Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 3

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Voting on use of Ripperologist term

message: 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)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Ripper Letters Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jack 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Do You Believe in 'Jack the Ripper'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Whitechapel Murders 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ripper Archives