having that argument ;D So let's just leave it alone. --Jaysweet 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment By far the greatest influx to Whitechapel and Bethnal Green by 1888 were Askenhazi Jews - about the half the population (see Dicken's more excessive rants against foreigners). The ghetto (blame Dickens) stretching from Middlesex Street through to just short of Mile End gate (about where Whitechapel tube is today) and beyond the Commercial Rd in the south. With Dutch Jewish cigar makers occupying the plusher properties of Spitalfields, to the north. The Irish, by this time, were in greater concentration around the docks (weaving having disappeared by the 1880s); although many of the poorer sort occupied the courts around Whitechapel. Immigrant numbers were swelled by the Russian and German politicos fleeing various revolutions and persecution. It was Charles Warren, commissioner of police who claimed that London is the safest place in the world for life and property (Nov 1888!); recorded crime was also dropping in the East End, partly due to the efforts of the Christian Missions.

Numbers of people were attracted to Whitechapel for the concentration of music halls and public houses; prostitutes were based and entered the district in order to service their needs. Useful to work out what the defn of brothel is in that statement - was it a house of prostitutes, or an individual working from a room. Recorded crime was often swelled by 'being indigent' ie having no money - damned if you steal, damned if you don't.

Whitechapel was never a borough. It was a civil parish with responsibilities vested in the Whitechapel District Board of Works. Acceptable phrases would be Whitechapel civil parish, or Whitechapel District. The Stepney division of the met covered Whitechapel from 1829, Bethnal Green go J div in 1865. In 1888, I have no idea which one covered Whitechapel. The police were generally unpopular and suspected, as they weren't local people. I'd want a cite for the sheer volume of unsolved murders. I'm not so sure it's true, or if it is, I think it deserves a cite, if not numbers. Otherwise, why only list 12 over 3 years?

Anyway, well done, I do think a lot of progress is being made. Kbthompson 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Whitechapel murders occured on the patch of 'H' division based at a police station on Commercial Street (London). I think this building still survives??? Hopefully we will eventually have a coherent account in the article of the police investigation into the case, though this is quite a complex story...As for the 'sheer volume of unsolved murders' I too am dubious about this assertion and would like some hard data. Colin4C 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The original line in the article about "sheer volume of unsolved murders" was a reference to the 11 in the file versus the 5 thought to actually be by the Ripper, but there were a number of other unsolved murders not in that file during the years in question... probably a question of slightly different location, like mutilated bodies found in the Thames... the torso murders listed in the possible other victims section of the Casebook.org victims page and in several books on the topic, specifically by R. Michael Gordon. Many of that is already in this article under possible other victims unless that got ripped out at some point and I missed it. There were others too, but there's no full listing of the ones turned up in research over the past ten years or so, so the full extent of it is not able to be cited from one source but would require a mishmash of individual journal articles and news reports. DreamGuy 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sheer volume" was a phrase that I added as part of the new prose to introduce the victims section. I was never very happy with that phraseology either -- it sounds more like a shampoo commercial than an encyclopedia ;D I liked KBthompson's suggestion of, rather than trying to characterize the number with an adjective, just say: More than a dozen unsolved murders in three years. I'll try changing it now. (But this is probably my last major edit for today, I have been slacking at work to get this damn article in shape!) --Jaysweet 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I used "over a dozen" so as to avoid the problem of precisely counting the murders. I think that is pretty safe. And yes, the "Other possible victims" section is still there. --Jaysweet 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A few questions (deja vu happening all over again)

• I seem to recall an illustration where police officers were standing off to the right and a suspicious character in brimmed hat walks around the corner to the left. I cannot seem to find it in Google. Was that a period illustration, or a later development? That image can be seen here.
• There was a Criminal Investigative Analysis (aka profiling) done by the FBI in 1988 about the Ripper. I don't see it here or in the locked article. Is there a reason it isn't being included? I think it would be brilliant to actually include an analysis that doesn't come from someone making a buck off the ripper killings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To your first point, that illustration is from the October 13, 1888, issue of the Illustrated London News. I have an original copy. Those are notpolice men but part of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee -- sort of a Victorian neighborhood watch program.

To the second point, there have been a fair number of profiles done on the Ripper case, the FBI one (more Robert Ressler than the FBI,really, despite the publicity) just got the most hype. Dr. Robert Keppel, Dr. Kim Rossmo and Professor David Canter are just three other professional profilers who have tackled the case. The profiles do not agree with each other on many of their conclusions. Mentioning one without the others would be a POV problem. I personally never tackled it because it would be a great deal of work for little end benefit, in my mind. No publication that I am aware of has ever tried to go through and sort them all out for comparison purposes, so there may even be an OR problem to tackle it here.

And, as a general comment, this type of discussion belongs more on the main page talk page instead of here. DreamGuy 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So Arcayne has restored this here... heh, not to Wikilawyer too much, but technically since this is in my User talk space, I can make whatever edits I damn well please :p That said, why exactly did you want it here? I have been trying to keep this discussion focused on the compromises that will get the article unprotected... it seems to me that, while your suggestions here might improve the article in the long term, they are not necessary or beneficial to that narrow goal. Maybe I am missing something? --Jaysweet 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(Brought over from the draft discussion because, quite simply, it isn't worth the hassle discussing why the convo is in one place and not the other,w hen its the content that needs discussing instead. A prefacting remark: what follows is the substance of the discussion after being asked why the comments below weren't better directed here for discussion.)

The reason why I ask about the image is that, like the placeholder image in the main article the illustration in question is an interpretation. However, I am thinking that a lot of people may not realize that Merry's illustration is that of the back of the Ripper, and not a circus-type poster. I am thinking that this image might be better, as it conveys the feeling of the people who the Ripper was (shifty guy with straggly long hair, looking all sinister and whatnot), and also illustrates the efforts of the Vigilance Committee (two for one). I asked about it here, because I am guessing there would be opposition to replacing the old image with this one. Since both are in the public domain, there is little worry of fair use. that DG has both is excellent, as he can likely scan in a nifty copy.

As well, i addressed the FBI profiling, as it would seem to be an official source (FOIA, FBI seal and everything), making it a far more reliable source than say, a book on the Ripper. The Feebs who dothe profiling are experts. Because of this, I am wondering if the article should approach the subject with these profiles in mind. I know of two, have the link to one, and DG says there is another. Three ultra-reliable sources from preemininent experts inthe field of forensic psychology. I am not sure it gets better than that. If they contradict, so what? We structure the article and address these profiles, citing them separately, if need be. If DG has the links to the others, please post them here, and i'll do the heavy lifting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of these discussions should be on the main article talk page and not here, as they have nothing to do with the reason the article is locked and the proposal to come to a compromise to get it unlocked. Considering that Jaysweet even took the time to move it there and there is no reason to not have it there, putting it back here is counterproductive. There would have to be lots of discussion before either of these changes are attempted, because they would be controversial, and we have more important things to worry about right now. DreamGuy 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the article is locked not because of specific edits but because of a basic lack of cooperation within the editing process itself amongst the edits. As the proposal of a placeholder image substitution (and inclusion of the FBI analyses) is likely going to engender the same basic disagreement that caused the article to be locked in the first place, it seems prudent to discuss the matter where we are discussing the new draft, which is seeming to replace the main article upon unlocking. If you feel that this is an inaccurate assessment of the difficulties we would be encountering with these two issues, then there isn't a need to discuss the matter further, and I will replace the image now in the draft. I will of course discuss the FBI profilings individually, not in comparison (I didn't see any references comparing them either), which avoids OR issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the page is locked because you and Colin were blind reverting the whole article just to reinsert small sections you wanted to protect. We are trying to resolve those areas of dispute at this time, which is what the sandbox article is intended to do. If you replace the image in the draft without getting a consensus decision when you have reason to believe it is controversial, then you are purposefully trying to create new controversy and will further prevent the article from ever being unlocked. You need to learn and follow the basic Wikipedia rules for dealing with these kinds of situations, not escalate the problems further.-- DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a temporary moratorium on using the phrase "blind revert" in any context. That phrase got tossed around an awful lot in the discussions/arguments that led to the page protection and the general mess we are in now. The page is protected now, so nobody can do any kind of revert, blind or otherwise -- so any reference to "blind revert" is a reference to a past we are trying to move away from. I think it would be a good idea if we just avoided the phrase altogether for a little while. ---- Jaysweet (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of that term or not doesn't change the facts of what happened. The fact that blind reverting happened is 100% proven, as Arcayne said straight out he didn't care what was in the revert he made and when individual contents were discussed he disagreed strongly with content that he himself had put in the article. If Arcayne brings up past edits and makes false claims about what happened, then he can expect to be set right on the matter. If instead he wants to deal with the issues that got the article locked and move forward, then he will have to desist from misrepresenting the past, focus on the specific controversies under discussion, and not take aggressive actions on new topics. There has to be a good faith effort to resolve problems and not to edit war, and it doesn't look like he gets that at all. -- DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your continued use of that term simply indicates your personal interpretation of those edits. They weren't blind, as have been explained several times. I could care less about the substance yours (meaning your DreamGuy and anonymous account) or Colin's edits. I took a conscious step top halt the edit war. I succeeded in that task. Period.

You didn't like the edits. We got it. loud and clear. Does your continued complaining about it go anywhere? Nope. You can either continue beating a dead horse (bc you aren't convincing anyone that you are the Little Girl Lost here), or you can cowboy up and move along. Every time you misrepresent prior events (like why the article was locked), you are going to get called on it; Every single time. It is high time you realize that you aren't changing my or anyone else's mind using bad behavior, and are likely going to end up in trouble yet again.

So - in the strongest possible terms, I urge you to strive to attain a level of professionalism which has been sorely lacking in your edit history. Whether you like it or not, your behavior places the reins of your future here at Wikipedia in others' hands. To earn them back, you need to edit not only intelligently, but professionally and politely as well. Learn to play well with others. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just give it a rest already... you can't start beating a dead horse while telling everyone it's really a zebra and expect people not to correct you. If you want to try to claim then that other people are the ones beating the horse and that you had nothing to do with it, hey, we already know you believe whatever you want to believe and we already know not to take these activities of yours seriously. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. DG. You are aware that your statement: "hey, we already know you believe whatever you want to believe and we already know not to take these activities of yours seriously" could easily be perceived as uncivil? Please stop. Of course, you should feel free to apologize for your lapse. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're the last person here who can talk about other people's incivility. You are even edit warring on the sandboxed article page over the objections of two different editors and demanding you have your own way no matter what anyone else says. You've got a major case of the pot calling the kettle black, and the admins already know now what your accusations are worth. You've lost this game of yours a long time back, and trying to stir up more trouble isn't going to work either. DreamGuy (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I am sorry, you are wrong. Again. I am not edit-warring. Apparently you kept missing those edit summaries wherein I said, 'hey, take it to discussion'. You missed that, right? Also, please take a moment and point out wherein I demanded - apparently a favorite word of yours to use when someone doesn't cave to your wishes. I mean, specifically wherein my tone or wording used the word 'demand'. See, that won't happen, because the only place where the 'demand' part came from is your interpretation.

I've already warned you before about your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. the very next time you introduce something in that veing about or to me, I will report you toArbCom enforcement. I have done nothing to warrant being accused and berated and attacked and I've tolerated about as much of it as I am going to. So I will leave the choice up to you; I do not expect an apology, but the very next time you are uncivil to myself or someone else, the report gets filed. Consider this your last warning.

Now on to the meat of the matter. The part n the draft where it talks about Ripperology is such:

1. "This has given rise to the term Ripperologist to refer to amateurs and professionals who study and analyze the case."

2. "This has given rise to the term Ripperologist to refer to professional historians and authors as well as amateurs who study and analyze the case"

Of these two versions, I prefer the first one, as it is neutral, streamlined, accurate and to the point (not to mention both alphabetical and flows better). The main problems with the second version is that it specifies professionals as only being historians. what about the cops and shrinks and pathologists and other professionals? It's awkward and - while not inaccurate - not altogether inclusive. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ripper Letters Section

In my opinion the Ripper Letters info box is redundant and makes the article seem cluttered. Since the text already uses bullet points to highlight the three most important letters and the length of the section itself is short, I think the Ripper Letters info box is unnecessary and superfluous. My solution would be to delete the Ripper Letters info box entirely, add an image of one of the letters in its place or move the image of George Lusk there instead. Stephoswalk 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack

This article is rather vague and shows no real knowledge or insight....it may as well be a cut and paste of all Ripper information available.

I have had an extensive look at the case and think it is quite blatently obvious that Joseph Barnett was the culprit. Of course their is no proof but I would be quite shocked if this was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.128.39 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 18 November 2007

Thank god, he's got in touch that will make it so much easier to rewrite this page ... Kbthompson (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not a cut and paste, and I'm afraid I don't understand how you can claim it has no insight or knowledge... but then it could very well just be another example of someone who read a couple of pages on a website picked a favorite suspect and is upset that the article doesn't spend a lot of space trying to advance that argument. Barnett really doesn't have anything in his favor as a suspect, but at least it was someone actually in London at the time (unlike Sickert, the Prince, Cream, Carroll and others some people have tried to claim was responsible). DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting on use of Ripperologist term (take two)

This pertains to the new draft version of the article by Jaysweet. In the Lead of that draft, there has been a bit of back and forth regarding the usage of the following terms used to describe Ripperologists:

• 1. "This has given rise to the term Ripperologist to refer to amateurs and professionals who study and analyze the case."
• 2. "This has given rise to the term Ripperologist to refer to professional historians and authors as well as amateurs who study and analyze the case"

Of these two versions, I prefer the first one, as it is neutral, streamlined, accurate and to the point (not to mention both alphabetical and flows better), though I am not entirely opposed to making it 'professionals and amateurs'. The main problems with the second version is that it specifies professionals as only being historians. What about the cops and shrinks and pathologists and other professionals? It's awkward and - while not wholly inaccurate - not altogether inclusive. As well, not all historians are professionals (ie, having degrees in history and employed as such). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not neutral, it's less informative, and if you object to the longer wording then "professionals and amateurs" can be a compromise, but "amateurs and professionals" completely skews the reality of things, especially as part of your well-established history of trying to downplay the credentials of people in the field. DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think either "amateurs and professionals" or "professionals and amateurs" would be sufficient. The second choice is not only unwieldy but also narrow in scope since people other than just historians and authors might call themselves Ripperologists. My vote remains for the first version either as "amateurs and professionals" or "professionals and amateurs". Stephoswalk (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to indent but I vote for the first version for the reasons you mentioned. Stephoswalk (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't really have much of an edit history on Wikipedia. It seems odd for such a new user to be jmping into this with no edits elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone without a lot of edits doesn't get to weigh in, DreamGuy, or are you suggesting something else? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Not a lot of edits" would be vastly overstating his edit history. It's common practice in votes to point out when new accounts show up out of nowhere that the editor has no history. There are any number of reasons why this would be true, but on other pages where votes are counted such accounts are routinely discounted for all the reasons that I'm sure everyone here already knows. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone starts somewhere, DG; either way, his her opinion is as valid as anyone's. Of course, if you have reason or inclination to think he's she's not on the up and up, put your insinuation into a report. It doesn't belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me try this again, since you seemed to have missed it: "It's common practice in votes to point out when new accounts show up out of nowhere that the editor has no history. There are any number of reasons why this would be true, but on other pages where votes are counted such accounts are routinely discounted for all the reasons that I'm sure everyone here already knows." -- What's so hard to follow about that statement? No report is necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't miss the inference the first time you made it (or the second, or the third). Common practice would have been to ask the person on their talk page, not drop the barely subtle accusation. It was uncool. Anyway, you backed off the statement, so good. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am female. Stephoswalk (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I've altered my posts accordingly.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been an avid reader of Wikipedia for years but only recently decided to try helping out with editing. I have an extensive true crime library and have been interested in serial killers for most of my life. Since I often come to Wikipedia to read criminal biographies, I might as well contribute when I can. From what I've seen in the Talk archives, I thought my opinions might be helpful in improving this article. Stephoswalk (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Crap, what a way to get welcomed - getting a not-so-subtle suggestion that you are either a sock-puppet or not qualified to edit. Sigh.

Let's try this again, Welcome to Wikipedia, Stephoswalk. As you are new to the editing part of WP, please feel free to ask questions. As for the indenting thing, when you edit, note that before each new person edits, they add a colon before their posts. As more people contribute, they add more colons in increasing order, until it gets a bit too much, at which time people usually write (outdent) or (un-indent), and starts over with a single colon. If you have any other questions please feel free to to ask on a User's Talk page; most of the folk you will meet here are friendly, helpful and happy to help.

Thanks for weighing in. Any comments you might have about this or any other article, so long as it follows the Five Pillars, will usually be considered nifty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from personal attacks and insinuations? This is a vote, not a free-for-all. Need I remind the editors involved that the page will not become unprotected if the only discussion that occurs involves insults? Improvement, not criticism, is what's important here. --clpo13_(talk) 08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. the sniping on all sides needs to stop, as it perpetuates folk getting upset at mischaracterizations and whatnot and contributes to a hostile editing environment. If people are being uncivil or impolite, report them - there are specific pages for that, and none of them are this Discussion page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:POT. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Support option 1, but the other way round, if it provides some comfort to DG, the other is far too unwieldy an expression - and I'm not sure it adds anything. How is someone going to be a professional Ripperologist, if not an author or historian - well, I suppose you could sell memorabilia from a stall down the Lane. And then, neither does snippiness add anything - and welcome Stephoswalk. Kbthompson (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are some law enforcement officials as well as tour guides, website owners and others who have a profession peripherally related to the case who may refer to themselves as Ripperologists. Stephoswalk (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather my point exactly, by remaining more general in the Lead, it allows for expansion of what professionals and amateurs consider themselves (or are dubbed by others as) "Ripperologists". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that'd be selling memorabilia down the Lane, then ... 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We can remain general in the lead, but we cannot put biased language into it. Listing amateurs first is a clear attempt by you to slant the language so that your viewpoint -- that these people are mere amaters -- is given undue weight. Throughout this page and the sandbox page you've been actively campaiging against the people in the field and used inflammatory language to describe them. This statement is less biased than some of the other things you have tried to get in, but it is still biased. DreamGuy (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that your championing of "Ripperology" is the only real bias here. You will note that the statement says amateurs and professionals. Professionals are specifically being added to the field of "Ripperology" - the order is alphabetical and most professional persons in the field would frankly not initially describe themselves by the moniker; they would call themselves former cops or psychologists or whatever. I don't think it could be argued that amateurs make up the greater part of "Ripperology" - therefore it is also more noteworthy to consider them first. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From the previous discussion in this (take two) section Arcayne stated that he is "not entirely opposed to making it 'professionals and amateurs'" and DreamGuy stated that "'professionals and amateurs' can be a compromise". Kbthompson and I both said that the first choice with the order reversed is fine with us, so at this point it appears that we all agree that "professionals and amateurs" is acceptable. Let's do it and move forward with improving the article. We agree! Woohoo!! - Stephoswalk (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. We're done. "Professionals and amateurs", it is. Yay!. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

... and now the next sentence .... Kbthompson (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Serial Killer?

Okay, let's move on. It's been discussed a couple of times before how we treat the nature of the killer's (or killers') crimes. What classification makes a serial killing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(culled from the Jawsweet draft section, "Serial killer" vs. "individual":)

What do people think about this? I am not sure I agree with Arcayne's point that since "serial killer" was not in common usage at the time, it should be avoided here... but "individuals" might be a little more precise and encyclopedic anyway. I think I like that better. Opinions? --Jaysweet 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Individuals" is not precise, as it could mean bakers or pianists or whatever. "Serial killer" is definitely specific and encyclopedic. When the term was created isn't an issue, as that's the overwhelmingly accepted term now, and readers are reading it now, not 120 years ago. DreamGuy 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Accepted by who? "Repperologists?" We don't even know if the dude (or gal) fit the definition of a serial killer, and not a spree or a mass murderer. As well, some of the theories - addressed in the body of the text speak to the possibility of multiple murderers, ergo, individual or individuals - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I must have missed something... I thought a "serial killer" was simply a person who killed more than one person over the course of more than one event (they "kill" "serially"). Since the murders in Whitechapel occurred over the course of several months, if even two of them (excluding the "double event") were committed by the same individual, that individual is by definition a "serial killer", right? I think?

Anyway, I'm on the fence on this one. I don't agree with Arcayne's reasoning for preferring "individual", but I see other reasons (e.g. it is more concise, it is not a loaded term, etc.) So it's a tough call... --Jaysweet 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A really good article on defining serials can be found here (I was actually surprised that it was actually the first choice in the search - the very one I actually already knew back from Abnormal Psych 320). As there are a lot of pieces of Jack's puzzle missing (childhood, motivation, crime signature, "trophies" taken from all the supposed victims, etc.), its inaccurate to include the term. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In at least one instance, it flowed well to replace "individual" with "killer," and since it was referring to the canonical five in that case, it's hard to dispute that word (after all, all five were indeed killed by someone...)

In the other instance, I remain torn. Also, I should point out there are like five other times when the article uses the phrase "serial killer," some clearly appropriate, some more questionable...

Incidentally, Wikipedia defines Serial killer as "someone who murders three or more people in three or more separate events over a period of time for largely psychological gratification." I don't like that "largely psychological gratification" at the end -- I mean, want percent of the killers motive has to be psychological gratification to qualify as a serial killer? 51%? heh... In any case, I think any time we are referring to a hypothetical Jack as being someone who killed three or more people in three separate events involving evisceration, it is fine to use "serial killer," as it is hard to see any motive for evisceration other than psychological gratification. I mean, they didn't have organ transplants in 1888, right? heh... --Jaysweet 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps I am not making my point adequately, and I apologize for that. To begin with, we cannot really use Wikipedia's (inadequate, imho) definition to supply our own. there are a great many types of multiple killers, from spree-, lust- (which actually is what the FBI considers the Ripper to be), and mass-killers. There are more killers that don't fit the bill of a serial killer, like someone who does it for pay or for political reasons. Since everything that has been posited about JtR is essentually specualtion, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the Ripper as a mass murderer, or simply killer. As the killings (5. 11 or however many) do not supply a lot of information about the killer (due to police ineptitude or a simple lack of the forensic techniques that were just starting to be developed at that time), we cannot encyclopedically define the Ripper as anything other than a killer (or killers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I dunno about that article you linked to... it seems to be talking more about the profile of a serial killer rather than the definition, e.g. it mentions that the typical serial killer is a white male. (Incidentally, this has inspired me to write my own book about Ripperology in which the killer is a lesbian Eskimo)

That said, where "killer" is not redundant or overly vague, that does seem mildly preferable... --Jaysweet 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a fairly long article, but the differences betwixt serial, spree and mass were noted. Good luck on the book. Your Inuit lesbian will be in good company, alongside such folk as Sickert, Prince Albert Victor, a small gang of light-saber-wielding squirrels and a broom with a mean disposition.

And when killer would be redundant, we could use murderer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne claimed: "We don't even know if the dude (or gal) fit the definition of a serial killer, and not a spree or a mass murderer." Sure we do. Mass murderer is right out, because that'd be someone who did all his killings all at once. Think suicide bomber. Spree killer is also not right, as the defining part there is having a single extended spree of killings with no downtime between them. Think of the guys who kill their families and then go off and start shooting at a mall or school or whatever. Serial killer is an absolutely indisputable term for the Jack the Ripper murders, as there was a gap of more than a month between two of the killings, and even if that one weren't there the weeks between the others still would rule out a spree killer. DreamGuy 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, your definitions of spree and mass killers are incorrect, but they are layman mistakes. I've already pointed out the difference, and provided you a link so as to learn. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne -- maybe I am confused, because the link you sent does not contain the text "spree" or "mass". My impressions of the definitions of "serial killer" vs. "spree killer" vs. "mass murderer" generally conform to DreamGuy's definitions -- but I am basing my assumptions on a parsing of the literal meaning of the words. If there is a field where these terms are jargon, where the words do not mean what they literally mean, heh, you'll need a source that specifically mentions "spree killer" and "mass murderer" (as well as "serial killer").

Also, please be careful of characterizations like "layman mistakes." Nobody should be called a layman here unless they volunteer that status themselves (i.e., you can call me a layman, but nobody else ;D ). We're making some progress here, and the last thing we need is to start drifting over into incivility again (I will be saying something similar to DG about a comment he made below). --Jaysweet 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of laymen was not intended as a slight. by design, people in wikipedia are all laymen. the terms described are fairly complex and involved, and attempting to stuff them into an (imo) overly simplistic definition by comparison is a bad path to begin walking down. Since we are beginning to lose focus, allow me to bringus back: we cannot prove the Ripper was a serial. we cannot prove M.O. We cannot determine with any certainty the pathology oif the killer and so therefore, it is speculative to assume such. I say we present the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. My goal here is simply that. My agenda is for inclusiveness, not exclusivity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what those words mean. Go look them up. Jaysweet has, and he knows I am right.

There is no way that saying that the Ripper was a serial killer is at all speculative, despite your attempts to redefine words to mean something other than what they mean.

And your attempt to try to claim I am layman is just completely off base... not only was it clearly not civil (despite your rationalizations), but it is also not accurate. If there's one thing you should have picked up by now, it's that I know quite a bit about this topic. I patiently explain various aspects all the time here, but it gets old when you simply refuse to believe them or go do the research yourself and just insist you are right. You're basically holding the article hostage to your lack of knowledge on the topic by aggressively insisting that everything be proven to *your* satisfaction when it's becoming very clear that the only way you will be satisfied is if you get your way whether you are right or not. It's the exact opposite way of how encyclopedia articles are supposed to be put together, and completely opposed to the spirit of working together. DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are going to be disagreements regarding any unsolved case simply because it is impossible for us to know all the details of the crime since we do not know the identity of the perpetrator. That being said, I think that the majority of people consider the Whitechapel murders a classic case of serial killing; in fact probably the most well-known historic case and the beginning of our modern obsession with serial killers. The Whitechapel murders fit the definition in the Crime Classification Manual which states "three or more separate events in three or more separate locations with an emotional cooling off period in between the homicides." There is no way for any of us to prove in this article who or what Jack the Ripper really was so, in the end, I think we have to go by consensus. And the majority of books and articles I have read on the subject say that Jack the Ripper was most probably a serial killer. - Stephoswalk (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The particular similarities of this group of murders point to a serial killer. My only worry would be that not enough are included in the core grouping - but I accept that would be hypothetical. He (and I say that advisedly) wasn't anywhere near the first, Palmer, Wainwright, Cotton and Wilson all pre-date him - all poisoners, strangely. There was almost the same media obsession with the West Port murders, by Burke and Hare and the London Burkers. He wasn't even the first to serial murder prostitutes, that honour goes to Dr Thomas Cream - but then that 'gentleman' was in prison when this lot kicked off. Kbthompson (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are of course many others that fit the definition of serial killer before Jack the Ripper including H. H. Holmes which is one of the most interesting historical cases to me. However the majority of people don't know who Burke and Hare, Thomas Cream, Jesse Pomeroy or H. H. Holmes are but they definitely know who Jack the Ripper is. That's why I said "the most well-known historic case" in my previous comment. Also most people when describing Jack the Ripper refer to him as a serial killer which is why I think the term has validity in this article, along with the fact that what we do know of the Whitechapel murders fits the most commonly accepted definition of serial killing. - Stephoswalk (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think my largest concern with the application of serial killer is that, according to the definition, there's little more than informed conjecture that any of the murders (even the canonical five) were committed by a single individual. Considering that, it would be spiffy if we actually had someone official naming Jack as a single single serial killer. Considering the fairly strict criteria for serial classification, we are missing a significant number of puzzle pieces. We aren't supposed to make these intuitive leaps. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your opinion and I agree that none of us can say for certain if all the murders were committed by a single individual or even which murders should be included. But in every unsolved serial murder case I can think of there is disagreements on which victims to include and if they were all done by the same killer. For example the Boston Strangler, Atlanta child murders, BTK and the Green River killers before they were caught, and even the Zodiac killer all have speculation regarding if a particular victim should be included on the list or not. It could have well have been the work of several murderers who used the well-publicized Jack the Ripper as a scapegoat to hide their own deeds. But in the end the majority of people involved in the case, then and now, seem to think that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer of at least the canonical five victims. - Stephoswalk (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that sort of lumping together makes sense and, since it has happened elsewhere, I can agree to inclusion. I think that it might be notable to mention something along the lines of:

'Though little is known about the killer, it is generally agreed amongst most investigators that at least five of the murders were committed by the same individual (or individuals) and meet the loose criterion of serial killings'.

This allows us to remain neutral on the matter of both what the body count was as well as agreeing that in the absence of more concrete evidence, that Jack is considered a serial killer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that sentence. Should it go under the Suspects section? - Stephoswalk (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there as well as the Lead, since the Lead is an overview of the article. It might be prudent to await other editorial input on this, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

'and meet the loose criterion of serial killings" : this is poorly worded and incorrect. The criteria are not loose, and not at all ambiguous in this case. This is just weasel wording to make something sound more complicated than it really is. Regardless of what suspect you think might have done it, how man victims were killed (nobody dips below three), and so forth, it is absolutely uncontroversial that this was a serial killer. All we need is how the article already has it: he was a serial killer (or killers). He wasn't a mass murderer. He wasn't a spree killer. He wasn't guilty of accidental manslaughter. If we are caught in some long debate or something so incredibly straightforward then it looks like we're going to be trapped having to explain things to Arcayne over and over and over to get anything done just because he wants to be contrary. Enough is enough already. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[Enough indents] ... I'm inclined to agree that the statement could read

'Though little is known about the killer, it is generally agreed amongst most investigators that at least five of the murders were committed by the same individual serial killer, or killers'.

without exceeding our brief. It's a fairly standard notion about the case. Qualifications about a longer series of murders, or copy cat crimes can be expanded elsewhere in the article. I also would say please don't get snippy with Arcayne, that wastes more time than anything else and one aspect of developing the article is to ask awkward questions. The outcome of article writing must be a text that introduces the subject to someone who has no prior knowledge of the case. Kbthompson (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been here very long but it seems like we're starting to make some progress. Let's keep the momentum going and focus on the article rather than each other. At this point we seem to be on the verge of a consensus regarding the serial killer sentence. 'Though little is known about the killer, it is generally agreed amongst most investigators that at least five of the murders were committed by the same individual.' To me that reads much better and the term serial killer is already being used in the opening sentence. But that's just my personal aesthetics and the sentence as posted previously is acceptable to me. I am just approaching this from the standpoint of someone who enjoys reading Wikipedia articles and likes things to flow. - Stephoswalk (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that seems it will do. We just need to reliably cite where somone notable has defined him as a serial killer. And yes, I do have a background in psychology that is not at all of an 'amateur' nature. The layman application for serial killing is a good deal looser than the actual criteria, which is indeed a great deal more complicated than what some would think. And yes, in the absence of finer attenuation as to specific MO, motivation, and psychological makeup, etc. Jack the Ripper is technically a mass murderer, not a serial killer.

Having said that, the criteria for inclusion to Wikipedia is reliability and verification, not actual truth. As enough laymen call him a serial killer, we aren't really taking intuitive leaps that other laymen haven't. Stephoswalk got it right. Taking cheap shots is just going to get folk blocked or banned, so maybe knock it off. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you think the Ripper is a mass murderer then it's absolutely obvious you do not have any background in the topic. Mass murderers kill multiple people all at the same time, not spread out over multiple locations or days. I mean, come on, this is extremely basic info for anyone who has done any reading in psychology or criminology. Please cite any reliable source at all to back up your assertion. You can't, so stop making it.

And, as far as the blocked or banned comment goes, please read WP:POT already. DreamGuy 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I would prefer if DreamGuy performed the archive this time. He undid the last two archivings, insisting that there was more to talk about. Do let us know when we have your 'permission' to archive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do some research and see if I can find sources that refer to Jack the Ripper as a serial killer. - Stephoswalk (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: I realize that websites are usually not considered a reliable source of information which is why I plan on continuing my research in published books later today. I do think that the websites I've listed below are better than most as far as information goes and was only a very small sampling of the results of my search.

Crime Library's article on Jack the Ripper is titled "Jack the Ripper, the most famous serial killer of all time" and is located under the Serial Killer category.[1] The extensive Casebook website refers to Jack the Ripper as a serial killer throughout, including several times in The FAQ and Introduction to the Case sections. [2] The BBC ran a story with an image of "what detectives believe serial killer Jack the Ripper looked like." [3] The History Channel also refers to Jack the Ripper as a serial killer. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephoswalk (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't deify books per se. In this field they're not 'peer reviewed' in the same sense as an academic discipline, and are often published for sensationalist reasons. A site like casebook does provide an incredible resource, in the sense of containing an enormous amount of transcriptions of contemporary sources. I think individual sources need to be taken in the light of experience of individual editors here - even if they don't always agree. I'd like to think there is a core of evidence upon which they can agree, and we can find a compromise on disagreements. Kbthompson (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I agree many books are not necessarily reliable either. When you're doing research, you've got to start somewhere. I don't know how many 'peer reviewed' academic papers there are on Jack the Ripper but I have several books from law enforcement officials that may mention Jack the Ripper that I would like to check. I'm just getting started. - Stephoswalk (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Serial Killer (arbitrary break 1)

This is just getting ridiculous. Arcayne insists his definitions of serial killer and mass murderer are correct, but says things that are simply outright wrong as shown in every source in the topic. When we provide reliable sources up the wazoo to prove that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, he still insists he is right and everyone else is wrong -- without giving any source at all for his claims, reliable or otherwise -- and then insists that he be provided not only with expert sources but peer-reviewed academic sources.... because in his mind he can ignore what all the books say in favor of his version. Well, hey, if you want peer reviewed academic sources, how about "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders" - Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2: 1-21 (2005) - Robert D. Keppel, Joseph G. Weis, Katherine M. Brown and Kristen Welch, which in no uncertain terms says Jack was a serial killer?
We have to stop letting Arcayne set the rules for what is and is not encyclopedic. We follow Wikipedia's WP:RS policy, not whatever some amateur off the street thinks. What it has come down to now is that Arcayne simply will not let the normal editing and consensus-building process here progress and insists upon making every single little obvious decision into some argument that goes on for weeks. There isn't a single person here who has agreed with him that the Ripper was a mass murderer, and several people have said straight out that a variety of sources and the definition of the word itself shows that the Ripper was a serial killer. Consensus is not Arcayne gets to have his way until enough people prove to his satisfaction that he is wrong, consensus is multiple people following policies and doing what needs to be done. At this point I think we just need to get Arcayne to say he won't make any changes to the article until he gets clear consensus on this talk page first... none of the conflicts above are about him supporting the status quo of the article over objections, its about him wanting some change to the article. As such, and when he sees that his edits are controversial, he needs to not revert to his version and accept the status quo until he gets agreement. Noncontroversial changes he makes can stay of course, but if he wants to make a change and knows others disagree (either from comments here or from someone reverting him), he should immediately stop reverting and get approval here first. That's just how Wikipedia works. And if he'd followed that principle from the beginning the page wouldn't have needed to be locked in the first place. DreamGuy 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an academic source indicating that Jack the Ripper is considered a serial killer. It was all I asked. Perhaps if you hadn't been concerned with opposing every single one of my edits, that might not have escaped your notice.

Gosh, where to start with all of that personal attack-y and uncivil stuff? Oh, I know where to address it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem to be working under the false belief that you can break any rules or policies you want to and when you get called on it you can label it a personal attack or being uncivil. You aren't working with others, you don't follow consensus, you insist that your changes have to stay unless other people meet arbitrary criteria you set... You can go complain again but the problem here is your behavior.

And I don't oppose "every single one" of your edits, just the bad ones, and which other editors fully agree with me upon when it's discussed. The fact that you make bad edits quite consistently and edit war over them, demanding your version stays over the longstanding consensus version and clear comments from other editors opposing your changes shows that you don't get how consensus or the standards of Wikipedia here work. DreamGuy 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the FBI analysis compiled by John Douglas in 1988 which also uses the term serial killer. [5] - Stephoswalk 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That and the source DG finally provided should do the trick and protect us in case anyone asks where we came by the classification. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody had asked about that for years except for you, and you insisted it was wrong and that you had some psychology background and knew more than people you called "layperson" making "common mistakes", etc. It seems pretty odd to be saying it was needed to protect against complaints when you were the only one complaining. DreamGuy 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this one of those enough about the article, let's get back to talking about the editors, moments? Please let me know when we get back on track. Kbthompson 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's about this encyclopedia and moving forward. It's clear now that that simply cannot be done with Arcayne making up his own rules like he thinks he owns the article, especially as he is the person here (after Colin) who has demonstrated least knowledge on the topic and least willingness to abide by policies. Look at all the wasted time above just to agree to finally stay at the version five different editors said we should stay at but that Arcayne threw a fit over and pretended to have professional qualifications that he did not. DreamGuy 20:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

God, I hope it isn't yet another one of those moments. I consider myself a fairly reasonable (if tenacious) person. If I am asking, then its a fairly safe bet that someone else will ask, too. The provided citations only strengthen the article.

So, what else needs sorting? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairly reasonable certainly is not blind reverting the article to get a version that you and only you support based upon some false information you swear came from your "psychology background" over the consensus of other editors until you had enough sources of the kind that you couldn't ignore anymore. And, frankly, "what else needs sorting" is silly to ask because this never needed sorting, you were the only one holding it up. We had it sorted, but you insisted upon ignoring everyone else and wasting everyone's time. DreamGuy 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tut, tut tut, DreamGuy, Of course it wasn't sorted out enough before. It had been languishing here for years without achieving GA status. Now, with new eyes and fresh minds looking at it, the article actually has a chance to improve. Now, you can either be a part of that - a welcome part - or you can be blocked for being uncivil and making personal attacks. You have been warned about this, and I don't think you need to be reminded that you are under ArbCom behavioral restrictions to act more civilly. Please take a moment and think about whether your actions have been the sort which a reasonable person arriving here would consider in the least civil.

I am here to improve the article, not trade barbs with you, and certainly not to tolerate your incivility and personal attacks. If anything, you have made it more likely that others, observing your behavior will be less interested in contributing to the article. The RfC garnered little in the way of new visitors. You don't foster a friendly, professional editing environment. Insult me all you want; all its going to get is you blocked or banned, and I am certainly not going anywhere. So I suggest you put a more civil tone in your head, learn to play well with others, or go away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you aren't being AT ALL civil and not following policies. In fact pretty much everything you accuse me of is more accurately a description of your activities here. Yes, this article never got featured article status, but it sure never will get there if people keep insisting on edit warring and inciting huge long fights over details that multiple other editors have pointed out are incorrect or policy-violations. You're highly aggressive activities are making it impossible to have any sort of friendly editing environment, especially when you give deceptive information about your professional background to try to support bad definitions you made up on your own while ignoring clear reliable sources. In every case here you have just held up progress on this article that would not have been a problem if you had followed rules about consensus, reliable sources and so forth. Please start following the policies and drop all the false finger pointing. DreamGuy 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I even read the technical differences between Serial Killer, Mass Murderer etc, I personally thought that a mass murderer would kill a very large number of people at the same time (suicide bomber/SS guard/Whitman) or maybe even a large number of people over an extended period (Hitler/Pol Pot). A serial killer would kill one (or maybe 2) at a time over an extended period of days/months/years. I had never heard the term "Spree killer" which is the category Charles Whitman would fall in I guess. Having said all that, I always believed that Jack the Ripper was a Serial Killer although the problem lies with the fact that he was never caught and we can't ascertain how many he killed whether it be only the canonical 5 or whomever. What I would say is that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer as he killed at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes according to almost 100% of Ripper historians and a large percentage would also lay the murder of Kelly at his door. A recent poll at casebook.org had Stride down as a Ripper victim by just over 50% and around 50% had Tabram as a Jack the Ripper victim too. Very low or even zero percentages for the other East End victims. And now having said that, the canonical 5 is here and it will and should remain, and I have no problem with it. By the way I'm a "keen amatuer". JSL595 13:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

As the opening paragraph of any article is important, I feel the need to offer my altered version of the existing one.

Jack the Ripper is an alias given to an unidentified serial killer (or killers) active in the largely impoverished Whitechapel area and adjacent districts of London, England in the years 1888 to 1891, although due to the nature of the unsolved crimes, which murders were or were not the work of Jack the Ripper, and therefore the dates of the murders is unknown. However, 5 murders – termed the canon - all took place in the latter half of 1888 itself, and these particular murders are generally accepted to have been committed by Jack the Ripper, although no concensus between historians has ever been reached. The name is taken from a letter to the Central News Agency by someone claiming to be the murderer, published at the time of the killings.

JSL595 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates of the murders is not unknown... murder dates are known, it's just knowing if they are the Ripper's work. I think what you are trying to do is get into the lead that latter half of 1888 isn't the only times he may have been active. If that is your intention there are better ways to word it. The fact that he was active in the latter half of 1888 itself is not in dispute, just whether he was before or after that as well. The proposed rewrite claims he was active 1888-1891, which si not a fact, just an opinion, and not even a consensus one, so that would not be an acceptable change.DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"I agree with DG on this. The nature of the crimes and the infancy of forensics make it difficult to really determine when the killings began and when they ended. I presume that you (DG) are in favor of retaining the sole date of 1888 as presented in the article? that reflects the time period of the canonical 5, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By this phrase "and therefore the dates of the murders" I meant which murder (and therefore date) was or was not a JtR murder. To DreamGuy... You wrote "I think what you are trying to do is get into the lead that latter half of 1888 isn't the only times he may have been active." Yes I am. The canon isn't a fact just an opinion too really, and I personally tire of "Jack the Ripper did this" and "didn't do that" statements. You then say "If that is your intention there are better ways to word it" and I couldn't agree more. Looking back, my wording was "clumsy" which is why I put it up for discussion here. Thanks guys. Any more views on this? JSL595 (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph at User:Jaysweet/Jack the Ripper is very good in my opinion. I understand that you are tired of "Jack the Ripper did this and didn't do that" statements. However the fact that you chose 1888 to 1891 means you are ignoring any murders that may have been committed before or after your arbitrary timeline. And the fact is that none of us know for sure when Jack the Ripper started or when the murders stopped. To me it seems as if you have a particular suspect in mind that disappeared in 1891 which is the only reason I can think of for choosing that particular date. The consensus of most professionals and amateurs is that the character dubbed Jack the Ripper probably killed the canonical five victims which were murdered in late 1888. The rest of the article deals with other possibilities so I think the opening paragraph should stay. - Stephoswalk (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Lead is an overview of the article, isn't it better to not specify the dates? I am thinking that if the article discusses potential other victims outside the canonical 5, the Lead - as overview - should reflect that. Understand that this doesn't confer any undue weight on any particular suspect or victim, but serves its purpose as reflecting the content of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use "the late 1800s" or "the late 19th century" instead? That seems like a good compromise to me. - Stephoswalk (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Either one would be fine to me. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"late 1800s" would mean 1807-1809 or so, which would be off by 80 years. So that one won't work at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular suspect in mind when using the years 1888 to 1891. In fact my own personal suspect was hung in 1889. William Bury. The largest date range I've come across for the Jack the Ripper murders in books and on the web is 1888 to 1891. No earlier and no later murders have ever been connected with JtR to my knowledge. JSL595 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the date range in those books is speculative, and as such if we use them we'd have to amend them with a statement about who came up with those dates, which is unnecessarily complex. 1888 is completely uncontroversial. The fact that he may have been active before or after doesn't even need to be discussed in the lead. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] IMHO, to attempt to be too precise about what is known and not known in the lead is an error. You can give the uncertainty in expressions like thought to be active, etc, and give the canonical as ascribed to. The lack of certainty can be brought out in the later text. The lead should be an executive summary of the article, and attempt to draw in the reader. Excessive precision will only lose them after the first sentence! Kbthompson (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no reference in the opening paragraph to the 'Whitechapel Murders', seeing as the latter now redirects to 'Jack the Ripper'? The Whitechapel Murders 1888-91 (mentioned as such by the police and press at the time and by the Met Police on their official web-site now and by historians and Ripperologists). There are multiple references to the Whitechapel Murders in official and unofficial sources both at the time and now. Are we at the wikipedia doing original research and saying that such a designation is not allowed? Or if we indeed think that the Whitechapel Murders 1888-91 are different to the Jack the Ripper murders they should have their own article. Its crazy to have a redirect from something with one meaning to something with another or attempt to bury any mention of it. If the concept of the Whitechapel Murders is meaningless why is it on the official Met website? Are we more clued up on this than the police? Colin4C (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that Jack the Ripper was the nickname applied to whoever committed the Whitechapel Murders. Can you provide some sources that explain the differences between the two terms? - Stephoswalk (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Metropolitan police museum list 11 Whitechapel Murders, generally only the canonical five are ascribed to Jack the Ripper. You can make your own mind from there. Kbthompson (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the URL for the link you posted is ripper.htm which seems to me that the Metropolitan police museum classifies the Whitechapel murders with Jack the Ripper. They seem to be inexorably linked. Even though the webpage says "the 'Ripper' murders and the 'Whitechapel murders' are not the same thing" they chose to put them on the same webpage named ripper.htm which is basically the same thing we're doing here. - Stephoswalk (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's the Whitechapel Murder file itself and then the Whitechapel murders as assumed to be the Whitechapel Murderer aka Jack the Ripper. The term is a little variable. The main thing to remember is that the file contains unsolved murders of which no police at the time linked all together. Originally they linked the first three together, but as more happened they removed some earlier ones from being linked to later ones. At no time was the full list as it stands now thought to be by the same person. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of redirects to articles of which the topic is only covered in a subsection -- mainly because the topic isn't important enough or separate enough to stand on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would still suggest reinstating the article on the Whitechapel Murders, rather than it redirecting here. It would focus this article and allow the difference to be seen clearly, rather than conflating them with the JtR article. Kbthompson (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I would still object strongly to this, as it's be nothing but an improper content fork of what's already on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Either they are the same thing, and the topic for discussion here should be the Whitechapel Murders, or they are different and the topic is the murder known as Jack the Ripper - as I said when it was diverted, you try to have your cake and eat it - by both concentrating on the canonical five and ignoring the rest of the murders. I may be mistypifying your prior arguments with Colin4c but that was what seemed to me to be the thrust of them. Kbthompson (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand that topics can have a lot of overlap without being the same exact thing. The Whitechapel Murders file is one primarily containing victims by the killer known most famously as Jack the Ripper, but there are victims in it that, after the first initial investigation and insertion in the file, were never thought to be by the same killer.

It's not that I focus on the canonical five and ignore the others. The others are already mentioned the article, and to the level that the experts discuss them. We have to follow their lead here. Colin for whatever reason wants to ignore all that and highlight them above the canonical five. We already have consensus that that should never happen. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What Dreamguy has said above is incorrect. In 1891 the police, rightly or wrongly linked all the Whitechapel murders together and tagged them on a fellow called James Sadler. He was arrested on suspicion of killing Frances Coles (the last Whitechapel murder) on February 13, 1891 and was brought to court by the police for this particular crime before being discharged from court due to lack of evidence on 3 March 1891. Despite this some of the police persisted in believing he was the murderer of Coles and more than this was indeed the fabled Ripper himself - leading Sadler to take legal action against his accusers. This info is in all the books listed in our reference section. Perhaps Sadler was the Ripper? Who knows? (unless some editors here have their own personal time machine and can go back and check for us - which would however be classed as original research and not allowed). Colin4C (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And just to repeat once again that the 'Whitechapel Murders' are primary unambiguous data. We know for certain that eleven murders were commited in Whitechapel 1888-91 and that eleven dead bodies were found. Its when we start getting onto the legendary 'Jack' and the legendary 'canonical five' that things start getting subjective and personal and cranky...Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Colin, your claims are wrong. They did not link all the Whitechapel murders together when it came to Sadler, the earliest one (Smith) and the torso had already been removed as consideration as being by the same hand long before. If you'd actually have read the books in the reference section you'd actually know that. And, yes, the contents of the Whitechapel unsolved murders file is unambiguous, but that in itself does not make it notable and separate enough to have a separate article, when it duplicates information in this article extensively, or notable enough to be highlighted any more than the canonical five. The reliable sources on this topic focus almost exclusively on the canonical five, and that's what we have to do per Wikipedia policies... We already thoroughly discussed this here and already have consensus. We can't just keep bringing it up and bringing it up because you insist upon having your way. You're personal opinion on what's important doesn't overrule other editors or what the experts say. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a 'consensus' here Dreamguy so don't tell us anymore untruths to us about it. We are sick and tired of your continual misrepresentations of other peoples views. You do it over and over again. I repeat: there is no concensus - you are just using the word 'concensus' as part of your pathetic mind game - which nobody believes in any more. Colin4C (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud, we have discussed this issue extensively on this talk page. Both months ago, weeks ago, days ago, and you never got consensus. Look at this talk page already (and the archives too if you want to se earlier instances of it). Your strategy seems to just be to ignore what everyone else says and then claim they never said it, while tossing off highly uncivil remarks. That's not how Wikipedia works. And of course you skip over the fact that your claims about the case were proved (again) to be wrong and that your entire argument based upon those false claims has nothing to support it. I don't know what would motivate someone who knows so little about the case to be so insistent upon having what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article say what they think and not what the experts (verifiable reliable sources) say. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right Dreamguy: merely by repeating the word 'consensus' over and over again, even if you are one against twenty who disagree with you, you actually create a consensus in reality, despite all appearances to the contrary. Just saying the word makes it true. Colin4C (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If the fact that the article was this way for years and when it was discussed both in the past and recently te majority agreed can;t make you agree to what a consensus is then it's clear you simply will not let anyone ever call anything a consensus if you disagree with it. You are trying to force your opinion to be the majority one. At best, if there is no consensus one way or the other, then we have to stay with the current version. If you want to change something that is controversial, YOU need to establish CLEAR proof that YOU have consensus, which you clearly don't have. Quit wikilawyering to try to get around that fact. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The standard work of reference on London: The London Encyclopaedia edited by Ben Weinreb and Christopher Hibbert has an entry for 'Whitechapel Murders' but none for 'Jack the Ripper'. The first sentence of the entry goes as such:

It has never been established for certain whether Jack the Ripper committed all the murders attributed to him, but he is generally thought to have had six victims.

Weinreb and Hibbert do not say that the Ripper definately, beyond any doubt, committed only six murders, they leave the question open. NOBODY KNOWS. Are we on the wikipedia more knowledgeable about the case than anybody else who has ever written about it? We are dealing with probabilities not absolutely definate facts. Presenting probabilities as definate facts is a disservice to the readers of the wikipedia. I will repeat it again: Nobody knows how many murders 'Jack the Ripper' committed, it is just supposition. Colin4C (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still conflation of the issues. Jack the Ripper is an alias given to a serial killer active in the Whitechapel area of London between 1888 to 1891. The name is taken from a letter to the Central News Agency by someone claiming to be the murderer, published soon after the first killings. The actual number of murders committed by this killer are unknown, but part of a wider series of eleven murders known as the Whitechapel murders. Five of these murders took place in late 1888, and are generally ascribed to Jack the Ripper. Despite intensive police efforts, the crimes were never solved.

Regardless of your attitude to JtR et al, and independent of the Ripper case, it remains notable and significant that eleven murders were committed in London at this time. I cannot see why DG was ever allowed to conflate the two issues and describe it as a content fork while simultaneously dismissing the broader issue in this article. Kbthompson (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it's not that I was "allowed to conflate the two issues" (geez, talk about loaded and inaccurate language), it's what the reliable sources have to say on the matter. How many times we do we have to go over this? We follow what the experts have to say on this, not what you or Colin think. The Whitechapel murders file was a working file of unsolved murders that were investigated to see if they might be by the same killer. The sources then and now say most of them were not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

Ergo, the Whitechapel murders are not JtR, therefore not a content fork; ergo please remove the redirect to here on that article name. Kbthompson (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments

Arcayne, you keep insisting upon going through and moving comments to other locations out of some odd insistence that things be your way. When I post a response to someone, the response should be after their post. Sometimes with multiple indentations and other responses this means that, within a subsection anyway, they won't be in chronological order. That's simply a natural result of responding to specific people and points. You cannot go and move other editors' comments elsewhere because you want to be listed first if that means the response is no longer attached to what it is responding to. Leaving an edit comment of "pls respond quicker" when you move them around is simply ridiculous, as nobody has to respond to any timetable you set.
In the past you have also tried to remove comments by other editors. You also have done this to myself recently. You later reversed yourself and left a response that indicated that you left it for tactical reasons. Be aware that you are never justified in removing other people's edits.
I don't know how you expect anyone to trust that you will edit the article fairly when you edit war the sandbox page to your preferred version over the comments of multiple editors AND change other people's comments on the talk page. This is simply unacceptable, and it is well progressing into the kind of behavior that can get you blocked if you keep it up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was at first inclined to simply remove this section, as it was significantly off-topic, and pretty much a personal attack on me, but I figures that if all I do is ignore his uncivil behavior, DG will never learn how to work better with others. As well, DG has (somewhat immaturely) refused to discuss this matter anywhere else, I am revising the section title as a step in eliminating the personal attack nature of DreamGuy's most current diatribe.

I keep moving your comment to its proper, chronological order because your comment responded not just to Kbt's comment, but my chronologically earlier comment as well. This isn't my rule DG, it is Wikipedia's. If I choose to enforce it, you should feel free to find an admin to explain why I am doing so. And I am not aware of any instance when i have altered the substance of anyone's comment on this or another's talk space.

And really, do we really want to go down that path where we explore what other people have done in the past? I mean, I've never sock-puppeted or had an ArbCom rule against me. No, i am pretty sure you don't want us to dredge up each other's old mistakes. Just to clarify, when I had removed other people's comments, they were done so within the scope of a policy which has since been revised to eliminate that recourse. If you somehow feel that my behavior is intolerable, please feel free to report me. Be advised that your behavior will likely be called into question as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but calling someone a liar when they claim knowledge of psychology is considered rather aggressive and uncivil.

I don't insist on the article being my way, and frankly, I would suggest that your insistence that I am is an expression of transference; I would hesitate to ascribe AMT to you, not knowing you better. Either way, i do hope that you can somehow learn to work better with others. i am not your enemy and while your singling me out as such is a bit frustrating, I actually find it rather amusing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"I was at first inclined to simply remove this section" -- and right there it just continues to show that you don't have a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works and that you do not respect anyone else's edits but your own. You keep violating rules of Wikipedia while at the same time falsely claiming other people do. For example, I have never sockpuppeted either, despite you insisting upon making the false accusation even when admins told you you were wrong. Wikipedia does not have a rules saying that all talk page comments must be chronological, just that new sections should be. If I am replying to an older comment and directly to that person instead of later comments, it is absolutely improper for you to come along and move it out of sequence. Stop talking about Wikipedia rules when you don't know what they are. And, sorry, but when you claimed some superior knowledge of psychology and tried to use that to justify your own edits over a consensus of other editors but demonstrated lack of knowledge of even basic information from an intro to psychology class, it's not uncivil to point that out. When you break rules it is not uncivil to point out that you have broken them. You seem to live in a dream world whee anything you do is somehow wonderful and protected and more important than any other editor or even whole groups of editors and anyone trying to educate you on the real world s being "uncivil." Bottom line here is you have to stop, and if you don't stop these shenanigans some admin is going to burst your bubble for you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you both just stop it and get back to the subject. I refer to my comment that seems to have sparked this further 'moment'. Kbthompson (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the topic that got this page locked IS Arcayne's editing against policies. If we ever want to get this page unlocked he has to acknowledge that he cannot continue on editing the way he did when it was unlocked and how he has edited this talk page and the sandbox article. Until it is dealt with THE problem that has this article at a standstill isn't being dealt with. If we can't trust the guy not to erase other people's talk page comments and so forth, how on earth can we expect him to act any differently with the article itself? And every time you want to avoid discussing this very real problem you just are encouraging him to continue on with all the same edit warring and so forth. He needs to be called on it, and he needs to stop. Do you or do you not think he should go around erasing other people's comments? Do you or do you not thing that his edit warring and ignoring of consensus of other edits needs to stop? Do you or do you not think that he shouldn't just repeat accusations against other editors which have been proven false to try to rationalize his behavior? You trying to solve the problem or ignore it and hope it goes the way despite the evidence that he plans to continue to do so for as long as he can get away with it? DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What got this page locked is a number of editors, yourself included, who indulged in an edit war without discussing changes or reverts on the talk page. This is the place to discuss the article content, not editors' behaviour. Kbthompson (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this article will never get unlocked if there is not substantial civil discussion regarding the content of the article. Endless bickering about who did what and what their motives were will accomplish nothing. I won't deny that there have been mistakes made, but focusing on those mistakes and pointing them out doesn't help the article. If you want to attack each other, do it somewhere else. --clpo13_(talk) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I did discuss the changes on the talk page... other editors ignored that discussion and simply charged ahead blind reverting to any old copy that last had the content of certain sections the way they wanted it. This is a place to discuss how the article is going to get unlocked, and we can see here that the actual page content has little or nothing to do with it, it has to do with Arcayne and Colin simply refusing to follow consensus of other editors or policies and just forcing their version back again and again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree utterly. Granted, I don't react well with incivility, and even less well with sock-puppets. Surely we don't need to revisit the SPP report that identified User:71.203.223.65 as DreamGuy. Frankly, 90% of my lack of faith in DG extends from that, the remainder being his behavior. Were he to admit to the one and clean up the other, I'd have zero problems with DG. Believe me, i have better things to do with my time than deal with his incivility.

I would like nothing more than to focus on the article itself. I do want to improve it, and make it accessible to the general reader, and I feel the headway we have already made is substantial, and Jaysweet has a lot to do with that, creating a subpage for us to test out and discuss changes. Not to lessen anyone else's contributions, but I think tha twas pretty nifty of him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you don't even know what a sockpuppet is despite it being described to you over and over. You keep trying to insinuate wrongdoing when no such thing ever happened, as confirmed by multiple admins from all your previous complaints. And you constantly referring to having to "deal" with incivility when it's you dishing most of it out is ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add my appreciation of Jaysweet's contribution, but would also add that constantly going on about DG's transgressions is neither productive, nor welcoming of new editors. Most people reading this discussion will cross over the road and hurry on. It's like some awful scab that you keep picking and will never heal. Just move on and stick to the subject of the article - if we can ever agree on that! Kbthompson (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. the next time he gets out of line, it goes elsewhere. Until then, I edit on the work product. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you've tried and tried to take it elsewhere, and the admins in question (other than one biased one who flew off the handle, assumed bad faith and then couldn;t back any of his claims up) said you have nothing to complain about. You need to get over the idea that I am doing something and realize it is your stubborn edit warring and going against consensus (and devolving to personal attacks when you don't get your way) is causing the problem. DreamGuy (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would ask both Colin and DG to also stick to the article. That doesn't mean anybody has to step back from 'robust' argument, merely that everyone keeps it civil and remembers both their manners and to stick to the article. Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to note those points which have been resolved in a new section, and those points which remain in contention? It would let us know how far we've come, and what remains before we request the article's unlocking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And on the issue of the article's unlocking, keep in mind that I am still lurking about, even if I'm not actively involved in the discussion. If at any point all the primary players think that enough progress has been made that revert warring will not resume upon unlocking, then I am willing and able to do the unlock. Note that I don't mean that every single detail has to be hammered out, just that the revert war is not going to restart again. I will also likely at that point do a history merge of the working article from Jaysweet's user space, so that everyone who contributed to the progress there can be properly credited. Ok. Back to lurking for me. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

... and thank you for lurking in the shadows of C19th Whitechapel ... on second thoughts, no, arghhhhh .... 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can there ever be any hope of anyone realistically expecting Arcayne to not edit war when he is STILL edit warring on the talk page to insist that he has the right to move other people's comments into the order HE wants them? That's the problem. Until he knows he simply cannot pull this nonsense, there's no reason in the world to think that he would edit the article itself any differently. If he's so obsessed with having his own way that he thinks other people's edit comments are fair game for him to remove and modify, there's no chance of anything going anywhere. And from Colin's activities where he makes outrageous personal attacks over and over it's clear he hasn't learned either. Until their behavior changes and they realize that what they did (and are currently doing) is unacceptable, there's no hope. If all you people complaining about personal bickering would just say point blank that they HAVE to follow consensus and that when they KNOW something is controversial (either from prior talk page discussion or someone else reverting them) that the existing version has to stay the way it is UNTIL (or IF) they ever get a consensus on the talk page, and they agreed, then this would be over. And that's especially silly as they should already know this per standard Wikipedia policies, but they refuse to listen anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will say this one, last time, as Kbt wanted this nonsense to end. Look at this edit. DG inserted his comment almost a day later, shoving itself in, despite the fact that he could have commented after the rest of us did, who were responding to the same comment by Kbt. It happens again here wherein DG inserts his comments in the middle of a conversation, and renders the comment by Colin, moved to after DG's wedged-in post, confusing. That these insertions are occurring only where Colin or myself are posting seems less than coincidental when DG states here that apparently, Colin and I (evil malefactors we supposedly are) are the sole reasons the article is on an unpaved road to Hell, and he is as pure as the driven snow. I will suggest that if DreamGuy truly feels he can support a cry of foul in regards to my actions, there are places to do that, many of which he is quite familiar with already. This article discussion doesn't really appear to be one of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[conflict]When, oh when will you guys learn to just leave it and get on? Yes, you've all made mistakes ... now just get on with it. Surely it is possible to discuss the article without a). doing things that you know annoys others; b). continuing to pick at the sore, as though anyone will ever admit that either you (or they) are right (at this point); and c) always demand to come back and have the last word.

Anyway, someone let me know when it's over. Anyone just talking about other editors' behaviour is just wasting bytes. Kbthompson (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you or do you not agree that 1) Nobody should not remove or edit the context of other people's edit page comments, 2) That people should not blind revert to the last version just to get their one preferred section the way they want it, 3) That controversial edits must be approved by a consensus of editors before putting them into the article? Those are the issues here. The content of the article is really a side issue, because every time Arcayne or Colin get an idea into their heads of how they want it, all policies and good sense and consensus go out the window. They need to know they can't do that. Once they know, and once they start following policies, disputes will be resolved as a natural process of discussion and consensus here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm done. back before the ego flatulated, I had asked if "it would be good to note those points which have been resolved in a new section, and those points which remain in contention? It would let us know how far we've come, and what remains before we request the article's unlocking". I still think that would be a good idea, and would allow us to rather forcibly move forward. What do you think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"the ego flatulated" -- Do you have any intention whatsoever of following WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or do you just continue to pretend other people violate them?

Sigh. I was talking about both our behaviors, but primarily mine. Perhaps listen to what everyone else is saying here. Focus on the article. If you cannot do that, please go away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as what needs to be done before the article is unlocked, it's that we need to know that there won't be edit warring going on. You are still, today, edit warring this very talk page over your very incorrect ideas of what the rules are. Show some good sense, not to mention good faith, here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with Jack the Ripper? If you guys want to have a pissing match, take it elsewhere please. I am getting a headache! - Stephoswalk (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with the article and how it's supposed to be edited. That's what the talk page is for. This page cannot be edited fairly until Arcayne agrees to follow the rules he expects others to follow. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, will you all quit pointing fingers? It doesn't matter who's wrong or right. What matters is that this article gets worked on. That simply won't happen if everyone is too busy accusing everyone else of wrongdoing. How many times must this be said before it sinks in? --clpo13_(talk) 07:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already made its impact with me. For the third time, it would be good to note those points which have been resolved in a new section, and those points which remain in contention? It would let us know how far we've come, and what remains before we request the article's unlocking. I still think that would be a good idea, and would allow us to rather forcibly move forward. What do you think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times does it need to be said that everyone needs to follow the rules, and that if they are willing to do so the same problems will happen once again? That's what needs to sink in. Until Arcayne and Colin admit to follow policies we have no reason to think that they wont just once again proclaim ownership of the article and undo what a consensus of editors spent years hammering out. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you or do you not agree to the rules on editing controversial articles? Specifically, if you have reason to believe an edit is controversial, either from prior talk page discussion or from being reverted, will you wait until you have consensus to make your change, should that ever happen, or are you going to continue to edit war and blind revert to whatever your own personal opinion is? DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to say, as a point if fact, that the first person to add the elementary information as to where the bodies of the victims of the Whitechapel Murder were found was me on 1st January 2007. Seemingly the preceding hammering editorial concensus had not thought that worthy of mention in the all the previous years since the article was first created. Colin4C (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Kbt, I am simply not going to respond to DG in this matter. There's been quite enough editor-baiting here, and I think if we leave the master-baiter alone, his attention span will re-focus on the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis of Discussions

I've gone back through all of the posts (including archives) on this talk page. I've made a list of all major conflicts regarding this article and checked to see if they've been resolved. I've tried to condense each debate into a simple statement below. From what I can determine there is only one point of contention remaining.

Whitechapel Murders vs. Canonical Five / Listing Order of Victims - ONGOING
Opening Sentence / 1888, 1888-1891, 19th Century - ???
Ripperologist / Professionals and Amateurs - RESOLVED
Proven vs. Determined / Unidentified - RESOLVED
Images / Puck Cover / Crime Scene - RESOLVED
Use of the term Serial Killer - RESOLVED
Popular Culture - RESOLVED
Misspellings - RESOLVED
Citations - RESOLVED

If I've missed any disagreements or if I've marked something as resolved erroneously please let me know. - Stephoswalk (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to this I think we have four options:

1, Mention the Whitechapel Murders in the intro of this article

2, Rename this article 'The Whitechapel Murders'

3, Write a seperate article on 'The Whitechapel Murders'

4, Bury all reference to the 'Whitechapel Murders' and pretend they never occured or are unworthy of mention, despite their being listed on the official Met Police (this is the body who investigated the crimes in case anyone has forgotten...the guys one would turn to if anybody committed similar crimes in Whitechapel today) website on the case and in countless books on the subject and as entries in other encyclopedias etc etc. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. As for Colin's options, I would go for 3. They are separate, but linked. Kbthompson (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Option three would just be creating a WP:CFORK article, which is against our policies. The Whitechapel murders file is overwhelmingly only of encyclopedic interest as a historic side note to the Jack the Ripper case. The "Whitechapel murderer", like it or not, is synonymous with Jack the Ripper, even though about half of the cases in the file aren't considered to have been committed by Jack the Ripper. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Metropolitan Police Service website [6] you'll notice the URL ends with ripper.htm and they discuss the Whitechapel murders on the same page as Jack the Ripper. I'm concerned if we start a new Whitechapel murders page that it will end up being a stub without enough information to stand up on it's own. The Metropolitan Police Service discusses Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders together and I think we could do the same without much adjustment of the article itself. - Stephoswalk (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Did we ever resolve the opening sentence dispute; specifically using the 1888 date, 1888-1891 or the 19th century? I was adding resolved edits to the Jaysweet page and couldn't quite remember if we did or not and that section on this Talk page is very hard to understand. I'll add it to the list above for now. - Stephoswalk (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Colin's listing of options above is ridiculously biased. We can;t have an intelligent, informed debate on what we should do when he doesn't even give an option for what the longstanding consensus version (as reaffirmed in recent debate on this page and on the sandbox article): Treat the "whitechapel murders" the same way the recognized, reliable sources do. Mention them in the victims section... as the current article does. It is ridiculous to claim that this is "pretending they never occurred" or are "unworthy of attention" or whatever else bizarre twisting of facts Colin is up to here. The Whitechapel murders ARE mentioned in this article, and every murder that was in the file (except the torso one, an oversight that is easily corrected) is listed as having been in that file. That's how we in the past have treated this issue and it's also how the sandbox version of the article treated it. Colin seems to want to believe that either we do it his way and highlight the term so prominently that people get a skewed idea of its importance and focus on his idea that those files are what the Ripper murders were (despite no expert on the topic believing so, either back when the crimes happened or now) or else we are trying to hide the info. If the term was completely removed from the article he would have a point, but it's not, so all he is doing is grossly misrepresenting the content of the article to try to trick people into agreeing that we shouldn't "hide" the info and then using this to try to support the changes that he insists be made. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as unresolved debates, the most unresolved one is the question of editors like Colin and Arcayne actually agreeing that they have to follow consensus and Wikipedia policy and not just blind revert the article to whatever they want. Until that is resolved there's no reason anyone would think the editing of the article would not just continue to be the same as before: with people removing what the reliable, expert sources have to say and what other editors say to put their own opinions into it, despite knowing they don;t have agreement from others to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The eleven Whitechapel murders 1888-9 are the primary data on the case. The police and press at the time realised that - as do the Metropolitan Police now, as do the latest books on the case. All the rest is speculation and media hype. Putting 'Jack the Ripper' on the cover of a book, like putting 'Loch Ness Monster' guarantees sales. The correct designation is 'The Whitechapel Murders'. As we are not in the business of seling books here I think we should utilise that as the title of the article. Rather than being a sub-category of JTR, the mythical JTR is a sub-category of the Whitechapel Murders. Think of a Venn diagram: you have eleven murders some or all of which were commited by a serial killer designated 'Jack the Ripper'. That is logical. Hyping JTR is just Ripperologist sensationalism so that people will buy their books. Or probably rather (in my own personal experience of getting my own books published) it is the publisher who dictates this title. Colin4C (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that none of my books are about JTR or crime in case anybody leaps on me from a great high claiming conflict of interest. And the skeletons we dug up a at the back of the Providence Row Hostel a few hundred yards from where Kelly was killed where Miller's Court used to be were definately Roman - nothing to do with the Ripper...I'm sure...And as for the ghost of Mary Kelly which was supposed to haunt the building I never SAW her (though I did feel a creepy presence on the second floor...which could have been her I guess...). Colin4C (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From a previous discussion I kinda actually actually agree with DG that the Whitechapel murders shouldn't be considered with JtR. The problem I have is with believing that 11 murders aren't notable, when 5 are ... and that an article on them is a content fork of this subject when he claims that this subject is solely JtR ... The way to deal with it is deal with the JtR 'murderer' here and spin the wider issues (and some of the arguments off elsewhere). Kbthompson (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the supposedly 'canonical' five are only 'canonical' to a few Ripperologists. Other sources such as Weinreb and Hibbert give 'six' as the 'canonical' number. I recall that the mural on the wall of The Ten Bells pub in Whitechapel depicted six victims (this was before the pub was de-Ripperised due to political correctness). My point is that we cannot be sure whether the Ripper committed four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten or eleven murders. Speculation by Ripperologists is just that: Speculation. Why don't we leave it to the readers of the Wikipedia to make up their own minds rather than ramming unjustified speculation down their throats as though it was God's Holy Truth. I repeat: The Ripper was never found and never made a confession as to how many people he killed and the Metropolitan police don't know either. All the rest is just supposition and speculation. Colin4C (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the Whitechapel Murders article was deleted. What were the specifics of the reasoning behind that? From what has been said here, it seems to me that it would have been a nice companion piece (via link) to this article, to provide more breadth of information. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Whitechapel murders page is currently a redirect to this page, after DG mistakenly described it as a content fork of a protected article. Initially it was protected, it could easily be reinstated (from the history), but I would prefer to obtain consensus about the issue before doing anything that leads to yet another edit war. Personally, I believe it is a substantial subject in its own right and keeping the details separate will add more focus to this article. Kbthompson (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess going there and checking out the last version would be helpful. I'll weigh in after having read through it. Until then, au revoir - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that Jack the Ripper and Whitechapel Murders should be split into two articles. The link previously used as an argument for making them two articles is one webpage that discusses both subjects just like this article does. I'm also not convinced that a Whitechapel Murders article would be anything more than a paragraph or two rehashing at least half of the information already contained in this article. I'm not saying that the Whitechapel Murders shouldn't be addressed, obviously it is an important part of the story, but I just don't think it can or should stand on it's own. - Stephoswalk (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just read through it. While it seems more of a list than an article, I am sure that could be expanded upon. I think that the Venn diagram concept is applicable here. the murders in Whitechapel at that time contain a subset of murders that we have since determined many cited sources consider to be the work of the Ripper; they should be noted as such in the Whitechapel murder article. As well, I think this might help us to trim/remove the 'Other Possible Victims' section from the article that are also listed in the whitechapel murders article, leaving only those otherr possibles that aren't covered. I think that Colin did a pretty nice job with it, and I think it would be fair to assume that Colin would like the article to be stand-alone or a companion piece. While I think we need some input from others, it would be helpful for DreamGuy to lend his perception here, as he initially set the redirect. - 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

Just to add that in the context of the wikipedia a seperate Whitechapel Murders article is not a big deal. The 'Jack the Ripper' category already has a multitude of seperate articles dealing with different aspects of the case. All of the Whitechapel Murders are all unsolved. Nobody was ever ever convicted for any of them. The person who we designate as 'Jack the Ripper' was presumably guilty of some of these crimes. In the context of Whitechapel and the nation and the world, the later 'uncanonical' murders caused just as much of a sensation as the earlier murders. This is a historical fact. If we lived in the world of 1984 and Big Brother we might like to suppress these facts, but as it happens we are free. We are not beholden to commercially driven sensationalist Ripperologists either. We are free to state the historical truth, despite all wiki-bullying and argumentum ad baculum: we are free to state the truth. Colin4C (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do You Believe in 'Jack the Ripper'?

That may sound like a stupid question, but I previously assumed that most people knew that the JTR soubriquet was a hoax invention and that we were just speaking in symbolic terms about him. Since editing this article, however, I have learned that some people have a personal emotional fundamentalist attachment to notions about him ('canonical five' etc) which can't be proved one way or the other. Who are they trying to fool? The wikipedia is not a profit-hype endeavor, we are here to tell the truth. 'Jack the Ripper' is a myth just like Father Christmas. I'm sorry that it had to be me that broke you this tragic news kiddies, but it is true: Jack the Ripper is a myth. He was never detected, he never confessed, his body was never found, nothing is known about him at all. Its like all the rubbish you hear about Madeline in the newspapers and whoever abducted her: nobody knows anything, not the Met, not even the greatest Ripperologists in the land have a notion who abducted Madeline. Why do we always have to pretend to knowledge we don't have? Colin4C (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The rest of that aside, I've noticed that there isn't anything inthe article that discusses how the name sobriquet Jack the Ripper evolved into the identifer we use today. That might something good to add. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I lived through the Yorkshire Ripper hoaxes, and believe me, they are real. Regardless of whether the Ripper was a moral panic, it doesn't matter. It has achieved a reality in the public imagination - even yours. The important thing is to make the distinction between myth and reality and present the information in a factual fashion - i.e. with references to the best available supposition. Are you having some kind of crisis of faith? Kbthompson (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. When I was young we all thought that good old Jack was a jocular type of toff with his top hat, his little black bag, his cannibal propensities, his odd odes, cryptic graffiti writing and his masonic handshake, but the more I read about the case, the more this figure recedes into the background of myth...But before I get too carried away the murders were indeed real and the panic was real as well, which panic lasted from 1888-91. Just obtained some copies of the Police Gazette which contain some deeply frightening images of how people percived the Ripper. There is a truly ghastly one of Mary Kelly letting in a grinning fiend with a deaths-head (and bag) into her room and another of a slouch-capped murderer rushing down an allyway, half-looking back at the scene of his handiwork: a mutiliated woman lying dead in the streets. Scary. Colin4C (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Might you be persuaded to upload those images to Commons? I'd love to see them, and they might be useful in the article to indicate the level of fear and hysteria that the ripper generated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Whitechapel Murders

So, am I allowed to re-instate the Whitechapel Murders article? I am asking this in good faith, as per the wikipedia guidelines: so no personal abuse please, just discuss the issue calmly and reasonably. I might do an article on the Police Gazette as well, as there doesn't seem to be one on the wikipedia yet, if that is acceptible. Happy Christmas everybody! Colin4C (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, but ensure that you don't include any speculation on JtR, that should be dealt with here. If there is anything from contemporary accounts, or from the met police museum that can expand it from a mere list, that would be good. Please consider it as part of the JtR series, but try not to encroach on JtR territory. One thing that might be worth considering is why they are NOT all JtR murders ...? Kbthompson (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a mock up of how the article would look, including possible changes to the Jack the Ripper article on Jaysweet's talk page. I'm not sure if it's a good idea yet but maybe if I see how you intend to create the Whitechapel murders page it might convince me otherwise. Keep in mind it's the holidays and it may take awhile to get other opinions on this. - Stephoswalk (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Emma Elizabeth Smith

I have created an article on the first of the Whitechapel Murders called Emma Elizabeth Smith. I know that it is not perfect, but instead of starting a campaign of vicious personal abuse against me for my temerity in creating it editors can feel free to improve it. The information about the Smith murder in the present article is mostly false by the way, even getting the date of her death wrong. Also the statement in this article that she spoke to the police is wrong. The police only became aware of the case after she died in hospital. She spoke to the lodging-house keeper, not the police. After all these years of hard-working 'hammering concensus' you'd have thought this article was perfect, but it is not, even the most basic facts about the case, as presented here, are wrong. I am trying to present the true facts. If that is a crime and upsets people, so be it. Colin4C (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't upset me - but I think there's not enough detail for an independent article, and it would be better as a ref'd para' in a Whitechapel Murders article (oh, yeah ...). Apart from the odd passing bored vandal, it seems awfully quiet ... Kbthompson (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said people can add to it...I am just wary of people throwing forks at me. I'm ok in the music hall but I draw the line at the circus.Colin4C (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, here is an (UNFINISHED!) article I (didn't) finish earlier The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). Note as per Magritte that it is not a fork. Colin4C (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I don't think we should wait till Ripperologists have solved the case until we write stuff on the wikipedia. Though the Rips are 'the finest in the land' and even Inspector Lestrade bows to their total wisdom on everything I reckon it will take them another 100 years to nail the suspect. Colin4C (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A usual, the casebook has a substantial amount of additional detail on the poor woman. Kbthompson (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just give me a chance to get my dinner first, before I astonish the world yet again with a masterpiece of erudition. Colin4C (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the casebook stuff seems speculative, vague and inaccurate. For instance the date of her death is given as four days after her admission to hospital. This is contradicted by Begg's book and Evans and Rumbelow who have her dying on at 9am on the fourth - the day after she was attacked. The contemporary picture is interesting though. Possibly from the Police Gazette? I notice it is labelled 'The First of the Whitechapel Horrors'. The whole thing like some ghastly wax-works display. Jack is probably featured at Madame Tussauds I guess? I should probably go there and find out, but I heard this horrible story about someone who was locked in there overnight and his hair went totally grey and I wouldn't want to thus risk diminishing my sex appeal. Colin4C (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the casebook got the duff info from Fido's book which seems to be riddled with errors. He even locates the H Division police station in the wrong road! (He puts it in Commercial Street rather than the correct Leman Street. I guess even Inspector Clouseau knew where his police station was - though maybe Ripperologists should be absolved from mundane considerations of basic facts when they have a lucrative book deal in prospect). Colin4C (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops maybe I was a little hasty there. It seems that H Division used two police stations in Whitechapel, one in Leman Street and one in Commercial Street, though in some sources the Leman Street station is given as the headquarters. Can anybody sort this puzzle out? I checked for myself by actually walking down Leman Street the other week that there is an old police station there, though whether it dates back to the time of the Ripper or has since been rebuilt I don't know. Colin4C (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ripper Archives

Seems that the original archives related to the case have just been reprinted as an official National Archives book called 'Jack the Ripper: Crime Archive' (2007) by Val Horsler. Hopefully this book will be an antidote to the usual Ripperologist uninformed speculation and cavalier attitude to the basic facts. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just acquired a biography of one of the Whitechapel (H Division) detectives involved in the Ripper case: 'Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen' by Nicholas Connell (2005). Quite interesting on the Whitechapel background and includes quotes from Dew's own (very expensive and hard to get) autobiography. It seems that Dew was a bit of a heretic about the Ripper suspects. For instance he believed that Emma Smith, the first Whitechapel murder victim, was a Ripper victim. Some interesting info on page 53 on how many of the Whitechapel murders the detectives (plus doctor) involved in the case thought the Ripper committed:

• Walter Dew: 7
• Inspector Reid: 9
• Dr Percy Clark: 3
• Sir Melville Macnaughten: 5
• Superintendant Arnold: 4 Colin4C (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)